The good doctor is depressing me. Propagate a very dangerous victim mentality. Obviously most of the time we don’t have a free will of what happens to us, but certainly have a free will how we react to the circumstance. “Man’s Search For Meaning “ book is my most favorite uplifting the spirit book, by recognizing our free will to make a right choice how to properly deal with what happens to us. How to live a good life by choosing to make a best of our circumstances is what life is all about. Hurray for free will!
@FromtheJohn-d4i Says:
Tom Bilyeu, if you do not have free will, it does not matter whether you understand your biology or not, because you do not have the free will to decide whether you are going to derail or not.
Seriously, be logical about this.
One problem you have is defining free will as something it is not.
Free will coexists with coerced will, they go together to equal will.
Will is the act of an intelligent system within our stochastic-deterministic reality, making intelligent decisions based upon probability fields that are partially known and being partially predicted by the intelligent system. Because of the deterministic side of our reality, the more we can limit the non-deterministic elements of a system, the more purely deterministic we can make it, but that only works up to a point, because from quantum scales upwards, there are non-deterministic causal forces introducing uncertainty into the system.
An intelligent system is ALWAYS influenced from outside of itself and influenced by itself. Thus, every decision made by an intelligent system has a balance of "external vs internal" influence upon that decision.
Free will is a subjective and relative judgment that higher social intelligences, like many if not all animals with neurological brains, instinctively make to decide if a decision made was "WITHOUT" an unreasonable degree of influence from outside that intelligence.
Coerced will is a subjective and relative judgment to decide if a decision made was "WITH" an unreasonable degree of influence from outside that intelligence.
This allows intelligent social animals to decide the intent of other intelligent animals.
Now, all living intelligence is swarm intelligence, including human intelligence.
The self-aware mind is a subset of the whole mind, with fuzzy boundaries because it is all swarm intelligence, though we are biologically programmed for our self-aware minds to think they are individuals rather than a swarm intelligence. Because of this, we sometimes refer to the free or coerced will of the whole swarm mind, and at other times to the free or coerced will of the self-aware mind, but we often fail to differentiate between the two, which can lead to confusion.
The self-aware mind is influenced by and, in turn, influences the subconscious mind. That means every decision the whole mind makes is a balance of influence between these two sub-minds, where either may have more influence over the decision. Similarly, the whole swarm mind of a person is influenced from outside itself, and it influences others outside itself.
This is what gives your self-aware mind the ability to intelligently decide to improve your whole self, yet even deciding that, you may or may not succeed because your subconscious mind might disagree, and then the question becomes which ends up winning the decision. But this allows for rehabilitation to work, allows for improving ourselves to work, etc.
@FromtheJohn-d4i Says:
Robert Sapolsky and Tom Bilyeu are arguing in a way that is to have their cake uneaten and eat it at the same time. They believe they do not have free will and that by not having free will this allows them to decide to choose to be better, except for them to choose to be better requires the free will they say they do not have.
If Tom really had no free will then if he stayed in bed 24 hours a day, he could not decide to do otherwise, because he would not have the free will to decide to do otherwise. Point being, when you have no free will you have no choices and whatever you do is whatever you do, period, because you have no choice in the matter. That makes the worst of choices just as likely as the best of choices, further, it makes them equally moral, because morality does not exist without free will.
When Robert says that with no free will society will become nicer and better, this change requires a free willed decision to become nicer and better. Without free will, society can become meaner and worse, and multiple psychological studies show this is example what would happen if you begin causing large numbers of people to believe there is no free will. On average, when a large number of people believe there is no free will, the probability of them choosing what we consider to be bad ways of behaving increases. Look at a sampling of such studies:
(A) Free will beliefs predict attitudes toward unethical behavior and criminal punishment
(B) The freedom to excel: Belief in free will predicts better academic performance
(C) Prosocial Benefits of Feeling Free: Disbelief in Free Will Increases Aggression and Reduces Helpfulness
(D) The Influence of (Dis)belief in Free Will on Immoral Behavior
(E) Inducing Disbelief in Free Will Alters Brain Correlates of Preconscious Motor Preparation: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
@FromtheJohn-d4i Says:
Claim: "No Freewill". This is a false claim.
Claim: "No Purpose". This is a false claim.
