There's something very wrong in that we've run
the world on the notion. That it's okay
to treat some people way better than average
for things they had nothing to do with,
and other people way worse than average for
things they had nothing to do with and
then
sla on nonsense about this being a just
world afterward.
And what
getting rid of a notion of free will
is about is saying actually, that's stuff you
had no control over. Oh, I had.
Not just an academic point is what you're
saying. To be greatest latest. In in journals,
it has very real consequences.
Have the sciences proven we have no control
over our lives?
Is that even something they could prove?
Today, I'll take up these questions
by
discussing a recent podcast
interview? Of Robert Sep
on neo grass Tyson Star talk.
Sap and neuroscientist neuroscience
is the author of the recent book determined
the science of life without free will.
So
first, what's the issue?
What is it free will versus versus what?
On the 1 hand advocates of free will
claim that when we make choices,
it's the choice
that determines what happens next.
It's the choice that determines what actions we
take. Had we chosen differently, a different future
would have occurred.
Ci is an advocate of deter as the
title of his book suggests. And our first
clip,
to discuss
is Tyson and Sap supposed laying out how
they understand
deter in relation to human behavior. Let's let's
take a look at the first clip. If
every
action has a a preceding
action to it. You just take that all
the way back.
So it's no longer in your consciousness.
Right? And then something set those series of
s
trips in sequence,
and then you end up saying something or
doing something.
So
this... So the the physicists
cause and effect argument.
How does what you say dovetail with that
Or or you are you saying something slightly
different philosophically?
Actually, very similar. And
You,
behavioral sciences biology whatever discovered made this major
discovery recently,
by which I mean somewhere in the last
couple of centuries.
Which is something happened because of what came
just before that, and that happened because of
what chase to... And, you know, that whole
deal, I freak out when we've gotten anywhere
near the big bang because I understand 0
about that. But at the very least to...
And how you turn out to evolve into
the sort of species you are. Yeah. And
you look at everything and it had a
deter route.
So this is a this is a great
description of this. Stakes of the debate. So
on the 1 hand, the free will advocate
is saying that we're the authors of our
own futures were the authors of our own,
person and character and choice and decisions. So
po conception here is the
is a is a model of human behavior
as a mechanical system.
Like
gears in a clock,
1 turn of 1 gear
necessarily produces the turn of another gear of
just a certain amount,
given how things are now, there's only 1
possible future for the clock and to supposed
again also, Tyson,
given how things are now, and given your
background in the past, there's only 1 possible
choice you could make.
There
saying we're like clocks in this respect.
But, of course,
clocks
don't think they are are not clocks.
And and the the difference here is that
human beings have a perspective on the causality
of their their behavior.
So...
Those are the kind of 2 sides of
the debate. There's the free will side. There's
the deter or the deter
side. And
they also have a pretty good
understanding of what
the stakes are in the debate in the
sense of what matters.
There's something very wrong in that we run
the world on the notion that it's okay
to treat some people way better than average.
For things they had nothing to do with,
and other people way worse than average for
things they had nothing to do with and
then
sla on nonsense about this being a just
world. Afterward.
And what
getting rid of a notion of free will
is about is saying actually, that stuff you
had no control over Oh, I had
all. Not just an academic point is what
you're saying to be greatest slightest. In in
journals, it has very real consequences.
In our social cultural fabric.
I agree with them in this respect. You
wouldn't blame a rock for rolling downhill. Nor
would you praise it. It's just an inc
The rock has no choice. You wouldn't blame
a clock for ticking or not ticking. I
mean, it's not up to the clock whether
or not that... That happens. And and Sap
is entirely correct If there's no free will,
then
the world is neither just nor unjust. That's
not a... Coherent,
a coherent conception because no 1 should or
shouldn't do anything. They just
of do what they do as a matter
of
of, physics.
Now,
1 of the ways this is sometimes put
is that
the deter
picture of human behavior is
incompatible with
responsibility,
particularly
moral responsibility. You're not responsible that is you
don't get credit for doing something, are our
conception of
responsibility
of
dessert deserving
or not deserving something
is tied up with our
view or a common sense view that, yeah,
they did 1 thing, but they could have
done something else.
He robbed the bank, but he could not
have
he
built
a wonderful startup company. He could have done
something else. He could have
he could've have, you know, been a beg,
he could have
gone to law school whatever.
But if again, if Sup is right if
the deter view is right,
there's no sense in which
anybody could have done anything other than they
did.
They go on, a little bit after the
clip to talk about some social and political
implications
of
of the free well versus deter,
debate. You get some kind of reward or
dessert
because you're responsible for what you've done if
you make more money say,
you've earned it in the sense of
you did something of your own choice that
brought about some desirable effect.
