"Just because a system isn't predictable that doesn't mean it isn't determined." That's a critical point I've been missing. I almost understand this now. 😃
@anneother6224
18 күн бұрын
It's a belief system. You are almost ready to submit to the globo-fash.
@wentaofan2298
11 ай бұрын
What a pleasant surprise to have Sapolsky on this channel !
@s.lazarus
11 ай бұрын
People need to understand that determined does not mean "pre-destined".
@gking407
10 ай бұрын
yes this is the simplest and best answer for most people!
@undercoveragent9889
8 ай бұрын
Tell that to Sapolsky who states that an abused person with a particular gene is _destined_ to behave in a predictable and specific way. You fan-boys are giving up your humanity on the say-so of a Marxist. You get that, right?
@undercoveragent9889
7 ай бұрын
You need to know that Marxists like Sapolsky despise intellectuals. Don't worry though; you're unlikely to get into his bad book in that regard.
@FightFilms
6 ай бұрын
It sure does.
@undercoveragent9889
6 ай бұрын
@MateuszMisztela I suppose it depends on whether or not you believe that the 'past' is the _only_ 'element' that is involved in the manifestation of the 'present'. The picture painted by 'determinism' suggests that 'reality' is like a sequence of falling dominoes, each domino falling onto the next creating moment after moment, each one creating a concrete 'past' and the 'present moment is carried forward on the wave produced as they fall ... and that _all_ the 'dominoes' were set to their starting configuration at the time of the big bang... or something, right? The 'future' is the path through which that wave has yet to travel; right? _And,_ the final state of the dominoes is 'encoded' within the initial conditions of 'the big bang'. In _that_ case, 'pre-destiny' and 'determined' _are_ indeed synonyms for each other. But what if the 'past' wasn't the _only_ force contributing to the future? I mean, if 'chaos' teaches us _anything,_ it teaches us that *_even if_* the 'dominoes' were set up at the time of the big bang, even _as_ they are falling, chaos is introducing cumulative errors, causing the paths along which they fall to deviate and there is _nothing_ in the laws of determinism that can account for predicted outcomes and _actual_ outcomes of otherwise 'deterministic mechanisms'. I mean: what _formula_ could be conceived of that could accurately be applied to the initial conditions of the the big bang _and_ which can predict 'Star Wars', 'Superman, 'Jason and the Argonauts'? Right? If anything is possible, 'pre-destiny' cannot be right. This is how I think about it: the 'past' is like 'concrete that has set'; the 'future' is the concrete yet to be produced and subsequently laid and the 'present' is where the concrete is produced and subsequently laid. A changing vision of the future is modulating the path of the 'present moment' and so in a very real sense, the 'future' creates interference that changes any plans laid down by the 'past', right? In which case, 'destiny' cannot possibly be 'determined'. In _fact,_ it would be reasonable to say that even if God had initiated the big bang in order to create His vision of 'destiny', the 'destiny' He envisioned is _not_ precisely the one He'd end up with. There is nothing in Relativity or Quantum fields that can account for what 'dreams' can achieve, right? Mad, huh?
@MiKafchin
10 ай бұрын
We all love Dr Sapolsky ,he is a Gem of our world !❤❤❤
@farmerjohn6526
10 ай бұрын
Or an idiot.
@anneother6224
18 күн бұрын
When you say we all, do you mean women, leftists , theosophists or what?
@justjeremiah4255
11 ай бұрын
What a breath of fresh air.
@benkotowicz174
11 ай бұрын
If you like to listen to prattle.
@daddy_marx6823
11 ай бұрын
Carefree Wandering is such an extraordinary channel
@LuceroLucifer
11 ай бұрын
absolutely one of the best, and definitely more legitimate, of the intellectual/philosophical channels on the youtubes
@rockugotcha
11 ай бұрын
The great Marx granted.
@rafaelsequeira9150
11 ай бұрын
@ssgdhgsdfff8887 with this style I would say no. There is some popular philosophy channels but not with this rigor, pedagogical outlook and quality.
@akikoivunoksa635
11 ай бұрын
@ssgdhgsdfff8887 Jonas Ceika - CCK Philosophy
@lalaoepsi7572
10 ай бұрын
@ssgdhgsdfff8887 Not as Well-known as this channel, but the Theory & Philosophy channel is also a very good channel. It mainly explains various terms by philosophers in a concise manner (and explains it correctly!)
@jusuzippol
11 ай бұрын
The internet was determined to bring together two of my favourite braintwister youtubers from the past few years!
@ballsofglass
11 ай бұрын
I've been waiting for this crossover since the creation of the universe.
@littlesigh
11 ай бұрын
One of the best interviews EVER! Thank you both!
@stevesmith4901
10 ай бұрын
What exactly was good about this interview? Seriously, I want to know.
@chuntoon1
11 ай бұрын
I just finished War & Peace for the first time last week and was caught off guard by the books ending with Tolstoy going on about Determinism. a) Best book ever & b) Awesome timing for this video for me! Though it really added a lot of fuel to the fire & makes me curious about this train of thought that will keep my mind turning for quite a while now.
@winninymeanssweet1920
10 ай бұрын
His lectures on Human Behavioral Biology are much better. I loved every single one of them especially linking behavior to biology and biology to biochemistry. If you understand physical chemistry then you can see how life can start and evolve on earth to get us where we are.
@mellow5857
10 ай бұрын
@@winninymeanssweet1920can you expand on it? Seriously curios
@chutcentral
5 ай бұрын
Pretentious comment. War and Peace is the best book ever? 😂🙄
@chuntoon1
5 ай бұрын
@@chutcentral Mean comment. I say every book I just finished is the best book ever .. except the bad ones haha.
@kw1ksh0t
4 ай бұрын
@@chutcentral Why not?
@WisdomWorkshop
10 ай бұрын
"The end result will be more humane interactions with each other." - Sapolsky. Glad to see this. Whole-heartedly agree :)
@myself171
9 ай бұрын
What I’m confused about is if we don’t have free will, why does it matter if anyone believes it or not?
@sunflare8798
9 ай бұрын
Humane? What is that supposed to mean? It is a moral judgements, and moral judgements in a deterministic world have no meaning
@wbs-dj5js
8 ай бұрын
@@myself171exactly 😂
@geezer5357
7 ай бұрын
@@myself171 It doesn't. But at least you know it.
@anneother6224
18 күн бұрын
@@myself171I think this is full of contradictions which are too boring for people to bother with. It's like queer theory or any other variety of wokism. Also the stultifying bureacratic planning of major corporations and the UN.
@sleazycakes
11 ай бұрын
Imagine having the social clout that whenever you read an interesting book, you can call the author up and say "hey I have some questions, can I interview you?" and get to do it.
@ArawnOfAnnwn
11 ай бұрын
This is easier than you think. A lot of academics are only too happy to discuss their works with anyone interested, regardless of social clout. This applies both to books and papers. In fact when it comes to the latter, they're often only too happy to send it to you for free if it's locked behind a paywall. The only barrier is whether the academic has the time to spare, so you might have to wait a bit.
@real_pattern
11 ай бұрын
he's promoting his new book, he appeared on several podcasts in the last weeks, after a hiatus of almost no appearances for several years, so it's not exceptional for him to appear here.
@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb
11 ай бұрын
I don't think those turtles in their example like being grouped that way. ;)
@Cyrusislikeawsome
11 ай бұрын
You'd be surprised to be honest. Academics have a lot of flexibility with their time, a lot of passion, and are often super down to earth - particularly scientists. I've had multiple email conversations with top level academics I just messaged completely unsolicited while reading their work.
@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb
11 ай бұрын
@@Cyrusislikeawsome The US state for stealing personal data and waging derangement campaigns against little children on social media, destroying their cognitive autonomy for profit. There is no pity for these terrorist scum.
@anemonaloco
8 ай бұрын
I never understood the concept of free will. Now, after 54 years, Sapolsky has finally explained it to me.
@yanapostolides601
7 ай бұрын
He doesn't know .
@ViezeKnuf
11 ай бұрын
I remember a professor of mine once saying: "the position that took me." Just to indicate the lack of autonomy in taking a stand on an issue.
@MrPDTaylor
7 ай бұрын
What were they a professor of?
@ViezeKnuf
7 ай бұрын
@@MrPDTaylor contemporary philosophy
@nUrnxvmhTEuU
11 ай бұрын
Just recently I was talking with a friend about morality and free will and I ended up referencing Moeller a lot when talking about the former and Sapolsky about the latter. What a nice surprise to see them both in one video!
