From: jimruttshow8596
Robert Sapolsky, a neuroendocrinology researcher and author, holds a strong, uncompromising stance on free will, arguing for its complete absence in human behavior [02:42:00]. This position, which he describes as being “out in The Lunatic Fringe” compared to most people and philosophers, is the central theme of his book “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will” [02:27:00]. Sapolsky contends that our actions are the inevitable outcome of a continuous “arc of influences” stretching back to the Big Bang [04:08:00] [07:04:00].
Sapolsky’s Argument: “Turtles All The Way Down”
Sapolsky uses the anecdote of “Turtles all the way down” to illustrate his view of causality [03:22:00]. This story, where the world is supported by a turtle, which in turn stands on another turtle, and so on, represents his belief that every event, including human actions, is caused by preceding events without any uncaused “first mover” or magical intervention [04:08:00] [04:44:00].
He argues that claiming we can do things without any causes whatsoever is “ridiculous and scientifically incorrect” [04:41:00]. To understand why someone performs an action, one must consider a vast array of factors, from immediate brain states and hormone levels to experiences during development (adolescence, childhood, fetal life), genetics, and even ancestral culture and ecosystems [05:20:00] [06:08:00]. These diverse influences are not separate disciplines plugging “each other’s hole” but are interconnected parts of one continuous causal chain [06:42:00] [07:04:00].
Examples of Influences
Sapolsky provides vivid examples of seemingly unrelated factors that impact behavior:
- Environmental Odors: People become more politically conservative in a room smelling of garbage due to the association between disgust and social conservatism in the brain [09:27:00]. Conversely, a room smelling of chocolate chip cookies can make people more generous [10:17:19].
- Fetal Environment: Chronic maternal stress during pregnancy leads to elevated stress hormones, which can result in a larger, more easily activated amygdala in the child, making them perceive neutral faces as threatening [10:48:00].
- Ancestral History: A higher infectious disease load in ancestors 400 years ago correlates with greater xenophobia and hostility to newcomers today, as early childhood environments shape perceptions of difference and novelty [12:14:00].
Sapolsky challenges anyone to identify any action that would have occurred regardless of these countless prior influences [16:03:00]. He argues that if one could demonstrate such an uncaused action, it would prove free will [17:00:00].
Free Will Positions
Sapolsky categorizes views on free will into four main types:
- Libertarians (Philosophical): Believe in a completely undetermined world where humans are entirely free in their actions. Sapolsky dismisses this view as rarely considered by philosophers [18:35:00].
- Those who claim no determinism but assert responsibility: Sapolsky finds this position even “weirder” and incomprehensible [18:51:00].
- Compatibilists: The vast majority (90-95%) of practicing philosophers who reconcile free will and responsibility with a deterministic world [19:37:00] [19:48:00].
- Incompatibilists (Sapolsky’s view): Believe that if the world is deterministic, then free will cannot exist, and thus notions of responsibility are meaningless [19:56:00]. This view is shared by a small majority of brain scientists but only about 2% of philosophers [20:31:00].
Sapolsky argues that we are “biological machines” and that free will, if it existed, would require neurons to act independently of all prior influences, which he finds impossible [20:06:06].
The Legal System’s Definition of Free Will
Sapolsky criticizes the legal system’s approach to determining responsibility, which typically asks three questions [23:40:00]:
- Did the person intend to do the act?
- Did they understand the likely consequences?
- Did they know they could have done something different (i.e., did they have choices)?
If the answer is yes to all, the person is deemed to have had free will and is culpable [24:12:00]. Sapolsky calls this a “movie review where you’ve only seen the last three minutes” [24:34:00]. The critical, unasked question, for Sapolsky, is: “Where did that intent come from?” [24:50:00].
Agency vs. Free Will
Sapolsky distinguishes between “physical responsibility” (e.g., bumping into someone when you trip) and “moral agency” [26:22:00]. He views intuitive notions of agency as synonymous with free will [26:48:00], asserting, “not only were you not the captain [of your ship], there is no Captain. All we are is the end product” [27:02:02]. He uses reflex-like actions (e.g., running from a tiger) as extreme examples where there is clearly no choice [27:09:00].
When confronted with more complex “discerning” decisions, like choosing to fight a robber based on risk-reward assessment and cultural values (e.g., honor culture), Sapolsky maintains the same deterministic perspective [28:00:00]. He argues that even the process of “thinking about it” or weighing consequences is itself a product of prior influences. Factors like blood glucose levels (affecting prefrontal cortex function), childhood experiences (affecting impulse control), and ancestral culture all shape how and what an individual considers when making a decision [30:10:00] [31:08:00] [33:31:00].
Neuroscience and Determinism
Phineas Gage
The case of Phineas Gage, a railroad foreman in the 1840s who survived an iron rod through his prefrontal cortex, is central to Sapolsky’s argument [34:45:00]. After the injury, Gage, once a reliable and well-adjusted man, became abusive, alcoholic, and sexually disinhibited [37:47:00]. This demonstrated that damage to a specific brain region could fundamentally alter a person’s personality, moral system, and self-discipline [38:39:00].
Sapolsky emphasizes that such drastic changes don’t require a physical rod. Subtle influences like:
- Fetal exposure to stress hormones [39:01:00]
- Growing up in violent or impoverished neighborhoods (leading to smaller or less active prefrontal cortices) [39:19:00]
All contribute to whether an individual can control their emotions or make “the right thing” decision [39:40:00]. People often confabulate explanations for their actions, unaware of these underlying deterministic influences [42:22:00].
