#360 — We Really Don’t Have Free Will?
Making Sense with Sam Harris
Deep Dive
Why does Robert Sapolsky dismiss the idea that free will could be an emergent property of complexity theory?
He argues that emergent complexity relies on a type of downward causality that doesn't exist. The building blocks of emergent systems, like neurons or ants, remain simple and unchanged despite the complexity that emerges from their interactions.
What does Robert Sapolsky mean when he says there's no downward causation in emergent systems?
He means that the higher-level properties that emerge from simple components do not influence those components in a way that changes their basic nature. For example, a complex ant society doesn't make individual ants smarter; they remain simple and unchanged.
How does Robert Sapolsky explain the role of epigenetics in the context of free will?
Epigenetics provides a mechanism for how early life experiences influence who we become, but it doesn't allow for conscious choice to reverse or change those effects. It functions within the rules of simple, deterministic interactions.
Why does unpredictability in human behavior not support the concept of free will, according to Robert Sapolsky?
Unpredictability is due to the complexity and randomness in systems, not because individuals have control over their actions. Randomness, whether from quantum mechanics or other sources, introduces variability but doesn't confer responsibility or control.
What does Robert Sapolsky find most frustrating about arguments for free will?
He finds the argument based on intuition the most frustrating. People often insist that it feels like they have free will when making decisions, despite understanding the deterministic nature of their brain's activity.
How does Robert Sapolsky respond to Dan Dennett's concerns about the social and political implications of denying free will?
He finds Dennett's concerns ironic, given Dennett's usual separation of political concerns from truth claims. Sapolsky believes Dennett's arguments conflate the social implications with the philosophical and scientific claims about free will.
What analogy does Sam Harris use to criticize compatibilist views on free will?
Harris uses the analogy of Atlantis, where compatibilists argue that free will is real but redefine it to fit their deterministic view, much like saying Atlantis is real but it's actually Sicily.
How does Robert Sapolsky describe the relationship between genes and behavior in the context of free will?
He describes how genes and their regulation through epigenetics influence behavior, but this doesn't provide space for free will. The influence is deterministic and doesn't allow for conscious choice to alter genetic outcomes.
- Sapolsky's definition challenges the intuitive sense of free will.
- He references philosophical literature on libertarian free will.
Shownotes Transcript