Again, if there's no choice,
highly productive people aren't any different than
than
clocks or then rocks and
poorly productive or unproductive or negatively productive people,
they're not responsible for that either. So what
sense does it make to
dole out rewards when
or penalties when no one's the cause of
anything they do?
How do we decide who's right,
what exactly are we saying is
free or is
determined? Really what we're talking about is this
sort of... Experience or this internal experience of
having chosen.
So we have 2 clips here
splice together to give you a sense of
how Sap supposed thinks about this. He's
he's
thinking about the internal experience of choice, but
he's got a he's got a view of
what exactly this experience is of that, I'm
gonna take issue with. Philosophically, you can say,
what you did was predetermined, but the way
we experience life,
we feel we have free will and isn't
that good enough.
No. And not only isn't good enough scientifically,
it's an awful thing for how life is.
For lots of people to believe in free
will that isn't there
because
you give somebody a sense that they had
control over how things turned out. Okay. So
something like you pick vanilla instead of strawberry
or
what we're caught in there. Is exactly what
you... Like we're alluding to. You sit there,
you make a decision.
You have a moment of intent. You're consciously
aware of the intent. You know what the
outcome likely to be, Most importantly, you know,
you don't have to do this. There's are
alternatives,
and that sure seems like free will, and
that is nothing to do with free will.
Okay. Because the only thing to ask at
that point is, so how do you turn
out to be the sort of person who
would want vanilla strawberry at that I'm gonna
do Robert. Next time I'm in an ice
cream shop. I'm gonna say, let me see.
Do I want Vin no. I want strawberry.
Your name. Dan, no. Right when they're ready
to scoop it, I I walk out so
I don't want any ice cream at all.
You totally un your entire theory.
No. Not at all how do you wind
it being the sort of person saying. Screw
that with trying to say this is how
I dumb. I'm gonna show them or whatever.
I'm gonna. Know you. Oh notice that it's
to them, it's, like, adam choices. You have
a moment of intent Ci supposed says.
You decide between 2 alternatives.
This is a kind of understanding of free
will is, like, the moment of choice is
what's supposed to be free or what feels
like it's free.
So is that the right way
to think about the experience of
of choice?
And I don't think it is. He doesn't
take seriously
the
experience of mental control that we have. I
think you
choices are important to thinking about for... Like,
choices, chocolate or vanilla, that that's not irrelevant,
but what's really central is
the experience or the the
observation of our own power to control
our, our minds.
We exert far more control over than just
the choice, chocolate or vanilla. For example,
we can control
entire chains of deli.
Well, maybe you're choosing...
Sugar free, vanilla versus
sugary chocolate,
but you're choosing that in the con... In
the context of having thought about should I
go on a diet?
That's a whole process of deli liberation. You
weigh
the pros and cons, you
consult with maybe a doctor.
You think about what goals you might have
in in in deciding to go on a
on a diet,
we control aspects
of that whole process of declaration, like the
duration I would. We can control what questions
we ask ourselves.
Should I go to the doctor and ask
their opinion or, I thought they I don't
know what they're talking about. Maybe that's how
you think of it.
When, when to stop? Thinking about it. We
have control over that as well.
And when to start thinking about the question,
So in
In iran's theory free will, what we fundamentally
have control over is whether we're engaged in
a process of thought to begin with.
Whether we exert the effort to know reality
or not.
So, of course, chocolate or vanilla type choices,
only occur within a broader context,
and the broadest relevant context is
having made this more fundamental choice of
I'm gonna
engage my mind to
think about what's true and what's good for
me.
When you choose vanilla, maybe it's relevant,
but not a determining factor that your grandmother,
like vanilla ice cream and so choosing
Vanilla brings along with it some pleasant memories
or something, like that's all part of the
context within
which you're choosing,
But,
ultimately,
the most basic choice is just whether or
not to exert the effort to know.
So they
have a limited conception or a limited understanding
of just what is even the... The psychological
phenomenon they're trying to explain away. The second
issue that comes up in this clip that
really can you gets gets to the basics
of this. Is just what counts as evidence
for the existence of free will,
1 way or the other
At by now, the onus is on people
saying there's free will, and this is what
would fa diversify all of this, show me
a neuron.
Or a network of neurons
or brain that just did something and show
me that it did that
completely free of its history.
What's wrong with this.
As I said, a moment ago, he thinks
the
intros
awareness of
choice is
very weak evidence. I think it's decisive.
The issue is really what to make of
intros intersect evidence.
And my basic reply is that no fine
scientific finding
can show that we don't have free will.
Because the existence, the reality of free will
is a pre opposition of the sciences.
So I'm saying that in this case,
intros intersection
of
free will sets the context
for our interpretation of sciences findings,
Neuroscience needs to accommodate choice physics needs to
accommodate
non deter causes.
So
how do I...