@ChristopherCopeland
10 ай бұрын
How brilliant to have a friend you can talk with about morality and free will ❤ *they’re rare gifts!
@anneother6224
18 күн бұрын
Does Moeller offer any resistance? I'm beginning to wonder if Sapolsky is just offered up a series of soft interlocuters as if he was a preferred philosopher of globalist collectivism.
@lewisalmeida3495
8 ай бұрын
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.
@8114梦见
11 ай бұрын
Just ordered a copy. Thank you Carefree Wandering for conducting this interview!
@MirceaFlorian7
6 ай бұрын
Thank you both for your passion, hard work and courage!
@luminyam6145
10 ай бұрын
I love Dr. Sapolsky, thank you so much for this wonderful video, his book might very well find itself on my list to give my family for gifts.
@karakaspar1791
11 ай бұрын
Yesss!!! Let’s popularize this. Understanding the impossibility of free will has made me a much better person
@JohnnyTwoFingers
11 ай бұрын
Your "understanding" first requires that the phenomenon itself is understood, which it isn't.
@karakaspar1791
11 ай бұрын
@@JohnnyTwoFingers I understand it! What’s not understood?
@shlockofgod
11 ай бұрын
They're not talking about limitations. They saying it doesn't exist at all.
@karakaspar1791
11 ай бұрын
@@shlockofgod trueeee! I corrected it 😊
@kkounal974
11 ай бұрын
Is there a connection between the two? Idk i never found free will stuff all that interesting.
@Luziagz
11 ай бұрын
Wow, thanks for that, a big fan of Sapolsky here! And a fascinating conversation, this video.
@nirvonna
10 ай бұрын
I love Robert Sapolsky, I’ve listened to several interviews with him about his new book and this is the best yet. Fantastic. I’ll check out the interview with Jordan Peterson even though the thought of him makes me gag.
@hian
11 ай бұрын
Like Sapolsky, I arrived at hard determinism in the philosophical ruminations of my early teens, but I never much struggled with it as an issue in regards to what supposedly happens once you realize choice is nothing more than a delusion and I mockingly call the answer to that anxiety, "Shrödinger's free will". Like with quantum mechanics, we do not have the ability to perfectly calculate what seemingly variable outcomes will be prior to observing them. Since I cannot know whether I'll end up doing A or B prior to doing either, the question of which, is open until I do. Hence, I don't have the luxury of acting as though one of them is true until the box is open and I observe which it is. In this respect, all sentient creatures must ultimately behave as though choice is possible until the choice is made. Acknowledging hard determinism is therefore not a type of fatalism in regards to future outcomes. Rather, it is a means to understand prior outcomes and come to(though that too is, inexplicably determined) more factually accurate appreciations of causal chains and how they produced current circumstances. Hard determinism is lovely because it is a perspective that can generate empathy around unfortunate current events and inform us of how to avoid similar situations in the future. Free will is toxic, because it straddles people with an impossible to justify responsibility for situations that couldn’t possibly have been otherwise short of changing material circumstances of causal relationships. In other words, determinism is the basis for reformative justice and root-cause solutions. Free will, on the other hand, is the basis for punitive justice, spurious blame-making and simple-minded supernaturalism.
@TheJayman213
11 ай бұрын
I wholeheartedly agree, although maybe "sentient creatures" is too broad a term. I think many would describe people in states such as flow state, enlightenment/moksha or psychedelics induced ego-death as "sentient" despite being free of the "illusion" of Free WIll. I would have used the term "(dualistically) self-conscious creatures" or "subjects" instead of "sentient creatures".
@alynames7171
11 ай бұрын
"all sentient creatures must ultimately behave as though choice is possible" Sorry to be so nitpicky, but I feel like either "must" or "behave" are the wrong words to use here. If you mean "must" as a moral or rational imperative, doesn't that imply some capacity to make a choice? If you mean must in the sense of "a quantum system must behave as a superposition of all possible observable states until an observation is made," then that's just empirically not true since plenty of sentient creatures don't actually behave this way. How do you reconcile what seems subjectively to me and I imagine to you like a choice to accept or reject a particular framework with a belief in hard determinism?
@hian
11 ай бұрын
@@alynames7171 I don't think you're nit-picking as much as you're merely confused about the language in a way I'd suggest is fairly contrived. All I meant was "must" as in "there is no other alternative". Not at all in moral sense, and absolutely not in the way you're applying this to quantum principles. My analogy to quantum states was not a statement about affairs on the quantum level at all, but just that - an analogy to draw a parallel between how the state of small particles being indeterminate until observed is similar to how our future behavior appears indeterminate to us on a macro level from a first person point of view. Nothing more, nothing less. "Acting as though your behavior is predetermined" is functionally a meaningless statement because unless you know what your behavior is predetermined to be, you are not acting according to the supposed predetermined outcome in any way. This is distinct from saying your behavior isn't determined. What I am talking about is the fact that regardless of whether it is determined or not, what your future is determined to be is not obvious nor determinable to you - hence you cannot act as though it is in any meaningful sense. Even if I were determined to pick A over B, I cannot act as though it was determined I was going to pick A if I do not have precognition of this fact. And, this problem is compounded further if I did have such precognition since we'd have to assume having such precognition would effect the outcome and demand a new causal calculus to reconfirm that proposed future outcome. This, of course, would require the precognition to be updated, which would result in a loop and eternal regress. Hence it is not clear that any conscious creature can act in any meaningful sense on an assumption of determined outcomes. You can act determinalistically, but you cannot act ON determinism. This is also why wasting time on the term "conscious creature" is pointless pedantry in relation to this argument as well. Clearly, there's a spectrum of cognitive complexity as far as consciousness goes. Clearly we can imagine some conscious creature that's entirely reactive, as the poster above yours postulated. Non of that bears any relevance to my argument though. Any conscious creature without an illusion of deliberation isn't relevant to this conversation seeing as they'd be "even less able to act on determinism" than any sophisticated conscious creature to begin with. Again, my argument here is fairly simple: No being capable of considering future events and with a sense of choice, illusory or not, can act according to an appreciation of future determined event because there does not seem to be any coherent model for the antithesis of this claim. With that being the case, it seems we must(as in there are no viable, coherent alternatives) act under the labor of uncertain future outcomes, which is more or less indistinguishable from the illusion of choice-making.
@sylviaowega3839
11 ай бұрын
Very well said! Nothing much do add here!
@shlockofgod
11 ай бұрын
This is incorrect. All sentient creatures behavior would be completely determined. Under determinism no one would have the choice to behave as though choice is possible until the choice is made. Fatalism and determinism are exactly the same thing. If you're fatalistic then it is 100 percent determined. You have absolutely no control over it. Every thing that happens to you was your fate. Trying to "Shrödinger's free will" your way around it is itself a delusion. Because that is also determined. It's not true that free will "straddles people with an impossible to justify responsibility for situations that couldn’t possibly have been otherwise". If determinism / no free will is true then then it's_determinism_ that straddles people with responsibility for things that cannot be any other way. If you have a child then you are responsible for it even though you never chose to have it. If you deliberately kill someone then you still probably get locked up or killed even though you didn't chose to do it. Love becomes an illusion. Virtue is a joke because no one ever chooses to behave virtuously. If you can;t be "blamed" for any wrong doing then you can't also be credited for any right. Even having sex is not your choice. In determinism there is no such thing as justice. Something like the holocaust is simply the playing out of immutable physical laws; neither right or wrong. Once you start to think about, determinism being true is an insane nightmare, over which you have no control and can only wake up from when you're dead. As for blame making and super-naturalism, there's nothing about determinism that prevents people from engaging in these things. After all it would just be determined.
@joeburkeson8946
4 ай бұрын
Great conversation thanks for taking the time to put this together. I too adopted determinism at a young age it fits in well with the philosophical pessimism plaguing young men growing up. The definition I've cobbled together for myself goes something like this... Even though the universe is singularly deterministic the particle/wave dualism created at the moment the singularity dissolved into discrete particles provides the illusion of choice. The paradox remains but the point becomes moot because in real life there are no winners, those of us who are forced to play soon realize the truth… When you succeed and get what you want it ultimately produces boredom, and when you fail you suffer. The worse cut of all is at rest the most you can hope to gain is a moment of painless solace. Remember though, it’s all a mere illusion, however tenacious and persistent.
