Free Will and Robert Sapolsky
The concept of free will has been a philosophical and scientific debate for ages, raising questions about how much agency humans possess, and the degree to which our choices are truly our own. Renowned neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky offers some fascinating insights into the factors that ultimately dictate our judgments and decisions in his newly released science non-fiction “Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will”.
Philosophically speaking, free will refers to the ability to make choices free from external influences. However, Sapolsky approaches the concept of free will from a neuroscientific perspective. In his newest book, the Stanford professor talks about neural mechanisms in the brain that affect the decision-making process. These mechanisms are influenced by genetics, upbringing and environmental factors, and ultimately shape our behavior.
Sapolsky discusses the perspective of determinism, which is the philosophical notion that all events, actions and behaviors are determined by a set of pre-existing factors. In other words, every event can be mapped out to a specific set of conditions that existed long before our own existence. Our history, our ancestry, the environment and culture we grew up with, are all collectively responsible for the decisions we make today. In the words of Sapolsky himself, “We are nothing more or less than the cumulative biological and environmental luck, over which we had no control, that has brought us to any moment.”
Most of the choices we make in our everyday lives feel immediate and intuitive to us- decisions such as “what do I wear today?”, or “what should I have for lunch?”. These are intentional decisions we make based on how we might be feeling on that given day. Or so it seems, since out intent feels clear to us. But where does that intent come from? What makes us choose one thing over the other in a split second? The theory of causal determinism says that every single decision we make, from the weekend getaway trip we agreed to on a whim, to the nice pair of shoes we decided to impulse-buy, comes from an intent we might not realize consciously, but has come to fruition out of infinite interactions between our biology and the environment. As much as it may feel like we make our choices in the here and the now, the neural processes in our brain might have been set in motion long before we are conscious of them.
Determinism not only explains the smaller, seemingly insignificant events and choices, but also paints a clear picture of how we as an entire civilization and species have been influenced by causes such as the environment and ecology. In “Determined”, Sapolsky references “In our Genes”, a research article by H. Harpending and G. Cochran about the relationship between genetic variation and human cultural diversity. “Another literature compares cultures of rain forest versus desert dwellers, where the former tend toward inventing polytheistic religions, the latter, monotheistic ones. This probably reflects ecological influences as well—life in the desert is a furnace-blasted, desiccated singular struggle for survival; rain forests teem with a multitude of species, biasing toward the invention of a multitude of gods. Moreover, monotheistic desert dwellers are more warlike and more effective conquerors than rain forest polytheists, explaining why roughly 55 percent of humans proclaim religions invented by Middle Eastern monotheistic shepherds.” Sapolsky makes it clear how our fundamental view of the world, the religious and cultural beliefs we hold are also determined by forces we don’t quite understand.
So, is free will really just an illusion? It’s hard to tell. For most of humanity, we have looked at free will from a philosophical lens. Debating its existence scientifically is a complex process, and the theory of causal determinism is not a universally accepted one. Sapolsky presents a compelling argument nonetheless. “In order to prove there’s free will, you have to show that some behavior just happened out of thin air in the sense of considering all these biological precursors. It may be possible to sidestep that with some subtle philosophical arguments, but you can’t with anything known to science,” he says.
Scientific arguments aside, Sapolsky’s perspective on free will poses a distinct set of philosophical questions as well. What are the implications if we collectively as a society reject free will? How do we define accountability and blame? Are we responsible for any of our actions? Do any of our good deeds deserve to be recognized? What about reward and punishment, where do we draw the line? Also, how do we deal with the existential crisis of knowing that we are not free thinkers, but are rather bound by biological and neurological restraints caused by factors so far away from our time and control? Turns out, Robert Sapolsky is asking the same questions as well. In an article by Stanford University, he quotes, “For me, the single most important question is how to construct a society that is just, safe, peaceful – all those good things – when people finally accept that there is no free will.”
References:
- Robert M. Sapolsky, Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will