Do We Have Free Will? | Robert Sapolsky & Andrew Huberman 

This clip is from the Huberman Lab episode "Dr. Robert Sapolsky: Science of Stress, Testosterone & Free Will." The full episode can be found on RU-vid here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DtmwtjOoSYU.html

Someone told me that Baruch Spinoza said (around 1650) that people believe themselves to be free because they are conscious of their actions but unconscious of the causes of those actions. Makes sense to me! And I also like how Sapolsky explains it. It's quite liberating, actually. Less internal conflict.

To everyone who’s read his book, listened to this podcast and Sam Harris’ on the same topic, congratulations on being at a new historical viewpoint, much like the realisation of the earth not being the centre of the universe. I think it’s vital for us to get this knowledge out there for increasing empathy and dealing with pain.

"Striving to be better human beings is still a worthwhile endeavor, do I have that correct?" Robert Sapolsky says "Absolutely" to this question. I think Sapolsky should've said "I guess striving to be a better human being is a worthwhile endeavor. But whether you have the desire to strive to be a better human being isn't up to you, though."

If I'm understanding this correctly, I cannot simply choose or will myself to feel better, more motivated, etc. However, the RU-vid algorithm that exposed me to Huberman led to the awareness of, for instance, early morning sunlight's effect on dopamine. That consolidated memory may affect my behavior tomorrow, thus resulting in my feeling better and more motivated. Thus, I'm changing my behavior and brain chemistry, but all of it is due solely to external inputs and does not require a will separate from that.

Bob's response to Huberman''s question @ 2:51 is my favorite part. 😄

I ❤ this excerpt of the discussion with Huberman and Sapolsky. Huberman is so humble and focused during the discussion and Sapolsky, per usual, is one of the best science communicators.

Love this convo from two of Stanford’s finest! Thanks for all you both do!

Oh my god this was one of my most favourite podcast from the Hubermanlab podcasts. I can't wait to read Determined when it gets published. Thank you Dr Huberman

Striving to be better human beings is a worthwhile endeavor, to the extent that you're capable of learning that, capable of acting on it, and how you do so. Still, it all comes down to circumstances, internal and external, and not some causally independent free will.

The argument against free will is generally explained as, either the universe is causally deterministic, (the past state determines our "choice") or it is chaotic (our state or "choice" can't have any predictable affect on the future). The problem with this form of the argument is that quantum physics currently only allows the possibility that the future, while limited by the present, can NOT be determined by the present state. The determinations of the Bell theorem demonstrate that there are no local hidden variables present that determine the probabilistic paths of particles through the universe. So there are myriad of different paths that all of the particles in the universe can actually take and the information required to determine those paths is not hidden somewhere in physical reality. If we appeal to non-local hidden variables, then we violate relativity and vivify retro-causality which has the same problem since the paths of particles could be determined by some information that isn't present in the universe "yet". If we appeal to the multiverse model then we can have a physicalistically deterministic manifold, but we can't explain or determine which path through that manifold our conscious awareness will observe. So, our experience of the universe is NOT and can not be physicalistically deterministic. That doesn't mean we have free will, but it does undo the general form of the argument against free will since our state is probabilistically limited by the past AND our state probabilistically limits the future. Our state is not physicalistically determined and our state is not merely chaotically effective on the future. Sapolsky starts with a biased presupposition that our thoughts and awareness is completely explainable by the physical state of our mind which is a) circular (he is using the physically limited mind to prove the physically limited mind) and b) not true, there is randomness in our thoughts that is not determined by the physical history of the universe prior to those thoughts. If Saploski's statement "I don't think we have a shred of free will" is true, then his conclusion was either inevitable, or random. Both of those invalidate the concept of someone having a "true" or "rational" conclusion because it makes those terms logically superfluous. There is no test that Sapolski had been free to perform prior to making that statement that could have distinguished between his statement being "True/rational and inevitable" or merely "Inevitable." Doesn't make it false, but puts it outside of the realm of rationalism. At any rate, he clearly holds to a form of physicalistic determinsim which is excluded by randomness. The real argument against free will is one of agency, but all physical models today make a universe with free will indistinguishable from one without it.

"Either from experience or making to the end of the right neurobiology class has thought you that change can happen within a framework of a mechanistic neurobiology. You are now more open to being made optimistic by the good news in the world. You are more likely to be inspired by this or that. You are more resistant to getting discouraged by bad news - simply because you know understand, it's possible."

