Do We Have Freewill? / Daniel Dennett VS Robert Sapolsky 

The kind that grows a wicked beard?

In my culture we have a saying, There are two kinds of grandpa: 1. Grandpas who return the ball fallen in their front yard. 2. Grandpas who confiscate the balls fallen in their front yard.

@adre3934 Dan is definitely the grandpa who confiscates the ball

@@ehsanakbari3185 But he didn't have a choice in the matter, unlike what he thinks...

You mean Old Lady!

But to a compatibilist, free will IS doing what you will.

But why on earth would willing what one wills be required for moral responsibility? That's a totally absurd demand, which is why the vast majority of people writing on free will are compatibilists.

@@dominiks5068 I honestly don't know what your inquiry is. There are no 'morals'. There are only those principles that are conducive to the functioning of optimal human social co-existence

Nice amigurumi!

​@@noahbrown4388It's great of you to toss out all morality, but I doubt you have thought that through very much. We can in fact.make moral.judgements about people, we do it all the time. There could be a lot of situations where the moral thing to do is not the optimal thing in any meaningful sense. I'm not even sure the word optimal has any real meaning in your statement. You can't for instance define optimal even provisionally so that your decree on morality makes sense.

Dr Dennett

@@theultimatereductionist7592 I don't think MR Dennett would be arrogant enough to care what you called him. He was humble to the end.

The quibbling nitwits of yt.

I feel very sorry for him and he is in my prayers - but I won't miss his ideas

@@anthonybrettDr Dennett

he was deaf.... at least in this conversation, he didn't went into it open-minded, but he was already made up his mind. He hasn't understood a thing about Robert's story.

Maybe I can help. Essentially free will is freedom from error if we can agree that there are behaviours worth wanting. If that basic axiom can't be agreed there's no point in discussing whether free will worth wanting (freedom from error) exists. I would argue that it does exist therefore we either have that freedom (or enough of it) or we don't. I'd say that's the nuanced way of describing freedom of the will because we can want whatever is worth wanting. Failure to do that means we're not free to act wisely.

If there were true freedom from error, everyone would choose it. That’s just not how the world works.

I once saw a video where Dennitt claimed exasperation over how everybody and their mother have their own definition of free will. Then he went on to give his definition. One does not define "free will." You look it up. It's in all the dictionaries. Free will is a term that has a definition in common language that goes back more tan 2 1/2 millennia when philosophers first began talking about it. It is essentially that free will is the ability to make decisions (and behave) autonomously in a way that is not due only to cause and effect of nature or by act of God. This is the definition Sapolsky speaks to. Unfortunately, philosophers on the subject of free will, as a rule, make up their own definitions. They conflate the notion of free will with degrees of autonomy. Free will in its ordinary sense may be view as a type of autonomy, the ultimate form of autonomy, effectively autonomy perfected. Another issue that corrupts philosophers' thinking about free will is trying to rationalize morality and ethics. The concern is how can anyone be held responsible for their behavior if that had no choice of that behavior? Good point and an inconvenient one for Dennitt. If one is to posit that somehow we have the absolute moral right to judge others for their behavior, than freedom of choice is essential. But, then it falls on those who would promote this view to explain how freedom to choose works. Dennitt gives no such answer. If the mind derives from neural activity of the brain - a humongous switching network - just where in that process is free will injected. A neuron is just a switch, on-off, yes-no, zero-one. The behavior of every one of them is determined by the laws of physics (nature). Where does something other than cause and effect come into this milieu that has any possibility of providing free choice / free will?

⁠​⁠@@paulbrocklehurst2346I don’t follow you at all. “free will is freedom from error.” No one is free from error. And wanting proves nothing. You don’t choose what you want. And we can act wisely, if our brains are built for it and have gone through the right environment. All that is determined. You can’t choose what convinces you. So, no free will. Pick something you disagree with, like Zeus is real or whatever. Then choose to be convinced of it. You can’t. Your brain won’t let you. Our sense of self is an illusion too. Our brains sort out what we want, decisions etc, then the body reacts and delivers that info to the “conscious self” which then falsely lays claim to the decision. This is what gives us the intuition of free will.

I don't believe in free will

thats what the entire debate is about lol.... We all agree it feels like we have free will but do we actually. The debate is the definition.

Yeah I noticed this too. But Robert argues that any definition is wrong so it almost doesn't matter

Well put.An observation I hold over most freewill debates. Furthermore the concept of modern debate largely relies on the undefined status of the point in question.

I have noticed this in many debates, and it occurred to me that debates would be cut down by hours if they just agreed on definitions. Some eliminated entirely. More efficient but less entertaining.

Towards the end I had an impression that they're talking about two different things calling it the same name and hence the discussion was heated unnecessarily if the point was to actually understand each other but I guess this is RU-vid and what matters ultimately is the numbers. I think I agree with both of them because, as I said, they were talking about two different things. It's much easier to agree with Robert Sapolsky because his argument is very straightforward and scientific whereas Daniel Denett being a philosopher feels responsible for his views and it seems that he wants to promote self-agency because he believes it's good to believe in free will.

Exactly this is in fact agreeing with Salposky

​​@@stephaniecok3484Spinoza lived in a time when physics were still mechanical. Nowadays in times of quantum and Heisenberg uncertainty, the meaning of determinism needs to be redefined. For one, we can't know all the parameters of cause and effect because measuring them changes them. And two, we are not certain anymore that true randomness doesn't mess with determinism.

@@daanschone1548true randomness still does not mean you are free. Either way you arent free.

@@aasdaa3736 what does being free means to you? Aren't you free to act?

@@aasdaa3736 also randomness means the universe isn't deterministic, but probablistic. Which means our future isn't determined and we might have freedom of choice.