Claim: "No God". Well, that depends upon how you define God.
@kdrc Says:
Sapolsky agrees with the simulation?
@SantiRestifo Says:
Parece un error intentar reducir cierta realidad macro fenomenológica o experiencia en primera persona a hechos físicos. Observamos que los sistemas no son reductibles en el sentido de poder explicar todo desde las causas. Aparecen nuevas propiedades, nuevos elementos y nuevas formas. Así como la física cuántica es radicalmente diferente a la física clásica o macro, la física es muy diferente a lo fenomenológico, confundirlos es un error, porque la física es radicalmente diferente, nunca vas a interpretar Hamlet observando la física de los actores, del escenario y de los vestuarios y equipos tecnológicos. Parece mas razonable pensar que la realidad es estratificada ontologicamente. Del determinismo no se sigue la conclusión de que no tenemos agencia gestora conciente en una región de variables determinantes, y los que intentan eliminar esto caen en un vacio explicativo. No defino "libre albedrío" como un fenómeno contrafactico como lo hace Sapolsky.
@creativecornergracelight Says:
I used to like this podcast a lot because it presented talks like this one. Now not so much 😖. Anyways great episode! 🤍
@SantiRestifo Says:
Hola! Es un gusto poder construir el conocimiento de forma colectiva. A mi forma de ver, Sapolsky puede estar cometiendo cherry picking, es decir seleccionar únicamente los conceptos, datos o argumentos que favorecen su teoría, ignorando los que la debilitan. Cae en circularidades sin explicar el salto desde causas culturales, biológicas y demás a conclusiones como la inexistencia de responsabilidad, merecimiento y control. Cuando observamos sus conceptos de responsabilidad, merecimiento y control cae nuevamente en causalidad para decir que son ilusorios, cuando sabemos que no estamos obligados a seguir algunas de sus premisas. Para que se sostenga su sistema filosófico necesita del libertarismo y cuestiones que van en contra de la física actual como poder volver al tiempo pero a la vez con las mismas condiciones en el momento pasado donde vuelve, un absurdo. Creo que si seguimos sus conceptos su sistema lógico parece bastante solido, pero toda la realidad no depende de nuestra razón, estamos interpretando. Lo cual hay conceptos más sofisticados de libre albedrío, responsabilidad como agencia operativa y conciente, o como las definiciones que podemos encontrar en el materialismo determinista compatibilista. No olvidemos que podemos crear un sistema filosófico solido, pero a la vez una mala interpretación de la realidad. Robert piensa como sistema formal cerrado, es influenciado por la metodología de la ciencia en su campo, pero debe visitar otras costas. Puedo estar de acuerdo con que tenga que haber causalidad para las acciones humanas, pero de alli a saltar a querer reformar el sistema judicial y tomar decisiones por su lógica es un salto grande, allí tiene problemas muy serios Sapolsky. Sigue teniendo mucho sentido el control y la responsabilidad en un sistema causal que otorga a una especie capacidades y herramientas para poder contemplar neutralmente todo, innovar, crear, analizar, modificar, eliminar, contemplar sin juicio e incluso cambiar muchas veces la personalidad y las formas de ver (lo digo por experiencia propia), reducirnos a la biología es alejarnos de la región determinante y donde ocurre el fenómeno de la agencial conciente. No hay que hacer trampa y centrarnos en personas drogadictas o con poca consciencia o conocimiento, solo con ver un cisne negro se cae la premisa "Todos los cisnes son blancos". Pero ademas Robert no distingue niveles explicativos entre la fenomenología y la física. No demuestra causalidad, la presupone, solo tenemos datos empíricos con correlaciones y la interpretación es un tanto distante de los datos. En un nivel podemos tener neuronas y sinapsis, en otro nivel creencias, decisiones, intenciones. Ambos pueden ser verdaderos simultáneamente. Los estudios como el de Libet presentan muchos problemas como la dependencia del reporte de las personas para entender como el inicio de la conciencia pero eso ya es limitado, no es el único problema, hay abundante literatura al respecto de alto nivel, pueden investigar.
Básicamente:
1) Ataca el libertarismo, no el compatibilismo.
2) No justifica por qué causalidad elimina agencia.
3) Reduce indebidamente niveles explicativos.
4) No logra desmontar la responsabilidad compatibilista.