I learnt from Dr Sapolsky that we are still within the grip of mechanistic neurobiology though we can learn to change our response to environmental stimuli. So we have no free will. But it is still worthwhile to learn to change our response. It is enough for me.

So much human cruelty could be avoided if we really embraced this idea. Every person whose ever done something bad is on some level just unlucky and still worthy of love and every good thing we’ve ever done isn’t something we need to take credit for as being better but something to be grateful for because of the good luck of having the right combo of genes and environment.

This is the most fascinating freewill explanation I've ever encountered!

Thank you for having Robert Sapolsky on your podcast. Robert Sapolsky’s insight that we do not have free will and that we are determined is provocative and true. Question for Robert, have you read, studied, and understood Spinoza’s Ethics? I too understand that free will is an illusion. I have studied Spinoza’s philosophy communicated in his Ethics for over 50 years. Spinoza wrote his Ethics during the 17th century; however, his books were banned due to contrary religious beliefs. Spinoza understood that free will is an illusion and that we are determined by the laws of nature. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.

I absolutely adore Sapolsky's book Behave and I am preordering "Determined".

menopause took me hostage and changed my personality completely. I am a Buddhist chaplain, and I became suicidal and maybe even slightly homicidal when I was estrogen depleted. Now I am on prescription hormones that make or break me. I lost my free will when my ovaries quit at age 43! It really made me question reality in general.

At seventeen, I seriously questioned free will, and by thirty-six, I knew. After beginning my quest to truly internalize the idea, I moved on to discover we are not separate but one, and not a perceiver but perception itself, a single consciousness being squeezed through the divided pores of water and stardust. Now, to address the Fermi Paradox- they'll come when we're ready, when the large majority of us (as opposed to

I think there is an omitted strand of the determinist position here, which is that this implied capacity to become "more sensitized to optimistic stimuli" is itself fully determined by the set of prior conditions in one's anatomy (neurochemistry, psychology, etc) in its interactions with the external world. Therefore it's not possible for all, and such experienced optimism is therefore no more a choice than the experienced pessimism that preceded it ( but conditions the shift IN SOME PEOPLE towards optimism). Our desire to feel better about me, about the world, etc is not something I MADE, but something arising in the construction that neurobiology and its environment have created. Those engines are not "MINE" from some supervening place.

I agree he has me with the "show me the free will neuron" but as a recovering alcoholic and addict am also curious about how I was able to break those patterns, If not for free will.

The place of "free will" in our considerations is "holding" 5 thoughts. And while those options and the tendency of choosing any one of the 5 is completely without your control, you do still have a choice. It will feel like a "free choice" or "no choice" depending of the situation and all the way back to the past. So, If you are looking for "free will" you should do the research and look from the now to the past, and learn about yourself and how to encourage more "free will" rather than the other.

I always enjoy listening to Robert sapolsky. I would love to hear a debate on free will between him and someone over it.

The knowledge of determinism is very useful and is itself a cause. Once you realize your choices are determined by the your circumstance and more importanyly, the information your brain has, then it can cause you to start choosing better for yourself. It will cause you to seek more information before making a choice. Knowledge is the true freedom we have to gain. Only then can we rise above our lesser and misinformed selves.

you know these kind of facts at first seem to be disturbing but a knowledgeable person explains these things beautifully you can imagine how much were are connected to this world it is fascinating how our brain just tricks us to change and go beyond limits by just looking at algorithms we in the of video i came up with this idea that our perception of world is very permeable and there is no stop point in getting information from the environment.thank you professor it was the first time i was watching you previously i had listened to your podcasts😄

Yes, I believe that circumstances, our past, our physiology & neurology, our genes, our brains, our environment and so on, can boldly influence our choices. But I believe we can always choose unconditional love and forgiveness over fear and hatred. Some people are more ready than others. It may be our only real choice in life. But that choice is our birthright and always will be.

Brilliant - More of these clips please

I'm really having a hard time determining whether we as a species have free will or not, and I often find myself having a difficulty even at conceptualizing the problem at hand. There is particularly a fact that bothers me, because I know it's true but I don't know what to do with it; it seems to me that the more we see into humans as 'lots of similar selves', which is totally objective for it involves generalisation of the same laws and qualities throughout all the species, we tend to realize an absence of free will, but the more we focus the lens and see into 'ourselves', which is totally subjective, we realize a presence of free will. And I don't know what to do with this fact and where does it fit amongst the other facts surrounding this subject. Also, I find it very difficult to give up my belief in free will. I must be honest but I don't see a way to live fully aware that I'm not free, I don't know if I'm right or wrong, if I'm avoiding the truth or wrestling with it, but I MUST believe in free will.