Agreed. A lot of the confusion around this issue is a matter of definition. When people say you don't have free will and then start talking about childhood experiences and teaching and presence or absence of loving parents, I feel they are missing the point. I wouldn't deny for a minute that all that has tremendous influence on future attitudes and actions, and even makes future actions highly predictable. And I agree that the more we know and understand about someone's past, the more compassion we tend to have for their bad choices. But to me, that is "just" psychology and is not relevant to "free will." Free will is whether one could behave in a different manner, not whether they are likely to. Even someone who had a wretched childhood that turned him into a serial killer still (apparently) makes a choice as to whether he wants peanut butter and jelly or eggs for breakfast. This is the ultimate free will issue I'm interested in; does the movement of every atom in the universe since the big bang dictate peanut butter or eggs, or is it truly a matter of whim and preference, freely made, notwithstanding any psychological factors which may predispose him to choose one over the other?

@karlkellar8614 One thing people like Sapolsky forget is that among the factors that determine our present choices are our previous choices. This means that we do share some responsibility for our present choices as they are. If one looks only for external factors without considering that our past choices are now among those external factors, then persona responsibility makes no sense. Even if these external factors completely determine my present culpability, it is in part my past choices that have brought me to this deterministic conclusion in the first place

Dennett's view is of compatibilism and his definition of free will changes. He becomes more or less libertarian depending on how strong he's pushed on the issue. Compatibilism is not logically rigorous. It certainly might be true, but it doesn't follow from deductive logic. It cannot. Good philosophers used to know this. Sapolsky is a modern Spinoza. Ain't nobody could logic like Spinoza

@thejackbancroft7336 Compatibilism is the view of 60% of professional philosophers so the idea that it isn't logically rigorous is unfounded and unsupported. Sapolsky doesn't even have an argument against free will. It is really bad. How he is like Spinoza is a secret only you know.

@thejackbancroft7336 in any case deductive logic isn't even a matter for discussion. Free will is an inductive argument. All philosophical arguments are inductive. Only math and formal logical are deductive. This is something all good philosophers understand

Great quip but honestly a foolish one. Dennett does no favors representing philosophers here by being facetious and snarky. Both arguments have merit, I think Sapolsky’s case is more well argued in this debate. Writing off philosophy is not a helpful or well balanced stance though. And I imagine, or at least hope, Robert said this out of frustration for being spoken to condescendingly. None of us can remain calm and collected all the time. To anyone reading this who feels skeptical about philosophy or fed up with speculation, I’d recommend sticking to philosophical works on Ethics. Metaphysics and Ontology can be really murky waters. The best philosophy inspires responsibility to oneself and the Other, imo. Just my take.

@@TheTuurngait It’s hard to wrap my head around philosophy in general, most the time it’s always, well yes there’s all this, tangible and semi tangible, observable evidence that proves something, but still I think or I feel. When that I think or I fell, also falls into the realm of the biological, neurological, and it’s undeniable tangible and semi tangible observable evidence.

​@@TheTuurngaitthe reason why what other philosophers think is relevant is because philosophy is supposed to arrive at a holistic solution and does so by applying logic. Most hard determinests are not philosophers for a reason. Tney are ill equiped to make usefull arguments. All compatibilists are saying is that while we are are ultimately not free from causation, it's simply irrelevant.

​@@TheTuurngait Sapolsky deserves condescension. He is wilfully ignorant when it comes to the question at hand, and yet passes himself off as an expert.

​@@theofficialness578 Philosophy is a higher level of abstraction than science. If you can't handle philosophy, that's fine, but then stick to science. Don't presume that it's nonsense just because you can't understand it. And don't presume to speak on philosophical matters, like free will vs. determinism, even you have no understanding of the subject. That is Sapolsky's fatal flaw here: he left his area of expertise (neuroscience) to venture into an area he knows nothing whatsoever about (philosophy).

Exactly, first person to get this correctly!

I have always said this, about all types of arguments! So many arguments are really just both interlocutors talking at cross purposes.

If that consensus is reached, the debate is over.

YES!! It's insane that we even have these debates without any clear definition of terms. And yes to the comment below - when consensus is reached, the debate is over.

What do people make of the definition of free will that is ‘the capacity to make a choice based on a recognition of the consequences of each possible choice, and having been sufficiently informed of the benefits and drawbacks of each choice made in relation to a predetermined goal’? The goal has to be determined, but the choice is surely not strictly determined, since it’s based on reason and not necessarily any prior influences or conditions. This is akin to the Schopenhauer quote - ‘you can do what you will, but you can’t will what you will’. In other words, free will is based on a conscious apprehension of the facts that influence (but not determine) one’s actions, while determinism implies blind obedience to those influences in the moment.

Saw your comment while watching the very beginning of the video and didn't believe you. But now, being halfway through it, I see what you meant. At 34:02 he starts insulting Robert. I get what Dan is saying there and why he feels Robert's in the wrong here, but come on. He could've just corrected Robert instead of going on about Sapolsky, allegedly, being irresponsible or not admitting his responsibility for his mistake. That *is* being arrogant, you're right.

There is a chooser but he has no choice

The he we can say he is not the choose If cannot choose ​@@tonyaone2069

​@tonyaone2069 The self is an illusion, if you didn't get that from the statement. Although you probably did.

@@albirtarsha5370 I get that philosophically, but who is having the illusion ?

@tonyaone2069 Great question! I don't know enough about Buddhism to answer that from their perspective. I can, however, give my personal answer.

Spot on, and that's exactly why I consider Robert's perspective more commendable than Daniel's position.

But only because it's framed as a moral position that you agree with. But that's an appeal to consequences or emotion, not logical reasoning, it's a position of virtue and not truth.

If you take Robert's perspective, you don't really deserve to be congratulated and awarded. Some, more than others, really like the feeling of 'deserving' our rewards.

@@alchemy1 If you unpack your descriptions of 'impatient', 'prefer', 'feel emmpty-handed', you will see that these hold no meaning (for Sapolsky). What are we left with in life if we choose to live based on Sapolsky's interpretation. Do we just get things done for teh common good of everyone and then go to our shelters and feed so that we can do it again the next day? Sapolsky might be logically air-tight, but at some point, your theory has to reflect reality in some way, and Sapolsky's ideas do not. They are the air-tight logical conclusion of a thought experiment gone wrong.

@@alchemy1 Sorry fool, you got served.

