8 ms·

Sapolsky has a new book coming out literally today called "Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will". Obviously I haven't read the book (yet) but here's

Sapolsky has a new book coming out literally today called "Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will". Obviously I haven't read the book (yet) but here's the NYT promo interview https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/science/free-will-sapolsky.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/science/free-will-sapolsk... : In his latest book, “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will,” Dr. Sapolsky confronts and refutes the biological and philosophical arguments for free will. He contends that we are not free agents, but that biology, hormones, childhood and life circumstances coalesce to produce actions that we merely feel were ours to choose.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
But if that holds then he doesn't deserve any credit for writing the book right? Since it was already predetermined.
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  If you give him credit, it increases the chances that he writes another good book in the future. Just because you don't have free will doesn't mean your behavior is not affected by your environment.
  - confidantlake 3y ago
    The act of me giving him credit or not doing it has already been determined.
    - someplaceguy 3y ago
      And believe it or not, that decision was shaped by your environment as well. Which is why most people give credit when credit is due. It can also be a self-reinforcing behavior, as giving credit can also in turn benefit you later. Again, just because everything is predetermined doesn't mean there aren't complex dynamics in motion, ones which greatly influence behavior and the chances of making a decision. Understanding these dynamics can also influence how you behave in the future. Edit: It seems that I am saying "if you kick a raccoon, it will run away". And you are saying "whether I kick the raccoon or not has already been determined". In this case, my analysis is helpful/useful while yours isn't. My analysis can influence your future behavior (e.g. if you run into a menacing raccoon in the future, it will increase the chances that you will be able to defend yourself properly), especially if you didn't know this before, while your analysis probably doesn't affect behavior (except to promote apathy perhaps, which is likely even detrimental). [ Disclaimer: I know nothing about raccoons, it was just an example ] It doesn't mean you are wrong, it's just that saying "everything is predetermined" is not a useful way of looking at the world. It's like saying "white paint is white", which is not very surprising. Strictly speaking, it's not even quite correct: quantum mechanics tells us that, even though the universe has (deterministic) physical laws, it also behaves randomly at a fundamental level. However, that does not change the fact that we don't have free will (since we have zero control over the randomness). But it's conceivable that some of our decisions might be affected by quantum randomness (this is even obvious in some contrived, but realistic Schrödinger's-cat-like scenarios).
    - lawlessone 3y ago
      >The act of me giving him credit or not doing it has already been determined. Scientific predestination? /j
- mcphage 3y ago
  Sure, but he's still the person that was determined would get paid.
- tshaddox 3y ago
  A funny question, since on those terms we’re also not able to choose whether we give him credit for writing the book.
  - neuromanser 3y ago
    (Based on what I've read, it makes sense to me that) we're not. A coin toss outcome seems random only because / as long as some of the initial conditions are unknown.
- kalupa 3y ago
  I think you make a mistake and assume "predetermined" is the opposite of "free will"
- The5thElephant 3y ago
  This is an absurd argument because it inconsistently moves the value of giving credit outside of the realm of determinism. Since everything is determined then the concept of credit would become meaningless. It is not meaningless because it exists within the subjective world created from determinism. Just like you can't say a criminal is not guilty of a crime without free will, because the concept of crime exists within the same subjective context as the experience of the criminal choosing to commit a crime. Choice and will still exist, they are just not "Free" in the sense of being determined by something outside of physics and its resulting emergent systems. It would be like arguing that a waterfall does not exist and is not beautiful because if you look closely enough at it all you see are numbers representing the states of molecules and velocities. Meaning does not require "free will", and the very concept of a will being "Free" is absurd since a resulting choice is either completely random (And thus not really anyone's will) or is determined by prior states and circumstances (the things that make you you) and is thus not really "Free".
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    I was going to provide a substantial response, but then I realized it wouldn't matter either way if this is true.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think that somehow determinism/choice has been confused with ability to judge in modern philosophy. Calvinists certainly didn't think sinning was good, just because people had no choice. Nobody would say a robot helping you isn't better than one that harms you, simply because it makes no choice. A machine programmed to write a great book is a good machine! Sapolsky should be credited and recognized!
Turing_Machine 3y ago
Whenever I see some one denying the existence of free will, I feel like punching him in the face, then saying "Why are you so angry at me? According to you, I couldn't help it!"
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  That's silly. A NOT gate will change state when stimulated by a logic signal. Neither the signal nor the gate have "free will" in any meaningful sense but it happens anyways. Arguably, you're disproving your own point by eliciting a reaction that's not rational according to someone's belief system.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    Then there's no reason for me not to do it, then. Right? We all should do exactly as evolution encourages us to do in any situation.
    - mr_toad 3y ago
      > We all should do exactly as evolution encourages us to do in any situation. What makes you think we don’t?
    - vidarh 3y ago
      This argument is logically incoherent. Whether or not you have free will, punching someone in the face is likely to have consequences. That is your reason to consider whether or not to do it. If we assume you have free will, it provides you with the opportunity to actively make the choice that will get you the best outcome. If we assume you do not, then that won't alter the outcomes, nor the reasons to prefer one choice over the other, the only thing that has changed is whether or not the choice you made was a genuine choice or would always play out the same way if we somehow was able to rewind time. That the outcome would be the same given the same input and same state of your mind does not mean there was no reasons not to act a given way, only that you had no agency in which outcome you actually end up with. But the state of your mind would be a factor in that, and a belief that your decisions has no effect on your future outcomes so it doesn't matter what you choose to do certainly would make you less likely to end up with good ones. Whether or not "rewinding time" would let you make different "choices" does not alter that.