@SteveSteve7590-di2dn Says:
He’s cool but determinism is self-defeating in a sense that he can’t make any truth claims since what he’s spitting out is the result of his circuits firing which are optimised for survival and not truth seeking. Plus his axiomatic position is naturalism which doesn’t leave space for metaphysics. So his intellect is competing with heavy weights like T. Aquinas who’s arguing that human agents are secondary causes.
The hard problem of consciousness isn’t solved either and probably never will. And probably the strongest argument against RS position is the deliberation argument.
Also it would have been useful to define free will beforehand as there are multiple definitions like hard determinism, compatibalism, libertarian free will and some theological hybrids. RS is highly sympathetic and knowledgeable. I like his lectures but after all he’s a neuroscientist and biologist not a philosopher. He’s explaining the mechanisms of a material universe implying that’s all there is.
@Cravis-qf8zp Says:
This is what you get when a smart person spends their life trying to create an ideology to support their dysfunctional notions of life.
@Cravis-qf8zp Says:
You forgot no clue.
Lol
@ImperialCinnamon-q9r Says:
2:35 Buddhist to Nudist is a wild statement 😂
@user-zh2xy8ez8x Says:
what if a hungry judge is a carnivore? ie blood sugar always stable, ketones up. study idea
@trentsworld7745 Says:
I can never seem to come around to the idea the there’s no free will. Entertaining that idea only makes me severely depressed and horrified and suicidal. I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea there’s no God or that there’s no presupposed purpose for life. But having no choice? I can’t stand that. As a result, I’ve experienced lots of depersonalization and derealization. Seeing the world as if free will is an illusion seems to show me that just about everything to do with the human experience is an illusion. Everything feels fake. If there’s no free will, then absolutely nothing matters. There’s no will to change anything. There’s no such thing as change. Everything only happens. Everything only reacts. I cannot see myself through my own eyes anymore. I just see myself like watching a movie. Observing myself as a person beyond my consciousness. I hear words come out of my mouth. I hear thoughts play about in my head. I feel emotions come and go as they please. I watch myself move and I’m no longer sure where I’m going. I feel like I’ve slipped into the hell nightmare I can’t wake up from and there’s no telling whether or not I’ll finally end my own suffering or not. I’m just involuntarily along for the ride and the world I once knew is gone forever. Or rather that world was never there to begin with. Existence is the worst thing I can possibly imagine.
@JHamel-ft1it Says:
Vicious, rabid ideology, but you said he was against the progressives! lol
@JHamel-ft1it Says:
The Scandinavians also had an extremely homogenous culture; things are changing rapidly, regarding crime and violence for them, with the influx of foreign cultures and immigrants!
@JHamel-ft1it Says:
No entitlement? Then surely no welfare, healthcare, or SNAP!
@JHamel-ft1it Says:
Evidence of some guy being violent? How long have women been passive killers, such as poisoners?
@JHamel-ft1it Says:
Do most people support Affirmative Action?
@JHamel-ft1it Says:
Egalitarian, do lower primates squabble over resources?
@JHamel-ft1it Says:
I have a graduate degree; I've read a lot of Sapolsky, and I am HOMELESS!
@JHamel-ft1it Says:
Lord forbid, as moderator, that you "slip up" as if you're in the driver's seat!
@wiky-awan Says:
Karl Marx said the same about humans but in broader context, that socio economic conditions determine the human behaviors. . . Which ultamately is determined and controlled by the state of ruling socio economic system and the beneficiaries of that sysem.
@shtthepanel7721 Says:
Married for 21 years. So what? No big deal. Check your ego mate 😊
@acquireidaho9130 Says:
Lame, I tried, I listened and I lost
@Kali-k4z Says:
Saudi Arabia nearly equals in crime rate with Scandinavian countries.
@piotrkraczkowski6729 Says:
In his book "The Art of Loving" Erich Fromm writes about love between man and woman:
"Love should essentially be an act of will, of the determination to bind my life completely to that of another person. (...) Loving someone is not only a strong feeling, it is also a decision, a judgment, a promise. (...) How can I say that love will last forever if my judgment, my determination, is not involved?" -- translation, page 67-68 of the german version "Die Kunst des Lebens", 1956.