@wstewste
11 ай бұрын
My two favourite weird old dudes in one conversation, love it! Great talk - I've seen some interviews of Robert Sapolsky (cannot recommend his work enough), including some about his latest book, but It's great to have one by trained philosopher, especially dr. Moeller. Kudos to you, sir, great content as always!
@winninymeanssweet1920
10 ай бұрын
I didn't get past 1:35. lol - can't get past his propaganda. I will catch prof. Sapolsky elsewhere.
@wstewste
10 ай бұрын
@@winninymeanssweet1920 What propaganda?
@JohnnyTwoFingers
10 ай бұрын
@@wstewsteRepresenting his opinion as fact.
@johnboylan3832
10 ай бұрын
@@wstewsteIt is because he might have mentioned Jordan Peterson without signalling that he agrees with everything he says.
@farzanamughal5933
10 ай бұрын
@@winninymeanssweet1920Saying you disagree isn't propaganda. If you think people shouldn't disagree with Peterson you're the one spewing propaganda
@Shu-YungLiu
7 ай бұрын
I really appreciate your work. You are the one who understands what Robert Sapolsky tries to convey and explains his idea with different aspects so that listeners can be more clearly understand, compared to most podcasts I listen which only scratch the surface.
@ContenidoLocalSV
11 ай бұрын
I just realized I’ve been waiting for this collaboration for my entire life, thank you both.
@rockugotcha
11 ай бұрын
Sounds like you have freewill covering the entire life.
@Celestity
11 ай бұрын
It's so relevant I'm doing subtitles al español.
@ContenidoLocalSV
11 ай бұрын
@@Celestity hey, I can help you with that 😳, I’m currently working for a law firm and one of my main duties is translating documents
@marybrown7310
6 ай бұрын
No free will equals true freedom. Freedom from guilt, shame, and blame. Life is easier when we understand that nothing is up to us. We can relax and enjoy the ride, wondering what will happen next. Judgment is irrelevant. We show up, do what we have to do then go.
@subbannar7319
4 ай бұрын
Exactly!
@thomasmann4536
4 ай бұрын
yea, except a life with ultimate freedom and no restrictions is not very desirable in a social case. Any social interaction limits freedom out of necessity. your freedom ends where the freedom of someone else begins. Therefore, true freedom is not something we should ever strive towards ...
@johnshaplin
11 ай бұрын
Speaking at the French Cultural Center in Rome in 1974 Jacques Lacan mentioned that he ‘happened to come across a short article by Henri Poincare regarding the evolution of laws. Emile Boutroux, who was a philosopher, raised the question whether it is unthinkable that the laws themselves evolve. Poincare, who was a mathematician, got all up in arms at the idea of such evolution, since what a scientist is seeking is precisely a law insofar as it does not evolve. It is exceedingly rare for a philosopher to be more intelligent than a mathematician, but here the philosopher happened to raise an important question. Why, in fact, wouldn’t laws evolve when we conceive of the world as having evolved? Poincare inflexibly maintains that the defining characteristic of a law is that, when it is Sunday, we can know not only what happened on Monday and Tuesday, but in addition what happened on Saturday and Friday. But it is not clear to me why the real would not allow for a law that changes. It’s obvious that we get into a complete muddle here. As we are situated at a precise point in time, how can we say anything regarding a law which, according to Poincare, would no longer be a law? But, after all, why not also think that maybe someday we will be able to know a little bit more about the real? - thanks again to calculations. Auguste Comte said that we would never know anything about the chemistry of the stars and yet, curiously enough, now we have a thingamajig that teaches us very precise things regarding their chemical composition. Thus we must be wary - things get developed, thorough-fares open up that are completely insane, that we surely could not have imagined or in any way have foreseen. Things will perhaps be such that we will one day have a notion of the evolution of laws. Since science hasn’t the foggiest idea what it is doing, apart from having a little anxiety attack, it will go on for a while.’😅
@shlockofgod
11 ай бұрын
What _is_ a law, in this context?
@johnshaplin
11 ай бұрын
@@shlockofgod natural laws
@Unearth122
11 ай бұрын
Proudhon also used the idea of external overlapping complexities in his sociological and psychological research. He called it "collective force" which could be used to on every level of analysis. That you were more than just what's between your hat and boots. He used it to also describe class antagonisms, that the capitalists profits come from bring able to collect the surplus of a collective effort but only pay people for their individual efforts. They capture the social collective power of the workers and turn it against them.
@shlockofgod
11 ай бұрын
Wat?
@Itsmespiv4192
11 ай бұрын
@@shlockofgodAncap learn about Prodhoun for the first time
@ichibanoyama5622
11 ай бұрын
Thanks. That what great. Enjoyed the comment about the different turtles. Food for thought.
@jurriaanprins7009
11 ай бұрын
I always feel like that "the sovereign individual" consists of two interconnected dogma's: free will and an individual that can be analyzed without considering its environment. Not to sound like a spiritual hippy person, but my intuition is that determinism combined with the existance of the separated individual will always result in paradoxes. The way forward, for understanding determinism at least, is to think of the world as a living whole, where no separated individuals or objects exist, but everything is already connected.
@jurriaanprins7009
11 ай бұрын
I didn't watch the whole video yet. They probably are going to talk about that somewhere later haha
@Badbentham
11 ай бұрын
You make a good point: Theologically speaking, the notion of the "sovereign individual" is strongly connected to the dogma of a supposed God outside of time and space who is connected with said individual on a fundamental level, e.g. per eternal Soul . - While the ontological or metaphysical alternative would be the "All is One", where either the universe IS God, as in Pantheism ( the "religion" of science) , or where God ( at least) may have a free will, but is in the world; Panentheism.
@kristianshreiner6893
11 ай бұрын
Seeing you and Sapolsky connect is like a dream come true, lol.
@derrickchoi9774
11 ай бұрын
I also find Derk Pereboom's concept of hard incompatibilism interesting. Like hard determinists, hard incompatibilists argue that there is no free will if our choices are deterministic events. But they also believe that there would be no free will even if the universe were indeterministic.
@keylanoslokj1806
10 ай бұрын
No free will belongs only to robots. Not human beings
@midnightchurningspriteshaq8533
11 ай бұрын
the elastic symmetry of biology is truly fascinating in the context of convergence, it is more apparent in biology than matter alone, but exists in matter formation as well. there are patterns more favorable for the reality of nature than others, and the order of favored patterns that emerge in living systems, and energy systems is a useful endeavor to research and refine. each pattern could be used in sequencing once the order is determined and discovered.
@luizfelipedefreitas9880
11 ай бұрын
I have nothing against this scientist but his ideas have always sounded off to me. As someone who has some familiarity with medieval philosophers, even for the guys back then, the notion of free will was already seen as the decisions one would make precisely accompanied by the substrate of one's whole life conditionings, traumas and personal backgrounds. Even when the matter was more focused on theology, for example, Aquinas or any Muslim discussing this matter, they all would take into account the role that the past of a person plays when it comes to decision making. I have never seen anyone claiming that we are some kind of walking tabula rasas. I'm not necessarily a defendant of the spiritual notion of free will, and I'm pretty sure that we are all conditioned to behave in a certain way, but, it is not as if the ppl who defend that there's free will are ignoring these facts.
@TheJayman213
11 ай бұрын
Wtf are you talking about? In his very first segment of the interview he makes it clear that he's engaging with precisely these moderate forms of Free Will. He's arguing from a hard determinist position that all these weak notions of Free Will are just as wrong as the hardest notion. He compares the hard notion of Free WIll to that of the world resting on the back of a giant turtle and progressively softer notions of Free WIll to an increasing number of turtles serving as each other's ground. Admitting that there is external conditioning while clinging to any notion of Free Will is like putting another turtle beneath the bottom turtle: You're still believing in magic. But there is no bottom-most turtle and there is no Free Will, WHATSOEVER.
@lotoreo
11 ай бұрын
the problem still with those medieval thinkers is that they still assume that ultimately the choice can be freely made, and they don't go the extra step further and say that even the choosing itself (even when such a choice isn't affected by outside influences etc.) is still determined by mechanisms
@karakaspar1791
11 ай бұрын
Libertarian free will as a gift from god is one of the main apologetics used by theists to justify the existence evil under the power of an all powerful, perfectly benevolent god. Understanding the true nature of free will or the lack thereof is helpful for distancing one’s self from dogmatic thinking. My fiancé is an incredibly smart engineer (though not much of an intellectual) but I have been unsuccessful in convincing him that libertarian free will doesn’t exist and he’s an atheist so… I would have to disagree
@hian
11 ай бұрын
There's no real need to deal with the moderates in this respect, because the moderate free will proponents ultimately have the exact same problem in making their view coherent as any extreme proponent of free will would have - exactly what part of the will is supposedly free from temporal causal relationships? It's not at all clear what having "free will" means unless you think some part of the mind is atemporal and can exercise choice in blatant disregard to material facts about the brain and its physical environment.