I agree. Dennett wants us to agree that we have all the free will worth wanting, even if we have no ability to do otherwise in a given moment. Sapolsky says (and I happen to agree with him) that it is incoherent to say that an act is either free or morally praiseworthy or blameworthy, if the agent could not do otherwise.

Determinism can have no social or moral implications beyond what is determined. How do determinists so frequently fail to understand this?

@@Ruairitrick Well, let me put it this way: I am pleased with the direction determinism seems to take 😄

But if these sentiments are deterministically controlled then what is to stop the opposite sentiment from becoming dominant, like just another set of bouncing balls? How would the balls know which pocket is TRULY better if their very desires and directions are not a matter of choice? Why would any one pocket ACTUALLY be better? Better in who's deterministically actuated mind? You would have to believe that we are being deterministically led down a "better" path for this to work, but how would you know this? This idea only "works" if you want to have your deterministically presented cake but freely eat it too. Clearly incoherent.

@@Ruairitrick I don't think that determinists fail to understand any of that.

@@morphixnm The Ability to know something or to follow the rules of logic in our arguments doesn't presuppose mysterious free will any more than does the ability of a computer's ablilty to follow the rules of math. The computer follows the rules of logic because it was programmed to do so by human beings whose ability to reason and follow the rules of logic has in turn been programmed into their brains by evolution, education etc etc.

And yet Robert clearly explains how that isn’t the case. So I’m not sure why Dan holds on to his poorly defined unique version of the phrase Free Will at all.

This idea is exemplified in his lecture title, "stop telling people we don't have free will." He's not arguing for the fact that we have it, just that it's dangerous to tell people they don't have it, which Sapolsky agrees with himself.

@@polymathpark sapolsky doesn't agree with not telling people they don't have free wills. He says that just as atheism has not caused immorality, a disbelief in free will won't cause people to run amok.

it's just a poor appreciation of 'intelligence' itself imo

DD sounds to me like a dishonest person. I was planning to read some of his books, but after seeing his reaction to determinism I won't waste my time.

Dennett doesn't even understand what he's saying.

You have free will just as you have money. Both are a construct but necessary

@@sammesingson7584 The question is not whether (the illusion of ) free will useful.

No.@@sammesingson7584

Do you think there's a moral difference between a lightning strike killing a child and a parent planning for over a year to kill her child? If the answer is "yes." then whatever accounts for that difference is free will.

I have 8 years sober and often look in the mirror and say why am I alive with my life and not that other guy who o.d. yesterday

Was there any changes in your life like meeting someone, someone getting ill, having a random chat with someone whom deep down inspired you? Do you remember when you were wasting yourself, one day while thinking a memory may have come to your mind and had an impact without you realising it? I had many depressions and some of the examples I shared above happened and I suddenly decided to get up and do something new.

This is because you do not understand physics well. Go read on non-linear dynamics, chaos theory, randomness, probability. You will have to rethink your position immediately.

@@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168 Yes, definitely - some things occurred that helped inspire me move to a different path. Most specifically, meeting a particular person who has become part of my life. I don't think things would have changed nearly as drastically had that not occurred!

@@ScienceNow- You'd have to elaborate a little more on your position, rather than just point me to things I've read and at least have a laymen's familiar with. (I'm not a scientist but definitely characterize myself as a science enthusiast)

But they don't advance the topic - They prove that it cannot be advanced. Taking Sapolsky's definition, it is meaningless. Taking Dennett's it is arbitrary i.e. the only discussion you can have is about whether two people do or do not agree on which side of this arbitrary line as certain act would fall and even then that says nothing about where it would be for a third person.

@@N.i.c.k.H well for not advancing the topic it seems to have spurred you to an insight you felt equal to sharing :)

​@@N.i.c.k.HThat's not all what Robert was saying. He said it matters because addressing issues with understanding of how people came to the decisions they made can help us more humanely act in response to those decisions. Not without consequence but a more humane and potentially beneficial consequence.

@@Vaelinstormyes I agree. Sapolsky’s philosophy on free will is incredibly meaningful and I hope he gets a Nobel peace prize

Prepared? Yes. Polite? So,so. Dennett was a bit rude a few times.

He debated this recently both with Michael Huemer and with Kevin Mitchell. ✊ Huemer: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FjAYvhv1-Lg.htmlsi=R-ch_nxMg2Y9rnUy Mitchell: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-V9Y1Q8vhX5Y.htmlsi=qzr0o49hkLCPnaLh

@@serversurfer6169 Thank you.

one great mind and one m0ron who got totally destroyed and devolved in spewing nonsense when he had nothign left to say

David Surgrue was also one of my favorites. I didn't know that he died:(

I agree with you. But I believe you might be talking about Michael Sugrue...

@@DavidTizzard Yikes!! You're right! Changing now...😬😬

>> How great it is to hear two great minds... Perhaps, but on this particular topic, I've simply never heard Dennett say anything compelling. I'm not even able to understand his "compatibility" argument, and it honestly seems to me that he doesn't either. More importantly attacking Sapolsky was uncalled for and beneath him.

I think youre right, also Dennett seems to think we choose good because we want to be responsible, but i think Sapolski points out that even if you remove that cultural element people will want to be good for some other reason. The conclusion is that good people want to be good and they will fit a reason as needed

I've watched several interviews of Sapolsky, and remain unconvinced. The limits of free will may well be constrained, but it stretches credulity to believe that there is no free will. It seems even more absurd to contend that acquiescence to such a worldview would improve societies. There is no evidence supporting Sapolsky's contention, other than his belief that we would all be more empathetic were we to accept determinism. Of course, per his own contention, only those people able to accept determinism would do so, thus we end up with a society as chaotic as our current one.

​@@hw-rg7gnSapolsky doesn't need to provide evidence. It is the other person who has invoked a "magical" thing like free will. For free will to exist there has to be something that precedes a person's biology. Human body can be considered as a very complex feedback loop control system and how it was programmed defines how it operates in the environment. Self control is also a function of the biology of the brain. Also, everything from coming here to watch this video to whether you accept that there is free will or not is also dependent on your history as a person.