MichaelZuo 3y ago

But if that holds then he doesn't deserve any credit for writing the book right? Since it was already predetermined.

someplaceguy 3y ago
If you give him credit, it increases the chances that he writes another good book in the future. Just because you don't have free will doesn't mean your behavior is not affected by your environment.
- confidantlake 3y ago
  The act of me giving him credit or not doing it has already been determined.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    And believe it or not, that decision was shaped by your environment as well. Which is why most people give credit when credit is due. It can also be a self-reinforcing behavior, as giving credit can also in turn benefit you later. Again, just because everything is predetermined doesn't mean there aren't complex dynamics in motion, ones which greatly influence behavior and the chances of making a decision. Understanding these dynamics can also influence how you behave in the future. Edit: It seems that I am saying "if you kick a raccoon, it will run away". And you are saying "whether I kick the raccoon or not has already been determined". In this case, my analysis is helpful/useful while yours isn't. My analysis can influence your future behavior (e.g. if you run into a menacing raccoon in the future, it will increase the chances that you will be able to defend yourself properly), especially if you didn't know this before, while your analysis probably doesn't affect behavior (except to promote apathy perhaps, which is likely even detrimental). [ Disclaimer: I know nothing about raccoons, it was just an example ] It doesn't mean you are wrong, it's just that saying "everything is predetermined" is not a useful way of looking at the world. It's like saying "white paint is white", which is not very surprising. Strictly speaking, it's not even quite correct: quantum mechanics tells us that, even though the universe has (deterministic) physical laws, it also behaves randomly at a fundamental level. However, that does not change the fact that we don't have free will (since we have zero control over the randomness). But it's conceivable that some of our decisions might be affected by quantum randomness (this is even obvious in some contrived, but realistic Schrödinger's-cat-like scenarios).
  - lawlessone 3y ago
    >The act of me giving him credit or not doing it has already been determined. Scientific predestination? /j
mcphage 3y ago
Sure, but he's still the person that was determined would get paid.
tshaddox 3y ago
A funny question, since on those terms we’re also not able to choose whether we give him credit for writing the book.
- neuromanser 3y ago
  (Based on what I've read, it makes sense to me that) we're not. A coin toss outcome seems random only because / as long as some of the initial conditions are unknown.
kalupa 3y ago
I think you make a mistake and assume "predetermined" is the opposite of "free will"
The5thElephant 3y ago
This is an absurd argument because it inconsistently moves the value of giving credit outside of the realm of determinism. Since everything is determined then the concept of credit would become meaningless. It is not meaningless because it exists within the subjective world created from determinism. Just like you can't say a criminal is not guilty of a crime without free will, because the concept of crime exists within the same subjective context as the experience of the criminal choosing to commit a crime. Choice and will still exist, they are just not "Free" in the sense of being determined by something outside of physics and its resulting emergent systems. It would be like arguing that a waterfall does not exist and is not beautiful because if you look closely enough at it all you see are numbers representing the states of molecules and velocities. Meaning does not require "free will", and the very concept of a will being "Free" is absurd since a resulting choice is either completely random (And thus not really anyone's will) or is determined by prior states and circumstances (the things that make you you) and is thus not really "Free".
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  I was going to provide a substantial response, but then I realized it wouldn't matter either way if this is true.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think that somehow determinism/choice has been confused with ability to judge in modern philosophy. Calvinists certainly didn't think sinning was good, just because people had no choice. Nobody would say a robot helping you isn't better than one that harms you, simply because it makes no choice. A machine programmed to write a great book is a good machine! Sapolsky should be credited and recognized!

Turing_Machine 3y ago

Whenever I see some one denying the existence of free will, I feel like punching him in the face, then saying "Why are you so angry at me? According to you, I couldn't help it!"

AlexandrB 3y ago
That's silly. A NOT gate will change state when stimulated by a logic signal. Neither the signal nor the gate have "free will" in any meaningful sense but it happens anyways. Arguably, you're disproving your own point by eliciting a reaction that's not rational according to someone's belief system.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  Then there's no reason for me not to do it, then. Right? We all should do exactly as evolution encourages us to do in any situation.
  - mr_toad 3y ago
    > We all should do exactly as evolution encourages us to do in any situation. What makes you think we don’t?
  - vidarh 3y ago
    This argument is logically incoherent. Whether or not you have free will, punching someone in the face is likely to have consequences. That is your reason to consider whether or not to do it. If we assume you have free will, it provides you with the opportunity to actively make the choice that will get you the best outcome. If we assume you do not, then that won't alter the outcomes, nor the reasons to prefer one choice over the other, the only thing that has changed is whether or not the choice you made was a genuine choice or would always play out the same way if we somehow was able to rewind time. That the outcome would be the same given the same input and same state of your mind does not mean there was no reasons not to act a given way, only that you had no agency in which outcome you actually end up with. But the state of your mind would be a factor in that, and a belief that your decisions has no effect on your future outcomes so it doesn't matter what you choose to do certainly would make you less likely to end up with good ones. Whether or not "rewinding time" would let you make different "choices" does not alter that.