@jakopic
11 ай бұрын
Believing in "no free will" is like believing in aether. One cannot make claims like no free will if one has no idea how to solve the mind-body problem
@insme
11 ай бұрын
I didn't expect to hear his name again! I remember watching his lectures..
@DonnaEmerald8
10 ай бұрын
That was so epic, both the interviewer and the guest. I ended up buying not only the Sopolsky book, but the HG Moeller's book on Luhmann as well, because it sounded like the very thing I was interested in, and I hadn't heard of him before. Thanks for all the info presented in a clear, informative and very entertaining way. KZitem rocks today, and you've slightly influenced my life with your presence he he.
@BreadMPH
10 ай бұрын
What an amazing conversation. Thank you very much.
@tomisaacson2762
11 ай бұрын
Kinda disappointing that they never defined free will and basically just took for granted that the only thing the term could possibly refer to is a magical interruption of causation (eg libertarian free will). Even when Sapolsky references compatibilism it doesn't seem like he's actually engaging with it as he only debunks libertarian conceptions of free will. Sorry if I'm not impressed by a debunk of Jordan Peterson-tier argument. I thought the tie in with Luuhman's work was interesting though.
@jezah8142
11 ай бұрын
I'd like to see a discussion with Robert and Dan dennett 😊
@bozoc2572
11 ай бұрын
@@jezah8142 dennett is a charlatan
@tomisaacson2762
11 ай бұрын
@@jezah8142I imagine it'd be similar to discussions between Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett on the topic.
@keylanoslokj1806
10 ай бұрын
They have nothing to add. Much smarter and wiser philosophers studied it for millennias. Only the Godman and Saviour Jesus Christ saved us from the cardinal sin. Only in His image we can trascend the limitations of the "fallen beast" and the fallen world that comes along with it.
@keylanoslokj1806
10 ай бұрын
So under that light you got enough free will to save your soul in Christ. Which is the purpose of existence. Communing in the godhood and society of God
@arojaron
11 ай бұрын
Greatest crossover episode of all time!
@alcovefib
11 ай бұрын
Near the end of this interesting conversation a notion of language is raised, and how things get complicated or can be limited by linguistic constraints. I regret that schools don't teach about the metaphorical role of language, general semantics etc. I don't mean the metaphors as used in some poems, I mean: the totality of language as a mere representation of 'reality' which so many of us take as 'the reality.'
@ludviglidstrom6924
5 ай бұрын
The correlation between grammar and culture is basically non-existent. Linguists have found very little evidence for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. I don’t think that idea from Nietzsche makes much sense at all. It sounds reasonable on a superficial level, but if you know anything about grammar or linguistics, it actually doesn’t make much sense.
@alcovefib
5 ай бұрын
@@ludviglidstrom6924 What if I served you some decent tasting tea biscuits and after you've munched on them, I revealed they're my dog's biscuits? Wouldn't language change the way you felt about them? People build narratives from the very early age, tell themselves stories every day. Talk to themselves more often than not. Language is a carrier of culture, I think it's hard to deny it. It's not about grammar. See studies on e.g.: correlation vocabulary & creativity, vocabulary & IQ, vocabulary & ability to self regulate, build relationships etc. Brains of bilingual & multilingual persons differ functionally and structurally when compared to monolinguals. Everything you do affects your brain, you can silently talk yourself (literally) to do one thing or another. I disagree on the notion that language doesn't affect our perception of reality. Edit: corrected the autofill mistake.
@faouzeezeiruaku464
7 ай бұрын
Nobel Prize for Sapolsky This is huge
@MattAngiono
11 ай бұрын
Amazing interview, although a bit short.... Would love to see a deeper dive on this in the future!
@huntercurry8604
10 ай бұрын
Our boy MC Moeller looking like he's about to blow up the studio w the hottest rnb single and Sapolsky brought his beats w the rims to hear it. Absolute bangers.
@farmerjohn6526
10 ай бұрын
I am determined to believe in free will.
@sallylauper8222
10 ай бұрын
Choice is the one thing that is evident. Certainly my brain determines my response to seemingly random events. Determinism is this advanced form of avoiding choice.
@Godsen5
11 ай бұрын
Sooooooo ... we've a completely non-philosopher writing a book about the most philosophical of all matters (the sheer sense of Being itself, the fundamental nature of reality). Very nice! His conception surely won't be just a bunch of old-fashioned "because science, duh!"; it will surely account for the last 350 years of debate in ontology, metaphysics and such.
@noah5291
11 ай бұрын
Well a lot of that stuff is garbage rationalism and obscuritism, so I'm cool with it.
@MalAnders94
11 ай бұрын
Also.. if you don't have free will and others don't have free will, what's the point of arguing or debating?
@tcrijwanachoudhury
11 ай бұрын
@@MalAnders94 since you'll die anyway, what's the point of living?
@gking407
10 ай бұрын
@@MalAnders94because that’s what people do, same as all other behavior
@whelperw
10 ай бұрын
@@MalAnders94 Well, there wouldn't be any debates about free will, because there wouldn't be any people siding with it 😅. Aside jokes, If reality is deterministic, and I think it is, then point of those debates is, that you had to do them, you couldn't do otherwise. Even you making that point about lack of point is determined. We had to change reality and past in order for you to not leaving this comment.
@jbvin
9 ай бұрын
I figured out fairly young as well that our actions are not independent. As artist, if you practice art long enough I think you gain some kind of intuitive understanding of that, because at the advanced level, there is a lot of thought put into how you want your work to impact people, and how to translate impacts other works have had on you. You can't spend years observing how people are inspired without picking up some kind of sense that a person's choices have more to do with where they are and what they've been through than some deliberate thought process. I argue that this is why storytelling is important. I'd point anyone curious towards indigenous storytelling practices, it is an innate practice and I think there's an important reason for that. A good story illustrates character growth or some other process of change, so they are instructive of how to get where we want to go. If where we want to go is determined by millions of years of evolving our compatibility with survival, than having accurate illustrations is important to our survival as a species. I believe this is what most artists are referring to when we yammer on about "junk food cinema" or the general commodification of art.
@carlharmeling512
10 ай бұрын
When Robert Sapolsky says you have absolutely no free will, it’s like Jesus saying your sins are forgiven.
@shakeyj4523
10 ай бұрын
Not even remotely comparable. He is speaking biologically, neurologically and anthropologically. Jesus is made up with no evidence behind it.
@carlharmeling512
10 ай бұрын
@@shakeyj4523 Evidence? Free will is an imaginative concept.,
@shakeyj4523
10 ай бұрын
@@carlharmeling512 I see words are hard for you.
@peripheralparadox4218
10 ай бұрын
@@carlharmeling512no it’s a concept that can be tested with knowledge and objective reality.
@seedfromatree
10 ай бұрын
Excellent analogy!
@jasonbrault5273
5 ай бұрын
The "I" that choses is constantly changing. Therefore when you say "I chose this", you are correct. That "I" is predictable and has reach a determined state. If you know all the inputs and functions, the "I" at that moment is predictable. "I" chose to go to the bathroom normally when a biological event applied pressure that "I" have memories of how to releave, coupled with social conditioning on where to do this. "I" as a different time without those input will not decide to go the bathroom (unless thinking about this example and getting enjoyment out of being a contrarian). The "I" at that time perceives within itself a decision and receives inputs to "chose" to vocalize that "choice". No freewill is required and you are truthful in describing "I" made a choice.
@hazardousjazzgasm129
11 ай бұрын
Now this is not the crossover I'd ever expect in my wildest imaginations
@holgerjrgensen2166
5 ай бұрын
Will is Eternal, Your Eternal Destiny is, that You are Eternal.
@jamesrossiter6319
11 ай бұрын
If I cant explain it, it must be meaningless. Narcissism.
@keylanoslokj1806
10 ай бұрын
Bingo. The root of Nihilism. Which is what all those neomarxists are
@i2keepitrealInreseach
9 ай бұрын
If i can explain if even though it has no inherent meaning .. Copism ..