Sapolsky claims there is no free will. For Sapolsky thanking someone for his help makes the same sense as thanking a rock for its shadow from sun. For Sapolsky humans believe God after thousands of years because God helps them in female fashion.
No one knows why anything exists at all, we cannot say anything at all about what was before the time. The fact that after the period when only plasma existed, the laws of physics appeared, which led to our world, speaks for the existence of God or a Being capable of imposing the laws of physics. There is also a written record of humans who saw Jesus.
_______ Since no one can know, all that remains is faith: some believe that God exists, and others believe that God does not exist (atheists). You can also say: I don't know.
_______ Free Will means that there are two connected but not identical, not fully dependent deterministic systems: the world and the Free Will deterministic in sense of quanten theory for which the world indeterministic is.
If there was no Free Will, a person might be grateful to another human being for help, just as, for example, to a tree or to a rock for protecting us from the sun. Friendship, love, responsibility, goodness, evil, sin, guilt, merit, courage, heroism, justice, conscience, promise, choice, praise, medals and the like are impossible without Free Will. The words for them could not even exist at all. We know examples of extraordinary sacrifice:
-- a father or mother to his/her children;
-- a soldier on the battlefield giving his life to save other soldiers;
-- a patient giving medicine to another patient;
-- a castaway giving up his place in a lifeboat;
-- a scientist who gives his life for scientific truth, that is, for society, for humanity;
-- and many other cases.
These people have consciously chosen to give their lives "for the cause", for other people, and the extreme uniqueness of their decisions proves the freedom of their decisions. Those who argue that there is no Free Will are really trying to convince us that there is no goodness, no voluntary sacrifice, no friendship, no love. In fact, they only prove that there is evil, God and the devil - they are doing evil under the cover of science.
_______ Quantum physics proves that the world is not determined, so telling determinism is a deliberate lie and as such requires ill will, it is as evil as, for example, harming a child.
_______ Just because we don't know, how Free Will is possible, doesn't mean it does not exist. In the past, science was sure that radio waves cannot travel across the ocean because they travel in a straight line, so they cannot overcome the curvature of the Earth. Radio waves, however, reached overseas. And what? It turned out that radio waves are reflected in the upper atmosphere and are directed back to the Earth's surface. Science will discover why Free Will exists perhaps someday. But we cannot hope that words of Sapolsky will help us to develop, to strengthen our ability to love.
@TINA-k8f Says:
I think we are sort of overthinking things way too much. There is a sort of common sense to humans. We really aren’t that special nor are we really very smart, but that doesn’t really matter anyway.😂
@TINA-k8f Says:
I was a nurse, I grew up in San Francisco, I was a nurse and I worked in a trauma center. I am now just a patient. There is an extreme sense of entitlement with most Dr.s, let alone surgeons.
@amazingeducationquestionsa1367 Says:
We in a way are controlled but it’s internal so we still choose and decide. The brain decides based on physics and we have no free will for it not to be that way — but the brain forcing the decision is us. So we are free from present outside forces to decide.
We benefit rewarding high achievement and disliking bad folks because it can change them to make a better society. They decided to do their actions and it doesn’t matter that they were determined to do it. Free will just means internally determined. They are not controlled 100% by outside forces.
@SpindleLyrics Says:
God Program is just one part of Matrix whose purpose is making you fear. There are endless God and religions of celebrity, status, power, money, fame, sex. *Icke David, Infinite Love
@slide6strings Says:
If a concept of 'I' or 'me' is an illusion of permanence [a heuristic device evolved to facilitate our survival], one may find it easier to grasp the idea of "no free will, but no predetermination". That encourages one to view each individual's volitions or intentions as symptoms, not causes. I'd appreciate some thoughts on the impact of "no free will" on understanding group behavior. Is it "birds of a feather flock together"?
@Dellfinity Says:
"while there's no free will how YOU can massively improve YOUR LIFE" 😂😂😂
@youtubesurfer1533 Says:
Robert was one of the first scientists who attracted me to evolutionary biology and that changed my perception of life.
@JardineKarate1 Says:
I find Bilyeu insufferable. Going to have to listen to Sapolsky somewhere else.