I can't really imagine anyone arguing for Free Will, if it is meant to be "to act independently of any sort of environmental or biological determination". But if we define "free will" as the fact that, given the same virtually infinite determined causes, two different actions can follow (and be determininstically explained a posteriori), then I don't see how Sapolsky's last example is not a plea for Free Will.

We may not have independent "free" will but we do have the ability to sculpt our persona (over a lifetime) to become more than the base hand we were dealt....we do have conscious choice

The video that freed me from almost all miseries of life. Thank you both

Once you figure out that your choices are predetermined down to the breakfast you ate this morning, a huge sense of weight is lifted off your shoulders as you slowly learn to “let go” and allow the world around you to take form. It truly is fascinating to watch, as I have learned to take a “back seat” role in my life, in some ways at least.

People who don't want accountability for their wrongdoings make an excuse of lack of free will to prove they have no fault. Everybody can have two or more options in their mind and they choose to act positively or negatively because they make a choice according to free will. Sometimes free will doesn't exist during unconscious actions and extreme anger but many time free will exists. People will disagree who can relate to it but I won't read replies and engage in futile debates.

It’s not about our ability to make choices. We WILL make choices regardless.

Love this thank you about Free will education.

If determinism is true, the way that you interpret any peice of evidence is predetermined by factors outside of your knowledge and control, which means you can never be sure that you are interpreting any given peice of information rightly, which should undermine your confidence in any conclusion you come to, including your belief in determinism. Appealing to evidence to prove determinism is self-defeating.

I don't understand the last part of the video. Can somebody explain how can one become more optimistic by knowing that its possible? How can one possibly influence change by just knowing that change is possible?

As long as we dont understand the brain, we cannot say if we have free will or not. Even when it sounds super logical to not have free will. We cannot prove it.

A friend of mine changed his whole life path from a decision of his own free will. He was a drug addict for 10years and decided to change his life. Now he is a millionaire with a beautiful family. Imo he was literally pre-determined to be junkie and end up dead or in jail , but he made a choice to change his circumstances of his own free will. Many of his friends from that neighbourhood ended up in jail or dead but he chose to change his life.

excellent interviewer

Saplosky's ideas are A. Based on anecdotal evidence. B. Incomplete science. But that doesn't stop him from selling them as truths.

Swami Vivekananda defines a free entity in the following sentence: “Who is free? The free must certainly be beyond cause and effect.” For an entity to be free, it must not be caused by something. Why? Because if it is caused, it is then bound by the cause. The effect can be nothing apart from the cause. With clay as the cause, one cannot get a golden pot - it is bound to be a clay pot. The cause being there, the effect must follow, there is no other way. The unity of the cause and the effect is an accepted fact in Vedanta philosophy. Thus, as long as a thing is within the realm of causation, there is no freedom. We may talk about freedom in the relative sense. For instance, we may say that a man is more free compared to an animal, as he is less influenced by his surroundings than an animal. However, the same animal is more free compared to tree or stone. Relative bondage or freedom is a matter of perspective, it is not absolute. What is freedom from one point of view becomes bondage with a change in perspective. Thus, that cannot really be called freedom. As said by Vivekananda, only that which is beyond causality can be free. That is the contextual definition of freedom. So when we are talking about freedom of the Will, we are seeing if the Will is an uncaused phenomenon, for only then can it be free." Quoting - N Krishna Bhardwaj - Dept of Yoga, SVYASA Bangalore

Fascinating - I guess there are a million questions. Firstly the connectionist/genetics framework in a discussion of levels of cognition and behaviour. Secondly and more importantly the notions of freewill and determinism. Was it George Lewes who came up with the compatibilist image of a drunken sailor free to wander erratically aboard a ship that had a fixed course?

This is so interesting! The professor has a really strong point

Whether or not I do or do not have free will is irrelevant. I am conscious and self aware. I perceive myself as having free will. I perceive myself as being in control of my actions and choices.

"Although Sapolsky highlights the influence of neural processes on decision-making, the brain's complexity can also contribute to the emergence of novel thoughts and actions. The brain's ability to integrate information from various sources and generate unique patterns of thought might be a source of human agency and free will."

Sapolsky and Lisa Feldman Barrett are in alignment. essentially, if you give yourself a new stimulus from the environment that supports a new way of thinking, your biology will align in that direction, your neurology will align in that direction. From what I understand.