@kennethmarshall306
9 ай бұрын
I wouldn’t worry about how we are supposed to function if everyone stopped believing in free will. We can’t help behaving as if we do. In the same way that we can’t stop wanting sex and food or seeing colour and feeling mental and physical pain
@og_squeekz5248
11 ай бұрын
I just feel like this is grounds for a government to start to lean into eugenics ala The Forever War, or Gataca or just genetic prejudices.
@keylanoslokj1806
10 ай бұрын
They are and they will so even more intensely. They call it transhumanism
@nc1208
9 ай бұрын
What a great discussion with lots of food for thought, thanks!
@donistotle957
11 ай бұрын
Crazy, I've been down the Sapolsky rabbit hole for a few weeks now. What a collab!
@thomasbarchen
11 ай бұрын
Same same
@GimbloBlimfby
11 ай бұрын
Determinism v. free will seems like such an anachronistic debate and one beyond the means of empirical science to answer. One could speculate whether free will is an illusion, an emergent phenomenon or a divine gift, but what epistemological basis could that speculation have, given the irreducible complexity of the development of a human consciousness and it's interactions with the material world. Beneath your turtles, all I see is known unknowns on top of unknowable unknowns.
@gking407
10 ай бұрын
Yeah there is a lot of data to back his claims but people won’t understand because of their bias and stubborn ego. therefore discussions like this become a matter of faith for most of the audience, unfortunately.
@GimbloBlimfby
10 ай бұрын
@@gking407 That was my point. Anyone attempting to use science to decide a determinism/free will debate will eventually run into the reductio ad absurdum of what lies beneath the science, which is why we have an absurd turtle metaphor for it. Those who believe in either free will or determinism can likely only do so on mystical or speculative grounds.
@gking407
10 ай бұрын
@@GimbloBlimfby there’s nothing mystical or unknowable about determinism. It’s pretty clear that for every being on the planet there have been, and continue to be, a myriad of influences working on them at all times. To think that freewill is actually free of anything seems the more mystical belief to me.
@GimbloBlimfby
10 ай бұрын
@@gking407 They are both non-empirical so your belief in determinism is equivalent to a mystical belief in free will. Given the standard of proof, none of us can truly know.
@gking407
10 ай бұрын
@@GimbloBlimfby if you pay closer attention it’s easy to see several reasons why your life is the way it is. And there are reasons for those reasons. And so on.. Direct sight is not a mystery.
@BurnigLegionsBlade
11 ай бұрын
This is the most unexpected collaboration I’ve seen in a good time. Always wanted to hear Sapolski to talk to a philosopher I admire instead of fucking Daniel Dennett
@yongjiang443
10 ай бұрын
This is a great interview, I came to view this video determined by my body and this particular environment surrounding me.
@JuliaMRichter
10 ай бұрын
When somebody, who does not belief in free will, talks about what he intends to do, it gives me the chills.
@ZiplineShazam
10 ай бұрын
Good Point
@bjorsam6979
10 ай бұрын
That might be because you make no distinction between truly free will and simply having a will. Sapolsky's not denying we have a will and thus intentions.
@JuliaMRichter
10 ай бұрын
@@bjorsam6979 Yes, maybe.I just find it hard to take a concept seriously, that does not change your behaviour and language at all. Wait ... I might take it seriously, but I guess I am not interested.
@keylanoslokj1806
10 ай бұрын
@@bjorsam6979absolute free will can only belong to an eternal, omnipotent, self sufficient God. We can never be absolutely free and that's not why we were made either
@bjorsam6979
10 ай бұрын
@@keylanoslokj1806 That might because you make no distinction between being free and having a free will.
@christopherchilton-smith6482
7 ай бұрын
I have never been more happy to have subscribed to you than right now, this is amazing, thank you.
@mihai3529
11 ай бұрын
there is never a need to cite Peterson unless is to make fun of him
@mistressfreezepeach
11 ай бұрын
that would make you a science denialist even worse than Flat Earthers and Creationists. Since there is great overlap it would mean you're discrediting people like Sapolsky as well.
@tomisaacson2762
11 ай бұрын
@@mistressfreezepeach Strange accusation to make given that Jordan Peterson is a climate science denier.
@keylanoslokj1806
10 ай бұрын
@@tomisaacson2762based Peterson
@i2keepitrealInreseach
9 ай бұрын
@@mistressfreezepeach peterson isn't a scientist ..
@mistressfreezepeach
9 ай бұрын
@@i2keepitrealInreseach ok, troll, muting you now
@cinikcynic3087
11 ай бұрын
Wonderful! Thank you very much for this.
@alynames7171
11 ай бұрын
17:32 Am I the only one a little confused by prof Sapolsky's answer to what we do with dangerous "criminals" without a criminal justice system or notion of free will? It sounds to me like he said we've been doing it and can just keep doing it, but what is that? Isn't that just the awful "justice" system we have now? Would we just start calling it "treatment" intsead or something?
@madekekgra
11 ай бұрын
What do you mean with "the awful justice system we have now"? Who is "we"?
@alynames7171
11 ай бұрын
@@madekekgrain this context pretty much every country on Earth. I really didn't expect THAT to be the controversial point, since I'm pretty sure Sapolsky implied determinism would mean it should be abolished anyway.
@DQABlack
11 ай бұрын
@@alynames7171 I think that the systems in somewhere like I've been hearing about in Norway would be a good model to replicate. The criminal justice system should be focused exclusively on reducing the amount of harm done to society - in other words, any response should be focused exclusively on rehabilitation. If an individual can be rehabilitated than it should be the goal to do so, and if they can't be rehabilitated then so be it, just keep them locked away to prevent damage to society.
@madekekgra
11 ай бұрын
@@DQABlack I agree with you. The system should not only be punitive, but protective of the general public. The penal system in North European countries focus on rehabilitation, but they neglect many times society. Child rapists that strike again after their release in Germany, for example. Mass murderers like Anders Behring Breivik that only get 30 years of "rehabilitation" for murdering 77 people, 69 of which he killed in cold blood. Is he going to be released after 21 years on parole?
@alynames7171
11 ай бұрын
@@DQABlack I guess my issue with that is who decides what the standards are? When we have a political and legal system ostensibly based on democratic decisions made with free will, that's always subject to debate and change. But eliminating those concepts, it would seem like what counts as someone in need of "rehabilitation" and who ought to be "locked away" from society will need to come from an objective, scientific determination. That seems to be building towards a permanent, unalterable legal framework based on the ostensibly objective (in retrospect) standards of whoever had sufficient political power to establish it in the first place. I think the Nordic justice systems generally do a much better job than the present American justice system, for example, but trying to turn it into an objective standard seems frought with danger to me. Like to give a concrete if simplistic hypothetical, who under this line of thinking ought to be rehabilitated or locked away: a person who steals food they can't afford, or a store owner choosing to set prices beyond what many can afford? Whatever your answer, do you feel comfortable declaring it scientifically objective?
@MealsBeast
10 ай бұрын
ultimate objectivity says time is happening all at once at the same time. Our experience of time is another thing (its relative) so therfore we could call it an illusion of free will, at the same time, its good to remember that we dont understand everything and there are some things we will never know, everything is just our best guess, non the less I love these converstations that make me think these things. thank you!
@ArnoWalter
11 ай бұрын
I think this whole discussion lack a definition of free will. One spectrum start with an impossible preposition, that your thoughts and decision have no connection to the world, the other end ends with an impossible proposition, that if we knew the state of all neurons in the brain, we could predetermine all decisions.
@dumbledorelives93
11 ай бұрын
If you listened to the discussion, you'd realize that they mentioned multiple times that the context of the decisions is important. Social/cultural and environmental factors modulate how any given brain will react, given the same neuronal states. But yes, in theory if we knew all the relevant factors, we could predict what the brain does next. What is so impossible about that? Logically I mean, I know we don't have the technology or knowledge to do that just yet
@TheJayman213
11 ай бұрын
Please elaborate on how that second proposition is impossible. After that address the point made in the video that determinacy does not equal predictability.
@ArnoWalter
11 ай бұрын
@@TheJayman213Because it's practically impossible and theoretically too (quantum stuff). It's an "if" proposition and for my taste way too deistic.