Benjamin Libet’s Experiment
Benjamin Libet’s famous experiment in the 1980s showed that brain activity preceding an action (the “readiness potential”) could be detected about 6/10 of a second before a person consciously decided to press a button [48:17:00]. More recent studies have pushed this predictive window to nine seconds [48:50:00].
This led to a debate about “free won’t” – whether people retain the ability to veto an action even if the brain has already initiated preparation [49:31:00] [54:46:00]. Sapolsky finds this entire debate “boring” because it misses the larger point: “Where did that intent come from in the first place?” [50:27:00] [56:08:00]. Whether it’s an action or a veto, the decision-making process is still rooted in the same deterministic biological mechanisms and past influences [56:50:00].
Consciousness
Sapolsky finds the science of consciousness fascinating but considers it largely irrelevant to the question of free will [53:13:00]. He believes that much of what consciousness does is try to explain actions after the fact, rather than being the source of uncaused decisions [54:11:00].
The Myth of Grit
Sapolsky argues that “grit,” “tenacity,” and “self-discipline” – qualities often praised as signs of free will or moral character – are equally determined by biological and environmental factors [59:16:00]. He criticizes the “false dichotomy” where natural talents (e.g., being 7’4” in basketball) are attributed to biology, while perseverance (e.g., a 5’3” player in the NBA) is seen as something “made of magic” or “fairy dust” [01:00:18] [01:01:31].
Sapolsky points out that the capacity for “doing the right thing when it’s the harder thing to do” is also a product of one’s prefrontal cortex and the cumulative “one second before and a billion years before” influences [01:02:50]. He references the marshmallow test, where a child’s ability to delay gratification at age five correlates with various life outcomes decades later, and even their brain structure can be observed to differ at that early age [01:04:46]. He concludes that whether a person exhibits grit or self-indulgence, it’s all part of the same biological and environmental continuum [01:01:51].
Quantum Indeterminacy and Emergence
Sapolsky dismisses quantum indeterminacy and emergent complexity as sources of free will [02:22:00] [02:47:00].
- Quantum Indeterminacy: He argues that even if the universe is fundamentally stochastic at the quantum level, these subatomic events are too minute and require too much synchronization to influence macro-level brain function [01:16:15]. Furthermore, even if they could, they would only produce randomness, not the stable, intentional behavior associated with free will [01:17:01]. Attempts to link free will to quantum mechanics often involve illogical notions of “harnessing” subatomic randomness [01:17:35]. The brain is too “moist and warm and messy” for quantum effects to coherently propagate to a scale relevant for mental phenomena [01:20:08].
- Emergent Complexity: Sapolsky acknowledges that complex systems exhibit emergent properties (e.g., wetness from water molecules, a marching band from individual musicians, consciousness from neurons) that are not predictable from their individual components [01:21:31]. However, he emphasizes that the individual “building blocks” (like an ant or a neuron) do not change their fundamental rules or become “smarter” when they are part of a larger emergent system [01:24:52]. Models that propose free will as an emergent property mistakenly assume that the individual pieces acquire new capacities [01:24:47]. While “downward causality” (macro-level events influencing micro-level components, like rolling a stone affecting its electrons) is real, it does not mean higher-level abstractions can override the basic laws of physics or bestow free will on lower-level elements [01:28:36].
Societal Implications of Believing in No Free Will
Sapolsky dismisses the common fear that a belief in no free will would lead to societal collapse, arguing that it would instead create a more humane world [01:16:15].
- Morality and Ethics: Studies show that people who have deeply considered the nature of morality (whether from a belief in God or atheism) are equally ethical in their behavior [01:39:55]. While short-term priming studies might show increased cheating, long-term belief in no free will does not lead to a breakdown of ethics [01:39:21].
- Change: The absence of free will does not mean change is impossible. Individuals and societies can transform, but this change is also a product of circumstances and prior influences [01:41:09]. People are “changed by the circumstances that put you in that place and by the circumstances that made you respond to that place the way you did” [01:41:53].
- Dangerous Individuals and Responsibility: Sapolsky asserts that society can still protect itself from dangerous people without invoking the concept of moral responsibility [01:42:04]. He uses the analogy of a car with faulty brakes: you contain it because it’s dangerous, not because it has a “bad soul” [01:42:19]. Similarly, a sick child is quarantined for public health, not punishment [01:43:25]. Incompetent neurosurgeons are prevented from practicing, not condemned morally for their lack of skill [01:44:06].
“You protect society from dangerous things, but you constrain the person from doing dangerous stuff but not one smidgen more. And you don’t tell them they deserve to be able to not go to kindergarten tomorrow or whatever” [01:43:53].
Sapolsky believes that abandoning the notion of free will would make the world “incredibly humane and liberating” [01:46:10]. Most suffering, he argues, comes from people being punished or feeling bad about things they had no control over, such as obesity stemming from a genetic predisposition to a leptin receptor [01:44:52]. Throwing out free will means accepting that even earned rewards, like an advanced degree or a high salary, are not “earned” in a truly volitional sense [01:46:13]. This, he concludes, creates a “much better world” [01:47:07], akin to how society improved by abandoning beliefs about witches causing hurricanes [01:46:41].