From: jimruttshow8596
Robert Sapolsky, an American neuroendocrinology researcher and author, argues strenuously against the existence of free will. Sapolsky, a professor of biology, neurology, neurological sciences, and neurosurgery at Stanford University, recently published “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will” [01:54:30]. He positions himself in a “lunatic fringe” of thinkers, a handful of biology types who assert that there is no free will whatsoever [02:30:32].
Turtles All the Way Down: The Chain of Causation
Sapolsky frames his argument with the “Turtles All the Way Down” anecdote [03:19:00]. This story, about the Earth resting on a turtle, which rests on another turtle, endlessly, illustrates that every event is caused by prior events, leading all the way back to the Big Bang [04:11:00]. Sapolsky argues that it is scientifically incorrect to suggest that, at some point in this chain, a “turtle” could simply float in the air, meaning something could happen without any prior causes – this “mythical thing that we call Free Will” [04:47:00].
A Multidisciplinary Attack on Free Will
Sapolsky believes that a comprehensive understanding of human behavior, by examining influences across various disciplines, reveals that there is “not a crack anywhere” in the chain of causation for free will to exist [07:07:00]. He illustrates this with several examples:
- Immediate Environmental Influences: Being in a room that smells of stinking garbage can make people more politically and socially conservative [09:27:00]. Conversely, a room smelling of freshly baked chocolate chip cookies can make people more generous [10:17:00]. These effects occur in seconds, often without the person’s conscious awareness [10:29:00].
- Fetal Development: A fetus exposed to chronic stress hormones from the mother can develop a larger amygdala, leading to increased anxiety and a tendency to perceive neutral faces as threatening later in life [10:48:00].
- Ancestral and Cultural Legacy: The infectious disease load experienced by one’s ancestors 400 years ago can predict current levels of xenophobia and hostility toward newcomers due to deeply ingrained cultural training from birth about what is considered “different” or “scary” [12:14:00].
Sapolsky contends that these influences, from “one second ago to four centuries ago,” are not separate disciplines but a “one continuous arc of influences” that fully explain behavior [07:04:00] [13:43:00]. He challenges those who believe in free will to identify any behavior that would occur regardless of these prior influences [16:06:00].
Critiquing Traditional Notions of Free Will
Sapolsky criticizes the common intuitive and legal definitions of free will, which often focus on whether a person intended an action, understood the consequences, and knew they had choices [23:54:00]. He likens this approach to reviewing a movie after only seeing the last three minutes [24:34:00]. The crucial question, for Sapolsky, is: “Where did that intent come from?” [24:50:00]. This question, he argues, leads back to the continuous arc of influences from seconds to centuries before.
Agency vs. Free Will
While people often use “agency” synonymously with free will, Sapolsky views them as distinct. He defines physical agency as merely the corporeal reality of causing something (e.g., tripping and bumping into someone) [26:22:00]. However, when it comes to intuitive notions of agency, he sees it as synonymous with free will: “Were you the captain of your ship at the time?” [26:59:00] Sapolsky’s theme is “not only were you not the captain, there is no captain” [27:02:00]. Our actions, even seemingly careful discerning ones, are products of complex, determined processes, influenced by factors like blood glucose levels affecting the prefrontal cortex [33:36:00].
The Myth of “Free Won’t”
The concept of “free won’t,” the ability to inhibit an action even if the brain has initiated it, is often proposed as a sliver of free will [54:46:00]. Sapolsky dismisses this, arguing that the decision to inhibit an action is just as determined as the decision to act [55:58:00]. The “don’t do that” neuron is influenced by the same long chain of causality as the “do that” neuron [56:42:00].
Key Neuroscientific Evidence
Phineas Gage and the Prefrontal Cortex (PFC)
The famous case of Phineas Gage, a railroad foreman in the 1840s who survived a three-foot iron rod shooting through his head, is central to understanding the biological basis of behavior [34:45:00]. The rod destroyed much of Gage’s prefrontal cortex (PFC), the most recently evolved part of the human brain, responsible for impulse control, gratification postponement, and overriding urges [36:02:00]. After the accident, Gage’s personality fundamentally changed; he became abusive, alcoholic, and sexually disinhibited [37:47:00].
Sapolsky emphasizes that such drastic changes don’t require a physical rod through the head. More subtle influences like exposure to stress hormones as a fetus can lead to a less metabolically active PFC [39:01:00], and growing up in poverty can result in a smaller PFC by age five [39:27:00]. These factors predetermine an individual’s capacity for self-control, demonstrating that our ability to “do the right thing” is not a matter of free will but of brain function shaped by a myriad of predetermined influences [39:43:00].
Benjamin Libet’s Experiment
Benjamin Libet’s experiments, conducted in the 1980s, showed that brain activity (a “readiness potential”) precedes a person’s conscious decision to act [46:57:00]. In these studies, participants were asked to press a button whenever they felt like it, while simultaneously noting the exact moment they decided to act on a large clock [48:00:00]. Libet found that brain activity signaling the impending action occurred about 6/10ths of a second before the conscious decision was reported [48:42:00]. More recent studies have pushed this predictive window to as much as nine seconds [48:50:00].