Good one! Rings right!

Is there language missing here to describe the semi-conscious capacity that humans have to impact and take part in the process of 'choice'. In listening to both Dr. Huberman and Dr. Sapolsky, perhaps we need to consider taking a species within this environment approach. As a collective, our choices over time in the environments we inhabit create a genetic change...and perhaps in this we have conscious influence? Would this require to consider our neurology working together in a collective level as opposed to the individual level? Do we have a greater impact on the evolution of our wiring as a collective than as an individual and if so, over what periods of time for what types of changes?

He forgot that thoughts and neurons can be the environment/circumstance/influence of another thought and neuron. And then some of those neurons basically embody "you". That's where the "degree" of free will come from. That's why people who are known to be brainy give the impression of possessing more free will.

I love the answer to the long question "nehh!", followed by brilliance.

‘Will’ is pre shaped by bio psycho socio human elements…free will requires self awareness and motivation to do what we determine to be of highest value. ( master or servant)

This is such an interesting topic. If we have no free will, wouldn't that mean the entire planet and everything about life is 100% deterministic?

sentience and consciousness arent well understood. its probable that free will (if it exists) is an emergent phenomenon, not a fundamental one... so its not likely you would find a special cell or sub-structure that mediates free will

I’ve thought for a long time that we don’t have free will. I had a really vivid lucid dream one night where I was very conscious of what I was doing and felt like I was in control. Then when I woke I realised it was just like any other dream. The consciousness of the dream was just part of the story like any other dream and I thought this is how waking life is too.

He just says that whatever happens now is a consequence of what happened before. And in that sense it’s obvious there is no “free will” in the strict sense. We cannot “will” our way into a certain behaviour and violate the laws of physics, when they would predict a different outcome. The only fundamental uncertainty might be in quantum mechanics, but it’s impossible for a “soul” to steer your body into certain behaviour by determining the quantum outcomes of particle interactions. The interesting thing Sapolsky says is that he believes we are determined, not just on a particle scale, but by our biology and psychology. Our current self is an inescapable product of our past. Even when we are born, we are not a blank slate, because of the species we are, the genes we inherit and the culture we are born into. We are determined. Fully. On the other hand, there is chaos and undetermined, or rather unpredictable, outcomes because of the complexity of things. If we roll a couple of dice, we don’t know the outcome. We can never fully know or understand our past and the illusion of free will is created because our brain is constantly in a state of unstable equilibrium. Our thoughts can wander one way or another. This keeps it interesting. I think chaos leads to the illusion of real chance, of real undeterminism and of free will, but in fact it’s just practical unpredictability.

Hi Dr. Huberman, I am a C2 ESL Ukrainian, in Ukraine since day 1 of the war. Plugging into your topic of the brain being influenced by environment and uplifting/depressing news - does feeling hopeless living under the risk of death from rockets and being unable to leave build and deepen my neural circuitry in the direction of perceiving life in general as traumatic and option-less? Would I have to rework myself again after the war? I feel stuck in limbo without feeling the world outside. Feeling a direction and being motivated is hard under these circumstances. Thank you.

This is what hinduism and Buddhism have been saying thousands of years ago. There is no personal ego...

I'm trying to read 'Determined' at the minute. I'm finding it challenging and disturbing. It seems obvious that the cocktail of our background informs our actions and ideas but, why are we so willing not to credit that the brain's freewill works in the background, quickly, at times. Like reflex where you catch something in a complex movement. Some free will decisions we postpone to gather more information and some we make fast in the background. Think about the Ai computer that impossibly beat the world champion in a complex strategy game. 3 times, using prior knowledge and expectation. The human then did something completely unpredictable and the Ai machine couldn't cope and lost. In my life I've had moments where I was effectively watching myself behave in a stressful situation. It helped the outcome based on my decisions. Anyway, thank you for the stimulation even though I don't like it 😅

Free will does not need a requirement not to be influenced by something else.

I am willing to accept this largely because Dr Saplosky descriptions are understandable if you possess the vocabulary you know what he knows. I used to work in corrections. I retired there. I am now thinking about the interactions with these insights, and it makes a lot of sense.

So first he says you can't change volitionally but then says you can because circumstances do change?

It should come as no surprise that metaphysics makes use of physical materiality. Knowing the frequency of every note in a musical score does not demystify the original process of composition.