Sort of. To get a good idea of his thinking on this, read his book "Freedom Evolves". Self-control in the sense of being able to do what you want to do, not just restraining one's antisocial impulses :) And ultimately, to also be able to shape what you want to do. He discusses in "Freedom Evolves" ways in which our freedom will further evolve, and humans shaping human nature is part of that. Currently, humans shape our behavior extensively by culture. Unlike nonhuman animals, we are formed by a huge amount of culture, developed by humans over thousands of years. Our technology and how we've shaped our lives with technology is part of that.

@@hw-rg7gn Robert Sapolsky is talking about libertarian free will, which comes out of religion. It's a dualistic concept, the idea of a soul separate from the physical world and somehow able to do things in it. It comes from the concept of the "I" that does things in the world, that we have in our minds. Determinism has little to do with realizing that people are affected by their past and where they came from. Realizing that is just education. If our culture changes so it becomes common knowledge how people are influenced by their past, then people may become less likely to be very judgmental. And we can do things in our culture to liberate people including ourselves from bad past influences, and will probably find more ways of doing that in the future. So being influenced in a bad way by one's past, or having recovered from bad past influences are both compatible with determinism.

I find all this to be a side issue; one may or may not be able to overcome urges and past programming,but that is a psychological issue, not the underlying issue of whether free will exists. Also, I don't agree that our consciousness is computational, but that's another huge argument that can't be proven one way or the other.

One

How do I reach you off here? You seem like a fascinating individual I'd like to hang with(maybe get on a plane ride with)when I travel your side of the country..

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Well said.

You can observe yourself to confirm that there's no such thing as free will. You don't need to read books about the brain. Observe yourself without any prejudice, opinion or analysation. It's all you need to do. And you'll realize one day that you do not do the observation. There's no 'you' who 'does' the observation.

what's the diff?

@@ChannelMath A machine can have agency without will. Imagine a lethal drone that uses software to calculate whether someone in a warzone is a civilian or a combatant. The drone can either kill the person or spare them. That is agency (the ability to deal out life or death) without free will (because it is still just a machine).

Just as Sapolsky conflates free will with intentionality

​@@jcl7372if Sapolsky is correct and we have no free will then there is no difference

What

The same can be said in reverse. All discussion is a semantics game if one doesn’t engage with the arguments openly and honestly. No free will, as in, I do not choose to change my mind, the mind itself changed as a result of events outside of my control.

So because I can't control which candy is available, choice isn't free will? The will is contained in the body... So no, aside from a ghost nothing can have "free will" by that definition. I suppose omnipotence is the only path to free will by his definition. It's a really sad way to make money off of chumps. It's the same gag that Shopenhauer used.

@@user-iu4wh1zs6t Correct. Your choice is not free will.

no definition or concept of "will" or anything else is completely "free". The only reason this magic fluff is even debated is because socialist pretentious hippies dont want to put people in jail and dont want anyone to have responsibility - "EQUITY". Its a liberal agenda, not science.

I'd say brilliant person

Oh, and would you expound? Or is you expressing dislike for one participant, without justification, adequate?

In other words, as long as we have a collective consensus for what ghosts should be, we will collectively agree on creating the same concept in our individual minds that this is how a ghost looks, creating the ILLUSION that this particular concept of a ghost must be the ONLY concept of a ghost POSSIBLE! I love this idea! It makes me feel like I have more control of my life because I now feel like I have more control of how I THINK - giving me more control of how I FEEL! 😮 Robert, on the other hand, explains something that might be true in ONE sense, but is FALSE if you want people to feel WHOLE WITHOUT the PROMISE that there will always be someone to mourn for you or stand up for you in the face of your challenges!

How would you define free will? Free from what?

Yes, that goes back to John Dewey. Dreams exist AS dreams.

Does a piece of music exists? You can play it on a piano, but it's a bunch of symbols on a paper interpreted as key strokes, a bunch of independent sounds separated in time by various intervals...etx... Does music don't exist just because it's a social construct? It does.

Is book Behave is pretty good if ever get around to it.

@@Kal-EL_Volta I just met him online still studying his lectures. I will definitely buy his books once I finish the lectures. He and his university kindly published some of his his valuable lectures on RU-vid. I am hundred percentage sure, his books will be great. I currently read The King of the mountain, the nature of political leadership which also covers primate behaviour psychology in leadership. 18 years of research reflects in this book. I recommend this book too.

If you want to go deeper down the Sapolsky rabbit hole, his Stanford lecture series on Human Behavioral Biology is awesome: ru-vid.com/group/PLqeYp3nxIYpF7dW7qK8OvLsVomHrnYNjD

@@GlenMcNiel thank you

Observe your brain make a „decision“ for you 😊

Agreed. I usually don't engage in the debate for that reason, but ultimately I think the only free will that exists is just a constructed paradigm through which we choose to see the world, not a necessary element to a complete model of the universe, which I guess means I don't believe in it technically.

I 100% agree, First bo bo's view is on the biological mechanism for will, However what exactly is will? Who's will if the self is a contsruct of the ego, My view is similar to terrain and germ theory both together, Nature and nurture again its both, Now we have absolutely no free will biologically, However perhaps theres another catalyst like gods will. It's always about free will, it's should be about where actual will originates beyond the physical, Ie: materialistic lens of course is going to have bo bo's conclusions! Ps I've watched all his Stanford lectures

This is why two scientists with an undergrad understanding of philosophy ( actually less ) shouldn't be debating free will, stick to studying gorillas, leave the important debates to philosophers.

Sapolsky did define it: it's a choice free from the influences that came a second before, a minute before, in childhood, from evolution, etc. Dennett defined it indirectly as the ability to exercise self control

Undergrad level? @skepticmonkey6923 look up Daniel Dennett on Wikipedia. Feel free to disagree with their arguments, but your ad hominem isn't just a failure to provide a compelling argument of your own, it's also wrong about who they are.

because when we really understand something it changes our behavior. like if someone stepped on my two really hard, but then i realized that he is blind and someone pushed him, id react with less negative/hurtful-emotion same idea when realizing the knowledge that behind every behavior we can find only the idea of causality.

or poverty... that its not that a person somehow 'deserves' being poor. its luck and luck alone that has a millionaire in his shoes and a cleaning-worker in their shoes. if we were the cleaning worker at the moment of his conception (in the womb) with his nature+nurture at that moment, then at every & each moment after that we'd be understanding exactly what he did. because after that we're all governed by the idea of determined events. (with or without acausality).

