Robert Sapolsky Offers His Best Takefor Human Free Will
The article is a theoretical piece.
The article is an interview with Robert Sapolsky, discussing his views on human free will and determinism.
Main topics: free will, determinism, neuroscience. Secondary topics: agency, moral responsibility, fetal environment, childhood nutrition, trauma, behavior.
Reconsidering Free Will with Robert Sapolsky's Perspective
Robert Sapolsky, along with a few other philosophers, embraces the idea of hard determinism and hard incompatibility. He argues that those who claim determinism align with the physical laws of the universe still believe in Free Will. Sapolsky found two arguments made by compatibles; firstly, we only care about the intention of the action and not its history, and secondly, they try to explain Free Will by magical reasons which is no better than the previous argument. Sapolsky sarcastically mentions that most of the papers from philosphers about Free Will and Neuroscience always come to three sentences; wow, Neuroscience is discovering so many unique things, wow, some of these things are making us question Free Will and agency and moral responsibility, and lastly, no not really.
He highlights that this discomfort around accepting ourselves as biological organisms is what drives people to pull out the concept of Free Will. Sapolsky emphasizes that every moment before any action shapes our behavior, whether it's the fetal environment, childhood nutrition, last year's trauma, this morning's hormone levels, or the present situation. All of them play a role in our actions. The compatibles must realize that accepting free will is not the answer but coming to terms with the concept of hard determinism that can advance us further in understanding human behavior.
Question 1:
What is the author's stance on free will?
"I am extremely out in left field with this along with people like Sam Harris a few other philosophers in terms of absolutely hard determinism and hard incompatible isn't."
Question 2:
What do the arguments made by compatibilist philosophers involve?
"...the explanation always involves some kind of magic like if it's not you know it's some kind of sophistry it's some kind of logic trick it's some kind of hand waving that's some kind of magic and an awful lot of these times what these people are saying is no no no of course we're not saying that something happens for no reason we're saying it happens for Magical reasons and that's no better."
Question 3:
What is the main stance of philosophers trying to incorporate neuroscience into their arguments about free will?
"...their paper comes down to three sentences first sentence wow Neuroscience is discovering such interesting things second sentence wow some of these things are making us question Free Will and agency and moral responsibility and raises the possibility that we have to rethink everything third sentence no not really and like that's that's basically their stance."
Question 4:
What is the author's opinion on the discomfort people feel when confronting the fact that we are nothing more or less than biological organisms?
"...somehow they need to pull Free Will out of that because I think it makes people very very uncomfortable and on the edge of panic to have to confront the fact that we are nothing more or less than biological organisms."
Quiz 1 - Philosophical ideas on Free Will
Question 1. What is the author's stance on hard determinism?
- a. The author agrees with hard determinism completely.
- b. The author doesn't agree with hard determinism.
- c. The author is unsure about their stance.
- d. None of the above.
- Answer: b. The author doesn't agree with hard determinism.
Question 2. What do some philosophers argue regarding Free Will?
- a. That Free Will exists without a doubt.
- b. That Free Will exists based on magical reasons.
- c. That Free Will doesn't exist.
- d. That Free Will can be explained scientifically.
- Answer: b. That Free Will exists based on magical reasons.
Question 3. What do some neuroscientists believe about Free Will?
- a. They believe Free Will exists naturally.
- b. They believe Free Will exists only through magic.
- c. They believe our molecules and atoms control everything we do.
- d. They don't believe in Free Will.
- Answer: c. They believe our molecules and atoms control everything we do.
Quiz 2 - Arguments around Free Will
Question 1. What do compatibles philosophers argue regarding Free Will?
- a. They argue that Free Will is natural.
- b. They argue that Free Will is based on magic.
- c. They argue that Free Will exists despite hard determinism.
- d. They argue that Free Will doesn't exist.
- Answer: c. They argue that Free Will exists despite hard determinism.
Question 2. What is the problem with the arguments made by some compatibles philosophers about Free Will?
- a. Their arguments are based on logic.
- b. Their arguments are based on scientific evidence.
- c. Their arguments involve magic and logic tricks.
- d. Their arguments are always accurate.
- Answer: c. Their arguments involve magic and logic tricks.
Question 3. Why don't many philosophers accept the idea that Free Will doesn't exist?
- a. It's too complicated to explain to the general public.
- b. It makes people uncomfortable and scared.
- c. They don't believe in hard determinism.
- d. It contradicts their religious beliefs.
- Answer: b. It makes people uncomfortable and scared.
Quiz 3 - Neuroscience and Free Will
Question 1. How do some papers on Free Will by philosophers who incorporate Neuroscience end?
- a. They come to the conclusion that Free Will doesn't exist.
- b. They come to the conclusion that Free Will exists naturally.
- c. They don't come to any conclusion at all.
- d. They come to the conclusion that Free Will exists based on magic.
- Answer: c. They don't come to any conclusion at all.
Question 2. What shapes our behavior according to the author?
- a. Our thoughts and emotions.
- b. Our genetics and family background.
- c. Everything from one second ago to a lifetime ago.
- d. Our surroundings and the people we interact with.
- Answer: c. Everything from one second ago to a lifetime ago.
Question 3. Why does the author think people don't accept that Free Will doesn't exist?
- a. It's too complicated to understand.
- b. It makes people uncomfortable and scared.
- c. It's against the author's religious beliefs.
- d. It contradicts scientific evidence.
- Answer: b. It makes people uncomfortable and scared.