@TheJayman213
11 ай бұрын
@@ArnoWalter1. Its practical impossibility is qualified in the statement itself. 2. Determination does not equal predictability. The outcome of a quantum event is not predictable and may not even be determined in the strictest sense but it is determined in the sense that there is no room for Free Will. Any indeterminacy in the event must be fully random which precludes common notions of Free Will as the basis for "personal responsibility". 3. That "if" proposition is your circumscription of the claim that human behavior is fully determined. You are free to engage with the claim itself.
@quitmarck
11 ай бұрын
this is the crossover i never knew i wanted
@rossawilson01
11 ай бұрын
But is it going to be hard to do if it's just determined anyway? Oh and absolutely epic interview, this is by far and away one of the best channels on KZitem for modern, post-modern, I don't know, thought about current sociological issues in the context of current scientific and biological knowledge.
@nts4906
11 ай бұрын
Whether something is hard or difficult is determined by the forces involved
@trombone7
10 ай бұрын
It's 'hard' to get up at 5am everyday and run in the rain. But the perfectionistic athlete is compelled to do it. He has no choice. It would be harder for him not to. Whether or not the world snapping over to accepting determinism is "easy or hard" doesn't enter into it.
@jusuzippol
11 ай бұрын
On the topic of emergent complexity and emergent cognition, emergent intelligence and the emergence of self, I can further recommend professor Michael Levin, who has some interviews with various channels on youtube. I think you would love them, mr. Möller!
@rodrigoalcocerdegaray6070
11 ай бұрын
"avengers endgame is the most ambitious crossover event ever". Sapolsky and Moeller: "Hold my beer, (and books)"
@brujua7
11 ай бұрын
Great conversation, thanks for bringing grammar and language to the discussion
@krischanlive
11 ай бұрын
I would have loved a deeper dive into that
@AtrozGrima
11 ай бұрын
Thus must be recorded amidst the ¡Best phylosophical crossovers ever!
@jmiller1918
10 ай бұрын
I've always been agnostic about free will...I've never believed it can be practically proven. In fact, I'd say the burden of proof is on the free will proponent as long as we see order and causality in the world around us. Order and causality probably suggest the process we're locked into is deterministic. When most people sit around discussing the topic, the advocate for "free will" will reach over and take hold of a pencil or book and say "see, I just freely chose to do that". But how do you know you weren't doing it as a result of the concatenation of previous experiences? The only possible way to "prove" free will would be with a time machine. Even then, it could be argued that going back and repeating the moment in a certain way, based on defying what you did last time, was once again fully determined. Great discussion in this video by the way.
@pahvi3
10 ай бұрын
I've always thought that free will belongs in the domain of human experiences/concepts that can be immediately intuitively understood or experienced, but upon further inspection turn out to be philosophically nonsensical or linguistically self-referential concepts. Normative/moral claims and the idea of consciousness belong in this same category. I think the ideas of consciousness, free will and morality are linguistic concepts that arise from necessity in human experience, because it makes it possible to talk about certain issues. The ideas of consciousness and free will enable ethics/morality (morality necessitates consciousness and free will). I think however that the biological descriptions of how medical science can prove that free will doesn't exist or that some kind of neurological experiment can supposedly locate when and where a "decision" is born is futile. Probes like that cannot be made without similarly self-referential claims or a premise of mind-matter dualism. In fact, medical science is full of language that accidentally makes these dualistic claims or otherwise self-referential claims.
@MK-ih6wp
10 ай бұрын
All roads lead to transhumanism
@RachelESmith-dj3dq
9 ай бұрын
Damn I was listening audio only and thought he was saying “grandma” that whole time he was saying “you won’t get rid of free will til you get rid of grammar.” Lmao. Am I the only one? Probably.
@simenstroek7599
11 ай бұрын
Love Robert Sapolsky. What a treat to see him here.
@tombourque8834
10 ай бұрын
One aspect of having no free will is that we have no choice but to behave as if we do have free will.
@undercoveragent9889
8 ай бұрын
How then would one distinguish the former from the latter? I could precisely the same thing about 'consciousness': there is no consciousness but we behave as if there is. Sapolsky is a Marxist like Sam Harris and _both_ exhibit contempt for humanity.
@TPratchett
11 ай бұрын
What a pleasant surprise to see Sapolsky on your show. I just recently subscribed to Carefree Wandering on a whim and to see my longtime favorite biologist here confirms that decision! lol. Thank you both!
@loshmir
11 ай бұрын
I share the excitement of seeing the dialogue between Robert Sapolsky and Hans-Georg Moeller. But that's not just about my personal excitement! I would say that this dialogue is the 21st century version of the debate between Chomsky and Foucault. Sapolsky and Moeller are not pop-stars in this moment as Chomsky and Foucault were at the moment of their debate, but this dialogue is of comparable importance -- and I would say it's more important -- because Sapolsky and Moeller represent the peak of the achievements of analytical and continental thoughts specifically in the areas in which each of the thoughts are the strongest: analytical thought in natural sciences, continental thought in humanities. Debate between Chomsky and Foucault was not an equal one because Chomsky was not an equal partner, no matter his importance for computer science and political thought. Chomsky is not even as significant for the thought of language as we used to think. Generative grammar is the peak of structuralism and it's significant as such. However, it's neither a categorical move in relation to structuralism nor it's been proven that it works: computers haven't come to the language description which allows generating sensible answers (LLMs, like ChatGPT is) thanks to Chomsky's theory, but the exact opposite, thanks to the stochastic models which roots are in the mathematical simulation of the networks of neurons in the human brain. If Chomsky didn't reject poststructuralists easily, in a typical analytical fashion, he would probably come to the conclusion what are the problems with the peak of reductionism in the form of structuralism. On the other hand, Sapolsky has independently come -- from an analytical perspective -- to the same conclusion as Derrida from the continental perspective: the world is complex and the reductionist approach doesn't allow us to describe such a phenomenon. That's the reason why this dialogue is completely different from the dialogue between Chomsky and Foucault. Analytical and continental thoughts have come convergently to the same conclusion exactly with Sapolsky and Moeller. I would also say that this should be just the first of the dialogues between Sapolsky and Moeller. The question of free will is relevant exclusively because of how our legal systems work and they are just a part of our human world. There are a lot of other fields of knowledge which need to be discussed from these two perspectives. And not only that! Keep in mind that Moeller's intellectual background is not just in (European) continental philosophy, but also in Chinese philosophy! We definitely need this Dao of dialogue to last much longer 😎
@landrist1
10 ай бұрын
There's no need to 'hope for the best," because everything is determined.
@Fnolepenoll
10 ай бұрын
You hoping for the best is also determined😅
@Caleb983
11 ай бұрын
This is such an underrated channel. I was just reading about this man and his book. Great interview!
@somebodyontheinternet1090
10 ай бұрын
Robert's video lectures helped filled a void where I had no knowledge
@kennethsilver5978
11 ай бұрын
Not excited to see someone trained outside of philosophy write a popular book to tell us how to feel about a topic for which there's an extremely nuanced literature. It screams epistemic trespassing and feels like Sam Harris's ridiculous free will book all over again. Sapolsky seems to engage with some relevant authors, so I should give it a look to see. And it's also not necessarily true that other academics would be the main audience. But he does claim to make the case decisively against compatibilists, and I just don't even think that's the kind of thing that a scientist could even pretend to do. So he has decisive objections (as a scientist) to mesh theories of freedom, or reasons responsive theories, or counterfactual theories of ability? I doubt it. (Is science going to tell us that our actions cannot align with our values, or that they are not issued via a mechanism that is moderately reasons responsive? Is it supposed to show that abilities cannot be understood counterfactually? How could it?) A better faith interpretation is that he's providing a kind of service in moving the public to recognize all of these factors that surprisingly influence our behavior, and appropriately concerned with what that might mean for our social practices. But there are non-fringe books in this literature that not only defend hard determinism but substantively consider how the recognition of this should influence our practices.
@cameronmclennan942
11 ай бұрын
"Epistemic trespassing"...geez you sound like fun at dinner parties. I highly recommend starting off with his book "Behave: The Biology Of Humans At Our Best And Worst" if you want to actually approach it with good faith and to get a handle on the biology, genetics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, anthropology in order to engage with an updated understanding of human nature. Considering all that nuanced literature you refer to was written with an extremely limited view as to the incredible variety and strangeness of our human nature, I'd hope that every philosopher today would be chomping at the bit to understand the science of the day (like all the great philosophers did).