I don’t think he would say you automatically always do. Since many of us are often irrational. However, you could argue consistently against being more compassionate and forgiving. Empathy is also a thing that you are determined to have in various degrees. But like everything else it does have some potential for improvement.

From personal experience, it filled me with empathy. It's very useful if you are in a habit of being too hard on yourself or others. As to determinism causing us to be passive, I think the main motivator for doing things, fighting inequality for example, is not that we have free will but because we suffer. The pinch of relative poverty will drive me to take actions, no matter what the odds.

This is easy. If you don't believe in free will, then NOTHING is anyone's fault. They're simply a byproduct of cause and effect. Therefore, people aren't willfully committing "evil acts". They're behaving in a way that resulted from their environmental upbringing and/or biology. So, essentially everyone is blameless. Period. That doesn't mean we shouldn't act to punish or rehabilitate (or in extreme cases, remove them from society altogether), since this can and does alter their behavior. But it does mean you can now be empathetic with "evildoers" since you know they couldn't help it. It's not their fault. Get it?

Well, yes! Unless your 'level of consciousness' is arrived at because of all the preceding events that must, by necessity, have unfolded... Maybe that's what you meant. Here's a question. If you're of a certain age, you've probably had the experience of being frustrated trying to recall a phone number. A phone number that you know you know! You've recalled it many times in the past, but for some unknown reason, you can't recall it now. If Mr. Dennett is correct, then there must be some other, lower level, 'YOU' who is trying to keep that phone number from YOUR conscious mind. He fails to explain how and why that happens. Conversely, Dr. Sapolsky's model does explain it, easily... Good luck

I think the crux of the argument here is the tension between these two points of view, which you're pointing out. Is free will part of rational reality, or is it an ideal we impose on what we deem Reality?

Agreed. Sapolsky is saying "free will as metaphysics is silly." And Dennett replies, "yes, I know, but only in the sense that metaphysics in general is silly." I agree with Denntt - we are free to define "free will" in operational terms because we find utility in doing so. But I also agree with Sapolsky - we should be wary of those who use the notion of "free will" to make claims about what is "really real" about a person.

@@ericb9804 Making claims about what is "really real" about a person, is one of the most fun things to do.

@@DouwedeJong It's certainly useful

No they don't agree, Sapolsky is just a nice guy. Whoever claims that free will exists should provide some sort of proof, otherwise he doesn't really add anything to human knowledge.

@@willbluefield5776 Interesting.Could you elaborate?

As well as being analogous to time, is there an analogy to random events? In the real world, on the macro level, we say the numbers that come up when you roll a pair of dice are random. And for all practical purposes they are. But not really. the results of a dice toss would be entirely predictable, if we had enough knowledge. That is, if we knew every force that influenced the dice, we could predict with absolute certainty where they would end up. This would include the exact angle at which each die left the hand, the exact amount of force exerted by the thrower, the ambient air pressure, the force and direction of any air currents, the resiliency and "bounce" of the table surface and the backboard against which the dice must strike, the exact weight of each die and how it is distributed within each die .. . There is no theoretical reason why we couldn't calculate the exact behavior of the dice, if we knew all these variables (including how they change from moment to moment while the dice are in flight). This is just cause and effect. As a practical matter, we don't and can't have such perfect knowledge nor the computational power to predict in real time. So we must and do act as if the dice are random, and for all practical purposes they are. In fact, the whole craps industry in Las Vegas is built on this assumption. But that doesn't mean that the flight of two objects through the air cannot be precisely determined given sufficient information.

I mean, you could also subjectively argue that the earth is flat based on your own experiences and observations and live with that illusion day-to-day with little, personal, implication as well. However, to assume the earth is flat despite the scientific evidence... well... I think that's where philosophy and science diverge.

@@brianwillis4163That's a false analogy. Most people on Earth got out of the illusion of flat Earth. No one got out of the illusion of free will or the arrow of time.

@@piotr.ziolo. Sapolsky himself admitted he struggles with the concept despite the nueroscientific evidence that supports his findings. However, if his theory is sound, it holds larger implications, not only from a crime and punishment perspective, but also meritocracy as a whole.

"calm" lol

Daniel Dennett is a wonderful philosopher and has written many good books, include "Freedom Evolves", his main book on free will. He has done a great deal to give a rational, scientific grounding to airy concepts like free will, consciousness and the soul. I love his integrative approach.

Yep, free will is not difficult to understand. Understand awareness, and there you are.

You cried? Lmao simp..

Right. Just two different angles of the universe's same causational loop. Both components ultimately join to explain determinism. As Robert Sapolsky has hinted in other videos: The universe can only exist in two possible fundamental configurations. Either it is deterministic, or it is random. And neither configuration gives us control over what happens. If we are to give a meaningful definition to free will, we must agree that free will is not about being in control of the outcomes. Instead, we should define free will as the circumstance of living in a universe where the course of everyone's life is allowed to unfold in the easiest way possible which does not hinder prosperity and does not result in unnecessary suffering.

@@athenachavez8 Suppose we have Alice Bob, and Charlotte. They can choose a number. The rule is a + b + c = 0. Now they are all free to choose a number, but only with respect to each other. For example, if a=1 and b=-3, then c must be c=2, so Charlotte is not free. But she is, so she wants c=4. Them Alice and Bob are not free and so on. I don't know the mechanism, but somehow this seems to me the right way to look at free will.🙂

yeah, this is called losing the debate

@@TheRoninteam Losing the debate is not the same as losing the argument. People are swayed by things other than the actual arguments; for example how competent and eloquent each of the debaters appears. I believe Daniel made the better arguments, however rambling he might appear.

