I’m really glad that Dr Sapolsky has given so much time to answering questions about this topic because it seems like he’s been doing at least one podcast a week since Determined came out and he gives the same amount of energy and attention to each conversation and doesn’t show any fatigue with discussing this.

Brilliant. Exciting to see this idea being discussed, and with such granularity. Rare to see someone able to reconcile compatibilism with hard incompatibilism, a worthy endeavor indeed, they both have important perspectives. We need the word to spread that free will is an illusion. Then hate makes no sense, forgiveness and compassion for others and ourselves becomes easier, less anxiety over our choices, more humility, more self-transcendence, etc.

35:05 This finding is fascinating to me because when struggling to understand the compatibilst view I landed on maybe it makes sense to think of others as not having free will but to still view youself as having it for self regulatory reasons.

Thank you for the question of what happens to humanity in three billion years! It releases the idea that we dont need to cling to the human form, hence human existence essense or even ecological life or even complex systems. Lets give up life in all forms and at the same time lets keep on living and celebrate life while we're in this form!🦖

I hope Robert feels at least a bit smug about the fact that he has, with science, put to shame every single religion and philosophy that has ever existed. I love this man so much. People waist there whole lives pondering about the meaning of life and driveling on about nonsense, but this guy is a human treasure. Currently working through he’s free Stanford lectures and it’s just amazing. Those lectures should have to viewed by every single elected official, but of course that won’t happen.

The building blocks of life! Sapolsky certainly has an advantage on this front versus philosophers who go all ad hominem because he has no training/ knowledge in philosophy and has the multi-silo approach par excellence. So hats off, he's slightly before his time, as the pushback for this innovative thinking is sizable! But, of our all biases and beliefs past, it's always noise and signal, (political) spin and: It's turtles all the way down!

Wow, what a way to start a podcast! Kudos to you

No free will is pretty liberating ❤

I found this podcast to be terrible quite frankly, especially the final segment where the host speaks alone. The proposed idea of a "no-self" intervention is poorly conceived and lacks crucial details. Notably, you fail to clearly define what you mean by the "self," which is a fundamental concept that should be thoroughly explained before proposing any intervention related to it. It's particularly concerning that you seem to espouse this idea despite claiming to have extensive meditation experience. As someone who has also practiced meditation, I would expect a deeper understanding of the concept of self and a more nuanced approach to discussing interventions related to it. The lack of clarity and the potential for harm in applying a poorly defined "no-self" intervention in a clinical setting is alarming.

It's determined I would tune out this otherwise awesome interview, when you brought the cringe factor meditation practice into it. Also determined I can't share this on other formats, because of the cringe

Exceptionally engaging discussion. What an excellent kickoff for your podcast series. You adeptly matched Robert’s intellectual rigor and displayed a remarkable talent for elucidating intricate concepts in a way that makes them comprehensible to listeners who might be unfamiliar with the topic. Congratulations. Looking forward to additional content as your scheduled permits. 👏

It's not a big mystery: there is will, it's just not free.

I like the name of the channel. Robert Sapolsky is a bad ass. 😃

Love this discussion. So much more to discuss. Thank you. PS, Daniel Dennet passed away recently. Maybe you recorded this before.

Throw Morals and Ethics out the window and dig the world your own way .

Why does the interviewer keep using the word diplomacy? It makes it seem like his goal is political rather than seeking accuracy. Here's your diplomacy, the compatabilst version of free will still means no one is *deserving* of praise or blame, the feedback loop of a human modifying their environment to be in harmony with their desires can be called whatever you want but it isn't sufficient for moral culpability.

I could be wrong but I believe Sapolsky says that the car and sick child example are devoid of moral blame, which would be the same for a scientifically sound justice system: you did not choose to be born to the circumstances that led you to grow into/become the person who would make the "choice" that you did that was harmful to others.

🔥🔥🔥

I like where you're going with no self helping relieve suffering.

Hopefully, with ongoing research, the right medicine will be found to cure the epidemic of people who do not have free will in this modern era 

We're all wandering around nature without a clue ?

What should I believe that puppet who is not even able to choose it's own words? Moreover, if he has no control over what he seems to think and say, who's talking through him?

Daniel Dennett RIP

Much like Dr. Sapolsky, I'd have a heart attack if I did any meditation stuff... so I left as soon as that meditation stuff started so I shouldn't leave with a bad impression, 'cause the dialogue was so good. I really don't know what possesses people to get into the meditation craze but... suit yourself.

If you run the program back to the beginning, then yes it's pretty obvious there is no free will... but what happens without a beginning? Is that a dumb thought? Why does nobody talk about this? It just seems like a paradox...

And then suddenly Love because a magical force? Instead of the internal biological process it actually is? Well, I like the first hour at least.

an illusion of what

the problem with dennett's contribution is the hubris in insisting that 'the only 'free will' worth wanting' is just what he means when he uses that word. that's ridiculous. for dennett, FW=degrees of freedom afforded through control mechanisms in a deterministic world. why call that 'free will'? the idea of free will was just made up by some ancient theologian apologetic who noticed that uh-oh, his religion's god can seem a little brutal, a tad like a moral monster, so he conjured some goofy thought-terminating word magic that we 'have free will' (?). we can clearly construe freedom from coercive control, control mechanisms, degrees of freedom without 'free will' talk. why on earth would i call my disposition/preference to avoid coercive control 'free will' instead of what it is; my preference to avoid coercive control. why would i call degrees of freedom 'free will' instead just what it is; degrees of freedom? why would i call our affordances through control mechanisms 'free will' instead of control mechanisms? just doesn't make sense. those are all perfectly good phrases, and non-experts don't think that 'free will' stands for those concepts, nor that those concepts are 'the only FW worth wanting.' why would we accommodate dennett's unempirical and--frankly--arrogant, indulgences?

But it sounds like you both are saying that having gratitude is a matter of volition. If mindset is predetermined I don’t see how choosing to be grateful does not contradict the no free will stance

*All we are is the sum of the biology (...) and the environment that we interacts with* This guy thinks he's an animal. Only animals act like that.

No one ever talks about the new knowledge on bio and geneitic mechanics of behavior. How does behavior happen - bio mechanically? Suppose no one is up on the latest papers, etc. So these folks end up swapping pop psychology tropes of the moment and semantics. Pretty low brow stuff... BTW, biology, like physics works one way. Animals/primates/humans can control their behavior with "mind over matter" or not.

I came for Dr Sopolsky, and got too much of the host. Notwithstanding that it is his podcast, the host spent so much time asking and then answering his own question, that at one point Dr Sopolsky asked "why am I even here?" My understanding of meditation does not involve closing my eyes and listening to someone talk. That to me is the opposite of what meditation is. Overall this was disappointing and not at all stimulating. You did not let Dr Sopolsky elaborate on anything, and this interview added nothing to what is already available for the interested viewer; it fact it contains far less than other interviews and podcasts. (I also believed the term "middle way" has been co-opted.) No further interest.

This Deterministic view is so illogical, it just feels like an old man grasping at straws to give his life choices (or lack thereof) meaning. Complete absence of free-will is a shallow idea, and a cop-out to real understanding. What are you so afraid of? In my opinion, evolving consciousness is the only way to perceive a greater understanding and awareness of the Universe we are in. The rest is (boring) speculatory drivel like this. This philosophy aids no one. "A purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved" - Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan

I could be wrong but I believe Sapolsky says that the car and sick child example are devoid of moral blame, which would be the same for a scientifically sound justice system: you did not choose to be born to the circumstances that led you to become the person to grow up to make the "choice" that you did that was harmful.