@kennethsilver5978
11 ай бұрын
I didn't invent the term (philpapers.org/rec/BALET-2). I hate that it's hard to give this comment without coming across obnoxiously annoyed or antagonistic towards science. Philosophers working in these areas are often up on the science in the area, some even with dual degrees. I think that's what's annoying to me about it, because there's scads of work already directly engaging with how neuroscience intersects with the question of free will - for instance, the whole literature responding to the Libet experiments. And yet, every five years, a scientist says, "Hey, why isn't anyone talking about free will and how the science shows we don't have it?!" Thanks for the rec though, and I'm open to checking out "Behave". Since biology seems a lot more relevant to behavioral psychology or moral psychology, I'm open to it.
@tomisaacson2762
11 ай бұрын
I felt the same way. Was hesitant to click on this video and it was _exactly_ what I expected. The tide of STEMlords cannot be held back so I suspect the appetite for this kind of stuff will just grow. I just remind myself that everytime we have yet another hard determinist scientist declaring "free will doesn't exist!" they're pretty much always talking about libertarian free will (eg magical interruptions in causation or self-causation) even when they think they're talking about compatibilist conceptions of free will. "Free will" can only mean libertarian free will in their minds because they think that's how everyone else thinks of it (and who knows, maybe these days they're right to think their audience thinks that way). And if they're genuinely self-reflective scientists you find that as they develop their thought they pretty much end up becoming compatibilists in all but name, which I guess is better than the magical thinking of libertarian free will. The thing that often goes without saying in popular discussions is that "everybody obviously just means libertarian free will when they say 'free will' and anybody who says otherwise is disingenuously changing definitions."
@tomisaacson2762
11 ай бұрын
@@cameronmclennan942 Judging by your comment, I think the term is justified. A person that says "maybe you just need to get more up to date on the science," regarding a debate on free will demonstrates a lack of understanding on where the substance of the debate lies. Probably because they're taking a very particular definition about what the concept means for granted. Tell me, how do you conduct a scientific experiment to determine what a concept like "free will" ought to mean?
@kennethsilver5978
11 ай бұрын
@@tomisaacson2762 100% agree. It'd be one thing if he used x-phi results to motivate this thought that most people really think of free will as libertarian free will, and then developed novel challenges to extant libertarian views or showed how science was relevant to rejecting them. I would eat my shirt if he actually does these things. But it seems unfathomable that he took seriously an agent causalist picture, or Robert Kane's view, or one of the other libertarian views. And, like you said, that he goes out of his way to say that he's responding to compatiblists in particular when it seems like his target is the libertarian is just such a basic mistake that it feels bad attributing it to him without reading the book.
@pitdog75
11 ай бұрын
Now, that's quality. Cheers.
@freeyanlove
11 ай бұрын
for someone with PTSD this is absolutely impoverishing. you don't even know how hard I have been working during all these months to get out of the habits that are destroying me. how much I had to overcome, how many days I spent with myself, talking and caring. maybe someone else is telling me it was a hallucination? Without my effort, I would just lie there.
@schoolbonddogs
11 ай бұрын
I'm a determinist but for a different reason than what's outlined here and my view of this question leaves room for what we call "free choice." Basically I think all of time has already unfolded, but because of our limitations as human beings, we experience time as the present (moment by moment) and the future for us appears to be un-determined. So the choices we make in the moment appear to determine our futures when in reality what we decided throughout our lives has already happened-time has already unfolded-we just don't know it yet. The trouble for defenders of the concept of "free will" is that neither scientists nor philosophers have been able to come to an agreement about what "free will" means and how to test whether it exists or not through experiments. By contrast, the scientific evidence for determinism (whether loose or strict) is pretty strong and compelling, but I would say it doesn't completely rule out the possibility of what we commonly call "free will" just quite yet either. Having a settled scientific definition of it would help us get closer to the truth on this question.
@johnfish5994
11 ай бұрын
I don't think that an intellectual awareness of determinism necessarily needs to undermine our ability to struggle against self destruction. No matter how hard we try, it's impossible to experience an existence absent of choice. You can ask "how should I behave, now that I know that my choices are not real?" but that is of course a ridiculous question. Determinism says that your choice to make an effort to relieve your suffering is an illusion, but so is your suffering itself! So if your suffering is real to you (which I'm sure it is), then your efforts to better yourself are just as real.
@tcrijwanachoudhury
11 ай бұрын
The absence of free will doesnt mean your efforts to make better choices are meaningless What it means is that you'll never really have complete understanding of how you really got to this point, what made you believe what you believe and why you feel the way you do. But you can still make a difference, like you made the decision to write this comment, its the ownership of that choice that is thrown into question. But _you_ still wrote it and posted it, it didn't just vanish into the abyss or appear as gibberish. Your actions had an effect- just like how you you have been trying with incredible braveness to find peace, whether it has been by challenging your cognitive disortions or vour daily routine, I bet your life has been changing a lot. Does it matter what or who made you make this choice to change it? Do you eat your favourite dessert and do you ask yourself why you like it and if you did do you think the answer to it would make it any less delicious? Id hazard to guess not. The changes you have made to your life are the result of your actions, who or what led you to this moment doesnt change how courageous and _willful_ your actions are. Sending love ❤
@freeyanlove
11 ай бұрын
Thank you, guys, so much. I feel much more safe🤍 x
@8114梦见
11 ай бұрын
Determinism doesn’t mean that the hard work you are doing is inconsequential. It only means that your current *ability* to realize the harmful capability of those habits, and to work towards limiting them, has been determined from a long line of factors, just the same as your PTSD came from a long line of factors. A way to not feel so hopeless may be to understand that the hard work you are doing, and the fact you have been able to make progress, is because you possess a determined quality to make this difference in your life right now. Some others may not even have the ability to recognize the habits and pull themselves out, but that is not their fault. Keep strong friend!
@bjorsam6979
10 ай бұрын
I think most people simply confuse having a will with true Free will. If one says "It's all determined and/or coincidence really" most people actually hear "You're nothing, you have no will, better give up and by the way murderers aren't responsible for their actions". We still have a will, we are still unable to predict our future and we can still shape behaviours by managing consequenses.
@shlockofgod
11 ай бұрын
Robert's wrong. Free will is not necessarily an un-caused cause and free will proponents rarely ever posit that (Show me ONE that does). The free will concept is not dependent on this in any way. Free will is a type of cause the is different from deterministic causes. Unlike all other known configurations of matter and energy, humans can project possible futures and have the ability to compare proposed actions to ideal standards. This is free will. We are certainly subject to countless past events but we also have free will. A trillion, trillion, trillion, previous deterministic causes may make us smoke that next cigarette but it is free will that gives the choice not to. It's why we can hold _only_ humans morally responsible. Robert begs the question by assuming that all causes are determined and that therefore free will (which requires some degree of non-determinism) cannot be a type of causation. If you start with that assumption then you've assumed no free will in the premises of the argument that concludes there's no free will. So free will does not require some cause floating somewhere, as he puts it. But determinism _does_ require turtles all the way down. This is an infinite regress that is not logically possible. I was amazed to see that he just completely dodged this logical problem by saying "who wants to go near that?" when big bang was brought up. The very fact that time once did not exist proves determinism (as he defines it) is false. There must be other types of causation that can exist. And if there are then he cannot claim that only deterministic causation exists. For determinism to be true then only deterministic causes can exist. So we can know that determinism is not true. Free will on the other hand only needs to assume there is a unique type of causation (choice) that has emerged in sentient, intelligent beings.
@hazardousjazzgasm129
11 ай бұрын
Can you elaborate more on why determinism requires turtles all the way down? I think I agree with you overall, but you lost me there.
@shlockofgod
11 ай бұрын
@@hazardousjazzgasm129 If determinism is true then every physical state has a previous determined cause. So, given that determinism is a temporal concept, there must at some point have been a first cause that was not determined (to avoid infinite regression). Robert brings this up himself; but instead of rebutting it he makes the claim that free will (which he characterizes as an un-caused cause) is even _more_ hard to believe. But even is this were valid, the turtles all the way down / infinite regression problem would still make determinism impossible.
@cameronmclennan942
11 ай бұрын
@@shlockofgod No one claiming determinism is claiming that there must have been a cause to the big bang. This is a complete strawman. No one can possibly know because, as you said, it was from before time and therefore intrinsically unknowable. The events happening here and now, such as our decisions, are nothing like the big bang in this respect and are, in theory, knowable. It's up to people who claim free will exists to identify how and where free will enters the physical world, if you want to claim that it is physical that is. No one can do that. If you don't want to claim that it's physical, then no worries, end of conversation, we're not talking about the same thing. If you want to claim that free will, like the unknowable cause of the big bang, is just made of completely different stuff that we can't detect it, then you're claiming there's something metaphysical, in other words, spiritual. You're religious.