@@cally77777 I think that there is a big difference in behavior for starters, Sapolsky seems pacific interested in conversation while Daniel seemed angry with Sapolsky about his position, to me that shows denial, shows that he can't counter argument logic and science with his superficial common sense fallacies, he didn't presented any scientific fact he spoke out of his ass most of the conversation like a teen trying to hold his ground while an adult could see right through him the whole time, an ancient creature acting like teenager by itself should raise red flags, being unpolite and mean, but then he opened his mouth to give "arguments", and most of them where unrelated to the complex subject, they where pure rambling about, shows a desperate old man losing his diapers over an argument he already lost before beginning.

@@TheRoninteam You sir, show your various failings in the style and content of this extraordinarily poor comment.

@@ronlipsius and you sir, know that I couldn't care less about opinions

Being lucky enough to gain the deep understanding that no one has free will, makes life much easier and simpler. You can avoid toxic people understanding that these people have developed layers of defense mechanisms to logic and reason, that make such effort a waste of time. You don't blame yourself when some one rejects you, but can examine the physics, and bio-chemistry in sufficient detail to have a much better chance of better outcomes in the future.

@@user-yl7kl7sl1g How can you have deep understanding when you just believe? There are no facts just assumptions.

@@ToriZealot we do know, just like we know there are no square-circles and that 10+7=17. We know via logic. Our neighbors couldn’t have done otherwise (of their own accord) because we are all subject to logic and to the idea of time and to the logical dichotomy that: every 'event' must be either: caused- or- not. When an 'idea' is already internally logically incoherent (like the idea of a 'square-circle'), then there's no need to search for it in the physical world. As conscious beings we obviously can’t obtain “absolute knowledge” but the matter at hand holds the same standard for knowledge we use for any & all other urgent moral practical issues. If someone is saving a life or entering data into excel for a cure for cancer, no one stops just to argue that '7=7 isn't absolute knowledge.' ******** Any idea of 'a cause' is also an idea in terms of an 'event', because the ‘idea’ of any 'cause' takes 'time'. Everything here is in terms of 'events'; a process. There’s no static, unmoving, beyond-time 'self' that creates the events within the universe. the 'self' is also a process. And our neighbors don’t have the ability to manifest a “first cause”; The fabric of our world is woven via the idea of causality. An idea of an indeterministic event can only either be one of the following: 1. via an idea of true randomness 2. via an idea of some specific real-probability. 3. only seems indeterministic to us due to lack of potential human knowledge, and so really via the idea of determinism/causality. This is a logical trichotomy of ideas. Hence they are mutually exclusive and map out all and any possible idea a mind is able to consider. And none of these logical-options give any of our neighbors the ability of CHDO (Could Have Done Otherwise) of their own accord.

@@user-yl7kl7sl1g Sadly enough, for some reason, I don't believe that there is no free will and therefore I will waste that time and effort. And because everything is determined, I can't change that. Right?

@@ToriZealot You can understand things, or you can believe in superstitions/live in ignorance. The choice is yours.

Your past, aka your interaction with the external environment is what molded you into who you are (thoughts, desires, personality, fears, etc). If that's the case, the reason you make ANY decision is out of 'your' control. (the self is an illusion) Infact, this false sense of self is the reason why determinism is hard to grasp. We THINK we are author of the voices in the head we call thoughts, but we're not. In my view "thinking" is the most interesting subject in the world. It's what allowed us to advance as a species. It's the source of all happiness and suffering. The source of confusion and clarity. Mindfulness meditation is the best practice I have found to completely dispell the illusion and give powerful insights into the nature of thinking which will also give insight into why we lack free will

@@BryanJorden I think there are also internal factors that depend on our genes, and the way in which our brain develops. Claiming that your self does not exist, doesn't make you disappear. You and only you are the author of your external voice. (as observed from the outside). and you and only you experience what I say in the way that you do internally.

@@BryanJorden " It's the source of all happiness and suffering. The source of confusion and clarity. " So, if one baby was born during a famine in Ethiopia, and another was born to a wealthy family in the Western world, what has thought got to do with happiness and suffering, or confusion and clarity?

From horseman to ass

You nailed it. It's an illusion by definition. NOT delusion- to think we have free will.

I often stare at people knowing there is no freewill and laugh in my head as they conditionally will.

Both/ some time

@@sudhirpatel7620maybe you should laugh at yourself staring at others. But that may require making a decision to not stare at others and you and I can’t be certain at all that the universe and it’s laws will abide.

@@JamesWilson-ek7ko the universe gave us the opportunity to stare; Sapolsky's whole point: we can just observe our lives, and others [rejecting solipsism].

Agreed, but they seem to be talking passed each other

I don’t think that’s fair, there’s tangible differences in the implications of the argument. E.g. is Sapolsky is right, moral accountability is completely arbitrary and judging someone for murder is just as nonsensical as judging someone for their height. If Dennett is right then it can still be rational to have those judgments, even if the causal chain that led to the murderer killing someone starts prior to their birth. The question traditionally is framed as whether determinism is compatible with free will, obviously you can choose to define free will in a way where it is or isn’t, but the important thing isn’t the definition but the tangible takeaways, which in this case are different between the two of them.

No one is missing his points. We just don't think they're very good points. He agrees with Robert in all the material sense. But then chooses to ignore the extremely important moral implications of Robert's position..... in favor of a discussion about the fictional world we inhabit in order to deal with this reality. Least that's the way I rationalize his stance. I have no interest whatsoever in this land of fiction and think if we wrestle with the moral reality of the non existence of the traditional definition of free will.... this fictional world and fabricated definition Dennett wobbles on about.... becomes redundant.

I would agree that Sapolsky and others miss Dennett's point, but this is in part because Dennett obfuscates his main point with lots of additional and unnecessary philosophy about the "evolution of the skill of self control" and so on. This debate is really a matter of definition. What Sapolsky shows is what free will is not: it cannot be anything like our intuitive internal sense of a conscious choice that could have gone differently. What Dennett shows (for example at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aYzFH8xqhns.html) is that a notion of free will where our choices are not determined by the sum total of all that we are makes no sense - and is not what we should want free will to be anyway. So they agree about the facts of the matter, but disagree whether to call it "free will" - and I think that their choices here are guided by other considerations such as their moral philosophies. Sapolsky admits at the start that he believes a society which denies free will is more humane, whereas Dennett thinks this undermines personal responsibility.