@sandramarenholz8778 Says:
Your arrogance is astounding. What makes you think you have the answers to life? Who gives a damn about free will, live your life, surround yourself with things that make you feel good. Help others less fortunate than yourself, help animals who have no voice. It’s that simple, STOP trying to over explain
@IC-XC_NIKA Says:
Sapolsky makes moral judgments on some things, like its wrong to hate, to feel entitled, or how criminals are unjustly punished. But if there is no free will then how can there be any moral evaluation at all or anything that is just or unjust? Does he address this in the book?
@noobalarm9948 Says:
Wel I think consciousness has an effect on reality. And sinse we don't understand anything about consciousness I don't think its wise to remove all the magic from reality.
@CoachMMathieu Says:
My young sons will be thrilled to know essentially " it's not their fault."
@ConversationsWithVania Says:
Sapolsky is great, very insightful and interesting to listen to, I’m very happy I had the chance to talk to him as well for my podcast project , discussed some of these issues )
@LogicPak Says:
This guy looks like Satan, no he is satan !
@francoisebekaert8137 Says:
I do’wish the interviewers would stop talking so much about themselves and focus entirely on their guest....
@patricksiebert Says:
How can I download the transcript?
@Ray-xc5im Says:
I don't really see why the point "Women get attracted by their potential partner's status" is stated almost like a biological fact. Of course if a culture was making women dependent financially of their husbands for thousands of years, it would be a logical pattern to search for a man who has money. It doesn't necessary mean we are biologically determined to be attracted by the status, it might be a social construct. For example, if in 200-300 years men and women will be absolutely equal, by which I mean there will be no "pink is for girls, blue is for boys" (I'm exaggerating) and there will be no dependency in a husband's wealth, if women won't need to spend lots of time doing the housework etc... What does indicate that the majority of females would care about the wealth of their partner and what is biologically determined in it? Why would be a tendency?
I should specify, I'm asking out of curiosity mostly. If I do have some factors that I'm not aware of and that cause me to prefer one mate to another, it's fine by me. But I personally care about the wealth only out of logic and out of my socialization, for example, I need to be sure that my husband will provide our family with money if I will be taking care of our child. Besides that, when a male attracts me (I mean, deeply), the least thing I care is his salary or his status. I just don't see a strong dependency of my preferences and a male's status, at all. And if I ask my female friends about it, the majority gives me the same answer.
@anniemoureaux4839 Says:
Gratitude is certainly a key for a joy filled life. Thanks, Robert.
@Mr.BVogel Says:
Sapolsky’s and Harris’ philosophy is in direct contradiction with itself.
-Explicitly made his stance as a hard causal determinist.
-Also preaches that your choices matter, and the future is not all written, so don’t be a fatalist. So let’s work to change the world for the better.
**How can both be true??**
Easy thought experiment:
1) “Sapolsky.. so my past actions were determined to be that way and it’s impossible to have done otherwise?” S: Yes
2) “Because of the determined causal chain? There is no possible divergence? What was to be was to be?” S: Yes
3) “So the future is also written and it doesn’t matter what I do now?” S: No, your choices matter. Don’t believe in fatalism
4) “I didn’t mention fatalism. But you said everything is determined on a hard causal chain. Why does the action to happen 10 seconds from now not follow the laws of being in line with the determined causal chain already in motion?” S: _
5) “So the future must be determined already. If not, you’re breaking your own chain of causality theory which you use to describe the nature of reality?
———
-So.. the FUTURE 10 seconds from now, is not written for you? but wait for it.. 10 seconds have now passed. Now that same moment is allowed to be called purely determined and was written and couldn’t have been any other way?.. because it’s in the past tense?? How convenient.
-So WHAT could have possible been different? Oh wait, the phenomena we call the present tense, in which what you choose to do with some free will, helps alter the path of potential future.
You must concede that 100% determinism is not true, and we can make free will choices to alter the potential future.
OR that determinism is hard truth, and the future is 100% written on that causal chain based on the laws.
@MarioBonina-pm3gt Says:
The harsh truth about life is being alive 😂😂😂 😂😂😂 😂😂😂
@jimmeh213 Says:
Dwarf and Goblin
@1st.Semite Says:
You talk way more than your guests. No one cares about you talking about yourself. It's about the guest
@RichardGeresGerbil Says:
I believe this is not a black or white issue as people think no free will ergo determinism.
LATEST COMMENTS