@shlockofgod
11 ай бұрын
@@cameronmclennan942 I didn't say determinists claim there must have been a cause to the big bang. Your claim of a a straw-man is a straw-man. If I'm wrong then please quote the part where I said that.
@cameronmclennan942
11 ай бұрын
@@shlockofgod you said "But determinism does require turtles all the way down. This is an infinite regress that is not logically possible." This along with your claim that he was dodging the big bang question implies that the 'turtles all the way down' requires belief in a deterministic cause for the big bang. This is nonsense. We do not know whether there was or wasn't a cause for the big bang. Therefore, you claiming that "There must be other types of causation that can exist" is also nonsense. We do not and can not know one way or the other. Free will needs to assume there was some non deterministic 'cause' for the big bang AND that those type of 'causes' exist in our brains. Prove it!
@greatedges
10 ай бұрын
Thank you for this enriching discussion.
@willimeier8903
11 ай бұрын
Fascinating interview, thank you so much. I wonder how this view on determinacy is (in)compatible with the concept of moral responsibility, or how one might account for determinacy when setting out an ethics framework.
@mistressfreezepeach
11 ай бұрын
"According to Sapolsky, we should not hold individuals accountable for their actions because they are not in control of them. However, he also acknowledges that we live in a society that requires moral responsibility and accountability. Therefore, he suggests that we should still hold individuals accountable for their actions, but we should do so in a way that is more humane and less punitive. This means that we should focus on rehabilitation and prevention rather than punishment. In other words, we should still hold individuals responsible for their actions, but we should do so in a way that is more compassionate and understanding of the factors that led to their behavior." An example would be the few successful programs for juvenile delinquents with dissocial personality disorder: they don't learn by punishment, and that's neurological, so you have to give them a game of incentives for good behavior.
@alynames7171
11 ай бұрын
@@mistressfreezepeachdoes that not sound the teensiest bit dystopian to you? It seems to at least open the door to some unsettling possibilities.
@shlockofgod
11 ай бұрын
@@mistressfreezepeach So he thinks we should not hold individuals accountable for their actions but he suggests that we should still hold individuals accountable for their actions?
@ArawnOfAnnwn
11 ай бұрын
@@shlockofgod He thinks that those actions were determined by various factors influencing them, and hence we should endeavour to countervail that by rehabilitating them. Rather than hating them for it, we ought to try healing them. They are, in a sense, held accountable for their actions as in they did those actions, but it's not truly their fault that they did them. So we respond to fix, not punish, them.
@alynames7171
11 ай бұрын
@@ArawnOfAnnwnwhat's the difference between fixing and punishing someone? And who decides? Under what circumstances is doing so allowed?
@glomerol8300
3 ай бұрын
I wrote this elsewhere (with edits): To the compatibilists/determinists: It's a probabilistic universe if it's infinite. (It's not just classical mechanics.) You are trying to apply determinism/finiteness to a probabilistic/infinite universe. The problem with causality is that infinity (and quantum instantaneousness) breaks it, fundamentally, because you cannot go far back enough to determine all the initial conditions (that lead to you/your behavior) because there are none with infinity! Infinity breaks determinism. To add: The Uncertainty Principle suggests that you cannot say for certain that we have no free will. To add for this video's context: Sure, you have no control in some senses, like classical mechanics (upbringing, gravity, etc.), but not necessarily from a fundamental/quantum sense. The universe goes beyond classical mechanics. Think also of 'spooky action at a distance.' This doesn't appear causal, but, rather, instantaneous. If the universe created you, then so did infinity if the universe is infinite.
@cairn369
11 ай бұрын
There is no “I”, all is just happening, as per zen, per Alan Watts.
@hian
11 ай бұрын
Nice reference.
@jezah8142
11 ай бұрын
Love this !
@christiansmith-of7dt
7 ай бұрын
I'm glad that you guys are there for other people that aren't me
@litcrit1624
11 ай бұрын
So many "just so" stories here. Do you have Flavor Y of Gene X? Well that will make you act aggressively. But wait, only if you also have experience Z (or Z' + Z" + etc.). And is that certain? Well, no because some people with all the conditions become nonviolent great chess players. But wait, these play chess really *aggressively.*
@charowarhussain3012
4 ай бұрын
I think it would be good to distinguish free will in short run and free will in long run. In short run it seems to make sense that we don't have much choice. For eg me becoming a philosopher tomorrow. Obviously it is impossible. But let's say I want to become a philosopher 20 yrs from now , I do have some control to direct myself towards that goal. I don't know. But It is a wonderful interview. I thank the host for making it available.
@nibas4920
10 күн бұрын
Of course you can make choices, today, tomorrow, you can set yourself on a track to become what you want. But you don’t make these choices freely and you can’t control what you want.
@CapnSnackbeard
11 ай бұрын
Outside the context of God, "free will" has no meaning. "Free" from what? "Causality?" Pssshhh, who is that? I have never even met them. The question itself implies something to be free from, and "free" to do what? Live? Die? I assure you, there is nothing to fear on that count, because you are, and you will. Who is physical me if not me? Who is the non-physical phenomenon "me" inside me if not also me? And if I am merely an extension of prior phenomenon, then *I* never began in the first place, so then how is it that *I* am a thing that exists independently to be freed from any other thing? Free will is a nonsense question.
@gking407
10 ай бұрын
I suspect many if not all of us are at risk for certain types of delusional thinking, that still allow the person to function in society despite having some crazy beliefs. I guess that’s a good thing?
@CapnSnackbeard
10 ай бұрын
@@gking407 this is a good comment. I think that says something about society, that our thinking has so many hidden traps. And even the people who uncover them fall into different ones. I like and deeply respect Prof Moeller, who has taught me lot. I just think maybe we hit the end of where his worldview is useful when we hit the end of him. He is an academic, and few academics can fathom that they have nothing to do with fixing things, because they started out with the hope of understanding and the desire to improve the human condition. But that actually it is the effort at the "institutionalization of knowledge" itself that has stunted our growth so horribly is difficult to face. That believe is mutually exclusive with participation in those institutions. Still trying to work through all my own delusional thinking, so it's hard to get too worked up about it.
@moonman5543
10 ай бұрын
The fact that we have religion, politics, and legal systems and other social systems is evidence in we have need of conditioning of our will and nit free will.
@ReflectiveJourney
11 ай бұрын
I am more confused on saplosky's position now. If you take the notion of self organisation and autopoesis seriously then you have to take reciprocal causality in hegalian sense. the self organising system can shape the constraints over time ( which is also a form of deliberation) then you are making a "choice" which seems to ground out agency so we have free will. It might be compatiblistic position but saplosky explicitly argues against compatiblism. I think there is an interpretation of causes and constraints so i am not a reductionist. Sapkosky's position is definitely not a reduction to mechanism if he takes "self" organisation to be real.
@alynames7171
11 ай бұрын
I felt like Moeller was pushing in the direction of this point a few times in the interview but they never really dove into it.
@tomisaacson2762
11 ай бұрын
Sapolsky thinks he argues against compatibilism, but the arguments he makes only ever touch a contra-causal, or libertarian, conception of free will. He's basically doing a Sam Harris: boldly deny the existence of free will thinking you're making a novel philosophical argument because you think everybody else was thinking freedom is contra-causal and deride compatibilist conceptions of free will as "changing definitions" as if you were always in possession of the one truly substantive definition. If he ever elaborates further on how the concept relates to the appearance of choice and volition, subjectivity, desire, responsibility, moral desert, etc. the more he becomes indistinguishable from a compatibilist. I'm getting bored of the "[Thing everybody talks about] doesn't exist" format. Seems to me like it'd be a lot more interesting to develop an argument like: "[Thing everybody talks about] isn't what we thought it was." But I suppose that'd make for a much less popular book.
@noah5291
11 ай бұрын
@@tomisaacson2762 I don't get that at all from other vids (that he takes a compatible line). Please add timestamps. Also, present your comparable argument.
@berkcimen1736
11 ай бұрын
GOD BLESS SAPOLSKY GOD BLESS MÖLLER thank you, thank you for this surprise
Пікірлер: 1 М.