It seems for me that we are an expression of the univers and we are going in a direction. And more you are align with where the direction goes, more you feel a fulfillment. And as a individual human being we haven’t chose this direction.

Sapolsky is a Legend. This video is only a tiny spec what this man contributed so far.

It doesn't matter whether we have free will or not. We still feel like we make choices, and those choices decide how happy and healthy we are. Just teaching logical thought processes to children would lead to a happier world.

To me the question of free will has more to do with the question of what “I” am. I’ve always seen it as a question like, “Do I have control over my decisions?” And taken “I” to be a persistent agent composed of the matter in your person and especially your brain, the answer is usually some degree of yes.

There is Freewill. Martin Heisenberg in his Essay ‘Is free will an illusion?’ (Nature 459, 164-165; 2009), argues that humans must have free will because freedom of action has been demonstrated in other animals - including those as small as fruitflies and bacteria.

In my opinion the question isn’t wether we have free will or not, but rather how much do we have? I think everything that every happened to you has an affect on what you choose to do next and it’s sort of built into you. The structure which was built from the ground up is what controls you for the most part and decided who you are to some degree. But you can break out of this structure at will and with sacrifice and suffering! Your structure that likes to control everything loses control and fights inside you. Your free will is your mind/soul and it’s limited by your body. I think it’s too pre deterministic to say everything just happens on accord and it’s all ‘written in the books’ meaning everything that happens was just supposed to happen and nobody could have ever controlled that. It’s easy to say this because we always see only one outcome and not the rest. Like what the God of War Ragnarok game teaches you: you can’t rely on profecies! You must write you own story in between the borders you are limited to!

"Change can happen but where people go off the rails is translating that into: we can change ourselves. We don't. We can't. cause there's no free will. however we can be changed by circumstance." Beautiful

I stumbled upon this realisation quite late actually (mid 30s). Despite interest in philosophy and religion since I was a teen, I never thought much about free will. It seems so obvious now.

Excellent dialog...I agree with Sapolsky.

It's interesting to hear Dr Sapolsky suggest we have no free will and to some extent, I think he’s right. Unless we have the intention to change. To dig in, explore and shift how we’ve been experiencing our worlds. To create better stories. That process of what Jung called Individuation is challenging yet possible.

Mechanistic axioms lead to mechanistic conclusions. If anyone agrees with this, try treating yourself or a loved one like they're a product of circumstance and incapable of change or independent choices. See how long that works. Really disappointing that all that external knowledge hasn't led to any looking inward and understanding what it means to be human.

Having no free will is essentially saying choice is an illusion because a person will always default to their best choice. This is not true anytime someone makes a choice that goes against their better judgment.

Reading Sapolsky's Determined-- great reading.

So, we have free will within the confines of our biological, hereditary, cultural, and circumstantial situation.

But who is "You" in this equation? "You" is a section of the universe. That section has a lot more of what we call "free will" than a rock, a star, or pretty much any other section of the universe, all of which is ONE THING. No?

Robert Sapolsky answer the question Directly. Yes or No! Not like other speakers! And I LOVE IT!

Free will has nothing to do with actions you do or do not take. We have an infinite number of realities that we can experience. Free will is is making that choice. It's made by our non physical self , the real us.

Basically the moment you deny free will you deny existence of God, soul and consciousness, to me God, soul and consciousness is the same, that is the agent of free will. Of course they are going to claim that consciousness comes from the matter, the matter has to arrange itself randomly into a very complex and complicated way to form a conscious brain, what are the odds for it? But if we consider consciousness to be precursor for all of it, it solves all the problems.. Conveniently for them they ignore the problem of Consciousness completely

For the most part he's correct in that our brain's are just running scripts based on all the factors he says. But, we do have free will to chose right from wrong and other choices too. It's just that in some instances it is really hard to do so. As we are so heavily influenced by those neural circuits.

Both Dr. Sapolsky and Dr. Huberman are prolific authors and lecturers. They have written several books and articles on their research, and they give talks at conferences and on podcasts. They are both passionate about using their research to help people understand and manage stress. I think that both Dr. Sapolsky and Dr. Huberman are doing important work in the field of neuroscience. Their research is helping us to understand the biological basis of stress and its effects on the brain and body. This knowledge can help us to develop better treatments for stress-related disorders and to prevent stress from causing damage to our health.