It pains me reading your comment, knowing that you’ve failed to understand the philosophical implications of Sapolsky’s argument. His opponent made a very weak and unconvincing argument with no substance.

@@damland1357 Philosophical implications are in the mind of the beholder ;)

One can't well understand what Daniel Dennett is saying just by listening to a debate. The compatibilist position on free will is a lot more complicated and difficult to understand than the incompatibilist. But the majority of philosophers are compatibilists, from what I've read. It's easy to take an incompatibilist position, but it's also not very sensible. Daniel Dennett's book "Freedom Evolves" does explain and back up his position, but it's a long book, with many different detailed arguments.

Absolutely. And not a grifter like 99% of the public intellectuals.

It all boils down to people still not fully accepting evolution and taking it more seriously.

It's not hard to understand, but it also doesn't establish the existence of free will. Dennett's view is myopic

@@k-3402 I mean, this is just wrong though. He clearly says free will is an evolved trait that is continuously evolving and adapting just like every thing else. It's not myopic at all.

@@Hmmmmmmm1 He's making an assertion without evidence, *against* evidence. Dennett's position can be summated as follows: We live in a deterministic universe, but somehow (magic?) human brains are exempt the known laws of the universe. Evolution endowing us with a perceived sense of agency isn't a strong argument, because we know how fallibe human perception is.

I believe Sapolsky would argue that we have been led wildly astray in our supposed goal of changing behavior by our erronious belief in responsibility which leads to blame and ideas of justice that are incompatible with the reality of lack of free will. If we were truly guided by a sober approach to our goals then we would take a wildly different approach to changing behavior. An effective one such as those offered by systems of restorative justice or even criminal justice systems that would more closely resemble those present in some northern european societies where effort is put into actual rehabilitation rather than deeply dehumanizing and further traumatizing people in our prison systems while labeling them as unemployable felons for the rest of their lives and insanely believing that will result in an effective improvement in participation in society. Our recitivism rates are clear evidence of the insanity of our systems and the lack of real attempts at our supposed goals.

The quote actually is a spectacular example of begging the question - it assumes that humans have self-control and, thus, free will. Aside from that logical fallacy, the quote also misdescribes evolution. Evolution is not ABOUT anything. It has no end point, much less a purpose. To the extent that we have self-control in Dennett's sense, it's simply one evolutionary outcome among billions of others.

I would agree it is simply one evolutionary outcome among billions of others, and I don't think he is intending to capture all of his understanding of evolution in a single quote, but rather speaking to the concerns of this one issue involving the question of whether human beings have self control. Umm, there is a logical fallacy by your defintion in a lot science my friend. I think you know that. Science is a tool and a process to discover truth, not a thing in itself. @@roberthess3405

Evolution is a mechanical function which always degrades biological function into devolved state of existance leading to annihilation. Regardless of Self-Control..as one thinks important for sustainment of an identity as a Self which is nothing more then a construction representing a transient entity in form.

In his autobiography Dennett explained why defining things does not always help, and I will paraphrase. We are in a danger of defining things into a black hole, especially since the process of definition does not actually explain anything. We can best start talking and engage in conversation, in that way we can learn.

34:00 terrible shame that Daniel seems to feel the need to resort to sarcasm. He’s certainly no Christopher Hitchens, and his arguments seem to somewhat rely on this, and apparently a certain degree of wilful ignorance.

I don't think they are similar at all. Dennet wants to uphold a framework where the moral judgement of people's behavior is still valid, and Robert abhors the idea. Dennet claims to agree that behavior is deterministic, but then does some linguistic limbo to argue that we should judge people anyway. Even worse, one of the implications is that there are people with free will and people without, which is about the most classist and elitist thing a philosopher can say without straight up denying somebody's humanity.

did I miss the definition of free-will?

Its called compatibilismn, its pretty well known in philosophy. I guess Robert never took any of PHIL classes.

​@@shuheihisagi6689Didn't he address that in his book?

Define the soul

There are a lot of x-phi studies on this, which have shown that most laypeople have compatibilist intuitions if they properly understand the view. Read Nahmias et al.

Helping people understand compatiblism has a better chance of improving society than trying to convince them free will doesn’t exist. Denying free will just begs for resistance to change where compatiblism is a tweak that we can get folks to accept. Both camps want the same societal outcomes.

Yes, next time start with the definitions.

Both Compatibilists (like Prof. Daniel Dennett) and Incompatibilists (like Prof. Robert Sapolsky) agree that everything is determined. (with or without acausal events) And they both want to make the world a more just place regarding social circumstance and equal opportunity for children. But for doing so it's critical to specifically teach that 'our neighbors could not have done otherwise.' Because not being firmly grounded with this knowledge is hindering us. For example, it's difficult enough to help the greatly suffering as they will also naturally be irritable and difficult, so in order to better succeed one needs to be as focused as possible at every moment that this neighbor could not be doing otherwise. Or if a police officer needs to arrest a violent person who's hitting and spitting on them, the officer needs to be as aware as possible of "can not be doing otherwise" rational for to not lose control to emotion. When we don't teach it thoroughly, we get a world that's on emotional steroids. Instead of being well rooted by the knowledge and so being able to utilize the efficiency of rational and its forward looking consequential method, we continue as we have throughout history to be inefficiently swept by our emotions and by our baboon-like instincts to achieve the immediate relief of our distress by venting via violence that at times is even towards people that are just passersby. Prof. Sapolsky has talked about finding this behavior in baboons and researching it, and it's also what we see every day as: "the chef yells at the waiter that yells at the customer". Our false incompatibilist intuitions fuel a cycle of violent anger. Another terrible problem with our false intuition of incompatibilist free will is that it makes us all somewhat comfortable with social inequality. Where luck and luck alone determines who we were conceived to be. One baby born into abuse and heroine addiction and another baby born with a spoon of gold, and where society de facto has negligible effect in shifting the track that each baby is causally going down. I personally don't understand why there is so much emphasis about the judicial system's need to acknowledge "could not have done otherwise", when the crucial and urgent need is for its effect on our atrocious social construct of inequality. Because then we would be treating the root causes instead of only fumbling with symptoms. And it would be preventative of potential judicial-system encounters. The damage of not being clear (because instead we're arguing on the semantic of the term free will) is causing seventyfold more rage and violence (which in itself also maintains the inequalities), than any hypothetical future immorality that Compatibilists fear.