While many interpret this as proof against free will, Sapolsky considers the ongoing debate about the precise timing of conscious intent “totally boring” [50:07:00]. For him, the true question is not when the intent forms, but “where did that intent come from?” [50:27:00] Whether the decision is made unconsciously or consciously, the underlying causal chain remains the same [50:56:00].
The Myth of Grit
Concepts like “grit,” “tenacity,” and “self-discipline” are often celebrated as prime examples of free will, seen as choices individuals make independent of their biological endowments [59:12:00]. Sapolsky argues this is a “totally false dichotomy” [01:00:50]. Just as physical talents (like being 7’4” in basketball) are acknowledged as biological, so too are traits like diligence and perseverance. They are equally “biological” and tied to the function of the prefrontal cortex and other determined factors [01:02:47].
The famous “marshmallow test,” where young children choose to delay gratification for a larger reward, highlights this [01:04:46]. A child’s ability to wait is correlated with differences in their prefrontal cortex activity at age five [01:06:04]. Furthermore, how long a child waits in this test is predictive of health, educational attainment, and lifelong earnings decades later [01:06:15]. This suggests that the capacity for “doing the right thing when it’s the harder thing to do” [01:07:04] is not a matter of free will but of biological predispositions influenced by prior circumstances [01:08:10].
Addressing Counterarguments
Deterministic Chaos
Sapolsky acknowledges deterministic chaos, where complex systems exhibit extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, making long-term prediction impossible even if the underlying physics are deterministic [01:12:19]. However, he dismisses the idea that this provides a loophole for free will. Unpredictability is not the same as being uncaused [01:13:51].
Quantum Indeterminacy
Arguments for free will often invoke quantum indeterminacy, suggesting that randomness at the subatomic level could be “harnessed” for free will [01:15:51]. Sapolsky finds this idea “idiotic” for three reasons [01:16:15]:
- Scale: Quantum events are at the subatomic level and are too minuscule to influence macro-level brain activity [01:18:18]. The brain is “moist and warm and messy,” making it an unsuitable environment for quantum effects to coherently propagate to a noticeable scale [01:20:08].
- Randomness vs. Will: Even if quantum events could influence the brain, they would produce randomness, not willed, stable, or predictable behavior [01:17:01]. Free will implies conscious choice, not arbitrary actions.
- The “Harnessing” Problem: The idea that some “you” (a non-physical entity) could “harness” quantum indeterminacy implies a magical intervention outside of physical laws, which contradicts the very nature of deterministic processes [01:17:40].
Emergent Complexity
Emergent complexity describes how complex properties arise from the interaction of simpler parts, such as “wetness” emerging from a large number of water molecules, or a society emerging from individual ants [01:23:24]. Our brains, with their 80 billion neurons, invent “Aesthetics and Theology and economic philosophy” [01:22:25]. While Sapolsky finds emergence “the coolest thing on earth” [01:31:31], he argues it does not provide room for free will.
The common flaw in emergent free will theories, he contends, is the assumption that individual building blocks (e.g., neurons) somehow become “smarter” or change their fundamental rules when combined into a larger system [01:25:52]. In reality, the individual components continue to follow their simple rules, even when their collective behavior is complex and unpredictable at the macro level [01:25:29]. While “downward causality” (macro-level phenomena influencing micro-level components) is real [01:28:41], it doesn’t mean the higher level can force the lower-level components to violate their fundamental physical laws [01:29:11].
Even the apparent ability to willfully control one’s attention, as in a meditation exercise, is ultimately determined by prior experiences and biological predispositions [01:33:54].
Societal and Ethical Implications of Free Will Beliefs
Despite the perceived danger of discarding free will, Sapolsky argues that a world without this belief would be “a much more humane Planet” [01:39:15] [01:46:06]. He dismisses the “noble lie” argument that believing in free will is necessary for morality [01:38:13]. Studies show that people who have deeply considered the absence of free will or God are just as ethical as those who strongly believe [01:39:52].
Sapolsky contends that discarding free will would lead to:
- Reduced Blame: We would still contain dangerous individuals (like a car with bad brakes or a child with a cold) to protect society, but without assigning moral blame, punishment, or the notion of a “bad soul” [01:42:19].
- Increased Empathy and Compassion: Understanding that individuals are products of their biology and environment, rather than agents of pure choice, fosters greater empathy [01:44:49]. For example, judging someone as “lacking willpower” for obesity ignores potential genetic predispositions that make self-discipline incredibly difficult, leading to unjust societal treatment [01:45:01].
- Liberation from Unearned Guilt and Shame: Most suffering caused by the belief in free will comes from people being punished or made to feel bad about things they had no control over [01:46:27].
By removing the illusion of free will, society becomes more rational, humane, and focused on addressing the underlying causes of behavior rather than assigning punitive blame [01:46:02].