Many things influence our behavior, but I think we still have free will. We always have a choice. To think otherwise is extremely dangerous on many levels

True or not (likely we will never have proof either way). Pragmatically, the belief that one does not have free will over their own actions is extremely harmful to our everyday lives. It can be used to excuse ourselves from chasing goals, setting goals, or even behaving in whatever neurotic way leads us into despair. This is an important feature that is often left out of the philosophical debate. Not to mention, determinism is absolutely contradictory to the entire field of ethics. Should rapists and murderers be excused for their actions? Since after all, they did not have a choice. Are racists and nazis simply unable to break free from their psychopathic behaviors? Or is it more likely a plethora of societal conditioning that one needs to CHOOSE to break free from.

Imagine that you have a rock. You hit the rock and split it in two. Inside, you see a message. It could be any message you like, perhaps it says "free will is a myth". Does this image that you recognize as a written message have any standing as evidence about what the message purports to be about? Remember. This in an inanimate rock, formed by natural processes, stacked one on another since the beginning of the universe itself. If the message has no standing (which it doesn't), then the same applies to anything else in the universe, including the thoughts and words of Dr Robert Sapolsky. This is the fallacy of self-exclusion. Where in this case, we try to reason that something cannot exist by using a method (reason) that relies upon the very phenomena we are attempting to refute. The rational animal trying to prove that he is not rational.

Yee, we love the good guys, and the happy world

Two very intelligent men

This says nothing about our soul. It only speaks to our biology.

One word in 3:49 summarized all the talk.

From a scientific standpoint, colors do not exist independently, but are instead creations of our own brain. However, given the reality we perceive is filled with colors, it is reasonable and enjoyable to appreciate and present vibrant red roses, pure white pearls, and marvel at the stunning beauty of azure skies, fluffy white clouds, verdant grass, and lush trees. Indeed, the scientific fact remains that the sun is perpetually shining and does not actually descend. Nevertheless, due to the Earth's rotation, we experience phenomena such as sunsets, sunrises, days, and nights, along with varying intensities of sunlight. Acknowledging and respecting these experiences and living as though sunrises, sunsets, days, and nights are real is a sensible approach. It is a scientific reality that both iron and oxygen are primarily empty space with a small portion of energy. However, considering their unique properties and the distinct ways we experience them, it makes sense to interact with them differently based on their observable traits. Scientifically speaking, there is no concrete "I" or self. Yet, to successfully navigate daily life and foster meaningful connections, it seems practical to behave as though there is a definite "I". In a similar vein, while science tells us there is no actual "free will," in our present experience, it seems judicious to act as if "free will" does exist to make choices, assume responsibility, and engage with the world. Comprehending the scientific truths behind these phenomena doesn't diminish the significance of our experiences and perceptions. It is crucial to strike a balance between our scientific understanding and the pragmatic aspects of existing in our perceived reality.

Can I choose to read a book to get knowledge so I become more hopeful and more accessible to being changed? It feels like I am choosing knowledge, and learning, and not that my learning is deterministically happening to me. Hence my belief in limited free will.

I like this guy. No one is responsible for their actions, because the notion of responsibility requires morality, which if one were to understand good and bad for a living organism, as life as the standard, then nothing nature does ( I can't say you do because there is no you, remember ) is just what nature does. You're simply a collection of atoms, determined by some superior thing ( god, nature, movement, etc ) to act the way you do. So this professor is letting everyone know that loving and killing is the same thing - nothing but a breeze on the back of you head. If you attend his lectures and go to his college, just don't pay. Show up, and sit in the class. You didn't choose to do that. Put you money where your mouth is, and "do whatever nature forces you to do".

That's a nonsensical question. How could we know? What difference would it make if we could?

Nice video, thanks!!

This is exactly where science hits its limitations. The "scientific" answer is we don't have free will, because you can trace every decision back to a cause other than you. Okay, but we don't live in philosophical conundrums or do our brains work dissected according to science. We live in a subjective conscious experience. From a phenomenalogocal perspective, we all have had the experience of making a "choice" that was more difficult to make than another. We also have had the same experience making the easier choice. The actual experience of choosing is undeniable. The real question is does BELIEVING in free will change your decisions.

Lack of Free Will is not Hopelessness. Having Free Will does not provide Hope.

Free will is self evident, what’s also evident is the shirking of responsibility that people can do by saying we don’t have free will.

Intuition sparks revelations, inspirations, and, insights. Intuition is the mother of everything. But how does intuition emerge? What does it influence and how does it vanish?

inventions are a total game breaker for those who say we have no free will! If everything is pre determined and all we know comes from something we experienced then how should we be able to create new stories and technologies?