We all have the false intuition that our neighbor & ourselves possess false-abilities of the incompatibilist-definition of free will. For thousands of years this is what we are taught from day one, and this is why history has been repeating itself.

Well, collapse? maybe, be more like one guy holding stubbornly to his unique definition, thereby misunderstanding the argument. Sapolsky recognized Dans attempt to salvage the term, but pointed out it is still flawed. Dennett just described that we are sometimes free from external coercion and calls that free will. But that’s better called, freedom, because the will still remains “not free.” You can’t choose your convictions so it doesn’t qualify as free will. So no semantic problem from Sapolsky, he just pints out Dennetts error, and he refuses to see it. But then again most philosophical debates have semantic issues, that’s why science is better. Evidence or no evidence. Free will has no evidence.

​@ihatespam2 Very well said.

There’s always a fundamental disagreement about definitions in such debates. Ive rarely seen two people discuss “free will” where both have the exact same notions they are bring to the discussion. More often than not they each feel the counter position is not even worth discussing, and instead “my position” is worth discussing. It kinda makes me a bit annoyed cuz i wish you’d agree before hand on definitions and start out at the same point. My understanding of the question of free will is whether my wishes today are completely predictable by a set of known or unknown equations or not? Is it computable by a computer with perhaps 3 trillion trillion times the current computational power, or is it not? Is there a potential algorithm that can be run on computational systems that can predict my next move if enough input variables are provided? That’s what i wanna hear your thoughts on, dear debaters.

I'm not sure how "civilized" Dennet's "you're not responsible for not reading the whole sentence, you just didn't have the self control" was...

I agree

So you prefer people who act faceciously who *won't* take responsibility for their behaviour do you?

@@paulbrocklehurst2346guess you missed the sarcasm. Dennett used it ad nauseum. Either way moralizing and misunderstanding the facts of cause and effect or recognizing the lack of free will, you will be held responsible and you should understand that (although with or without many people will not want to be held responsible) Just because you realize people don’t have free will doesnt mean you won’t want them held responsible. If someone behaves in a disfunctional way, society still has the right to protect itself from said person and they will be “held responsible” but minus the judgmental attitude and moralizing about it.

Well done and agreed!

Lol!

I love Dennett’s sense of humor; I’m sure Sapolsky got it.

If the genetic wins, then we would still be an ape, we changed, culture changed humans, even today most of the human population has the similar genetic instructions, but culture makes the difference

​​@@goblinsRule What exactly has changed by culture, when we are talking about the main factors of human way or living? I would say not much has changed to be honest, it's just changed its appearance.

No, that's not what he's saying, were you listening?

The human brain has become very complex and can ruminate, calculate, reflect etc. our decision making has become better. But it all still determined and its future decisions only occur based on what it is capable of and the newer environment it is in. In other words, not freewill. Dennett wahats to say because we have some options that are not restrained by external forces, that we have a sort of free will. But to me that just means we have some freedom, but our will is not free, which means our convictions to choose from options is determined by the past.

please don't believe such nonsense

Language can be as limiting as it is liberating, as you say people have different definitions and connotations and without dealing with their muddying affect language can quickly become ineffective.

sounds rather like low IQ stuff

It is not really a debate because they are agreeing to disagree, though they have different reactions to the subject of free will. It is a discussion that would happen were they with each other.

I'm thinking that you really really love sports and contests and competitions.

@Spagghetii Here is some Bolognese for you... Robert S. was not clear and concise. His "reasoning" here is on the level of a simplistic cartoon. Daniel D., duly famous for his philosophical insight and rooted in reality is doing the heavy lifting here. If you like shortcuts to the proper embrace of our magnificent, messy world - tinged with the guilt and misapprehension of today's academic, then welcome to the absurd world of Sapolsky and Harris and the unbearable Lex Friedman - all mesmerised by Determinism and Scientism.

​​@@ronlipsiuscongratulations for saying nothing in a long-winded, obsequious tribute to a fatuous claim. All Dennett does here is conflate executive function with free will. The ability to make informed choices is constrained by the same biological and sociocultural forces that constrain every other cognitive and neurobiological function. What is the line of demarcation between something like working memory and what Dennett calls free will? Are we to dismiss all cognitive processes as divorced from causal chains rooted in biopsychosocial development? Or is there something special about free will, I mean, executive function? How do we define that line of demarcation? Simply having a ubiquitous (albeit ill defined) notion of free will as a cultural concept does not justify its existence.

*Scientism is the word the scientifically illiterate use to strawman scientists.

​@@justinhayes3434 My goodness, you do not understand the idiotic hard definition of determinism from which Robert, by extension or extrapolation, proceeds to babble incoherently to people with a tenuous grasp of logic, physical law or it's routine subversion in biology, complexity, the rather stark irrationality evident in all minds and perhaps mostly, the sheer unprovability and lack of utility inherent in one of the silliest ideas ever uttered with a straight face: Dumbass Determinism.

@@justinhayes3434 I'm sorry sonny boy, I win - you lose. (But I really hope you think some more.)

Since nothing at the origin of the will is according to the agent's own discretion, there is no 'freedom' of any kind. Logically, the person cannot influence any choice they make willfully, because they don't control their will.

I see what you're saying here - about the leap into the void. But I'd still say that the ability to execute a kind of 'Hail Mary' act is itself conditioned by particular environmental-genetic-biological factors. This act of radical freedom is as preconditioned by the past as is one's ability to navigate the unpredictable consequences that would arise upon striking out in this way. The concept of 'negative capability' touches on this capacity that some people have of being able to exist in a state of receptivity and creativity to completely novel, un-presupposed circumstances. I imagine that creative types, such as artists, composers and experimental scientists would perhaps exhibit this capacity that you're talking about?