I prepared a summary just to give you some context and introduce you to this topic:
Free will, in philosophy and science, is the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.
Philosophers have been debating fate vs. free will for centuries. Some believe that people’s lives and choices are predetermined, while others believe that humans are responsible for their own actions.
A person who is forced at gunpoint to do something, does so with considerably less free will than someone who does something voluntarily. Similarly, a person with a brain disorder that causes constant coughing lacks free will over their coughing, even though they likely retain free will in other ways.
Most of us are certain that we have free will, though what exactly this amounts to is much less certain. According to David Hume, the question of the nature of free will is “the most contentious question of metaphysics.” If this is correct, then figuring out what free will is will be no small task indeed.
Most neuroscientists believe humans have at least some degree of free will. So do most philosophers and the vast majority of the general population. Free will is essential to how we see ourselves, fuelling the satisfaction of achievement or the shame of failing to do the right thing.
There is a kind of free will that we don’t, and cannot have, which is called Absolute Free Will. This is the kind that allows us to do otherwise for any previous decision. This type of free will is required for Moral Responsibility because if someone could not have done otherwise then they are not morally responsible.
Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky believes humans have no free will. By studying baboons in Africa and human behaviour for decades, he’s concluded neurochemical influences determine human behaviour. The supposition should create a more just world, Sapolsky claims.
Here the paradox is that not only is the status of the concept a matter for debate, but the very existence of free will as a subject of research remains unclear.
Many philosophers and theologians have however, taken the general idea of free will as a legitimate defense and explanation for the problem of evil. The (religious) argument is made that God desires free creatures, free creatures are created, and therefore it is the free creatures that bring evil into the world.
Most psychologists use the concept of free will to express the idea that behaviour is not a passive reaction to forces but that individuals actively respond to internal and external forces.
Is there a quantum reason we could have free will? Neil deGrasse Tyson and comedian Chuck Nice explore the concept of free will and predetermination with neuroscientist, biologist, and author of Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will, Robert Sapolsky.
A special thanks from our editors to Robert Sapolsky’s dog.
Could we put an end to the question of whether or not we have free will? Discover “The Hungry Judge Effect” and how little bits of biology affect our actions. We break down a physicist’s perspective of free will, The Big Bang, and chaos theory. Is it enough to just feel like we have free will? Why is it an issue to think you have free will if you don’t?
We discuss the difference between free will in big decisions versus everyday decisions. How do you turn out to be the type of person who chooses vanilla ice cream over strawberry? We explore how quantum physics and virtual particles factor into predetermination. Could quantum randomness change the actions of an atom? How can society best account for a lack of free will? Are people still responsible for their actions?
What would Chuck do if he could do anything he wanted? We also discuss the benefits of a society that acknowledges powers outside of our control and scientific advancements made. How is meritocracy impacted by free will? Plus, can you change if people believe in free will if they have no free will in believing so?
Thanks to our Patrons Pro Handyman, Brad K. Daniels, Starman, Stephen Somers, Nina Kane, Paul Applegate, and David Goldberg for supporting us this week.
A special thanks from our editors to Robert Sapolsky’s dog.
NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free.
Does free will truly exist, or are we merely sophisticated meat machines running our biochemical programming with sentience as a byproduct? Stanford University neurologist Robert Sapolsky, having extensively studied the topic, asserts that not only is free will a myth but also that our insistence on its reality adversely affects the world we inhabit. In this episode, Adam speaks with Dr. Sapolsky about how choice is an illusion and the impact this has on our society, from workplace meritocracies to criminal justice reform. Find Dr. Sapolsky’s book, Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will, at factuallypod.com/books
brain-perks 