Defend that view. Well, before I do... So
directly, I wanna take a look at
1
final clip from their podcast,
If I tell you
that I don't agree with you that we
all have free will.
Then
I'm not in control of the fact that
I am telling you we all have free
will.
It's predetermined that I think that everyone who
thinks we have free will that we have
free will. That's predetermined. And nothing we can
do about it.
Yeah.
Until you get
until
something to do can't get out of?
Yeah.
Like, somewhere along the way, you figured it
out the kids saying next you having trouble
learning to read. There's this thing called d,
and you changed.
You changed as a result and, like, your
brain changed. When you look at somebody who
has, like, a lot of spelling errors or
whatever in they're writing and like they mentioned
so we're working yeah, I got a learning
difference whatever,
a part of your brain that would have
had some immersive responses. And told another party
your brain that has something to do with
judgment
doesn't activate anymore the social
Okay. And social enlightenment turns out to be
neuro
and neuro
turns out to be different social behavior. It's
completely intertwined.
Like, thank God. So can cure people who
think there's... There is free will. There's...
Yes. It's not their fault. We...
Exactly. We pray for their souls, but still.
So Tyson raising a really great objection. Unfortunately,
he doesn't really see how to press it
and Sap supposedly doesn't appreciate how deep
how deep the objection cuts. So the entire
interview, the entire conversation
around deter that they're having suffers from a
basic
inc.
He's telling us, suppose he's telling us,
what we should do given that there's no
free will?
They're asking glenn, how should society change? How
should we judge each other?
When should we assign praise or blame. Those
kind of questions
don't make any sense on deter premises.
No 1 can do anything about it
because no one's really in control of themselves.
So this contradiction arises whenever determine
say anything about what we should do.
A rock neither should nor shouldn't roll down
a hill, o'clock me neither should or shouldn't
tick the
idea of should is tied up with our
concept of could have done otherwise. You had
a choice,
you had power over your actions.
Supposedly he gets this when he's talking about
other people's responsibility,
or judging other people. They don't have responsibility,
but what should you believe with respect to
free will?
A deter
can't really say. He's not in a position
to know whether his theory corresponds
reality or not.
Because on his own theory,
he believe it regardless of whether or not
it's true.
Knowledge talk,
terms like true and false, snow,
don't know,
the... That is also a kind of responsibility.
It's a responsibility with how we think about
things.
How we
assess evidence,
how we reach
judgments of of the truth,
When he says a certain
observation will confirm or confirm his theory,
Why adopt that as a rule? Why care
about tests?
Why think a test would or wouldn't prove
anything?
Well,
because our minds aren't automatically connected to reality,
We have to do certain things
to get them in contact with reality,
and we could do other things that don't
get us in contact with reality.
Instead of looking for evidence, we could con
con fantasies.
How do you know your theory is true?
While on a deter view like Sep, he
can't say.
Because again, according to his own theory, he'd
believe it even if it were even if
it were false.
Now, if you
adopt a theory of free will like I'm
rand,
the answer to that question is,
Well, I've chosen to take the actions necessary
to keep my mind in contact with reality
that I've chosen to
accept the results of those actions. That's how
I know.
My my view is true.
If I took those actions and
they,
told me my view was false. I would
have accepted that it's false. If I didn't
perform those actions, I would have,
accepted some other option
my mind is in contact with reality because
I chose to keep it that way.
So
If that's right, free will is a fact
at the foundation of all knowledge, including scientific
knowledge,
a real scientific approach to free will,
would start from that fact that is start
from the fact of free will.
It wouldn't treat it as a hypothesis in
need of testing.
And it would recognize that
any scientific
theory which called into question,
1 of the very foundations of science
would result in a in a contradiction.
So
that's what I wanted to say in response
to
Tyson and
Conversation.
Of course, there's a lot more to say
on the topic of free will,
if you're interested
in hearing more about object view of free
will,
the Ina rand Institute has many essays,
and,
podcast podcasts and lecture is on the topic.
If you go to new ideal dot rand
dot org search for free will, you'll find,
find many of them,
If you
enjoyed this video,
please subscribe to our channel on Youtube and
click the bell to get notifications from when
we go live.
Or post new recordings.
Please like, comment
and share this episode to help us attract
new viewers
if you have
any questions on,
free will or on any more broadly
philosophical topic,
please send them to experts at rand dot
org.
If you want to make a suggestion about
future topics, for an episode like this or
for our regular weekly podcast, you can send
the suggestions to new ideal at ina ren
dot org. We do read all of your
emails and we reply to many.
You've been listening to new ideal, a podcast
from the Ina Rand Institute.
If you like what you hear, leave us
a review, share with a friend and subscribe
to our other podcasts
From this podcast was made possible by Donors
to the Ina rand Institute.
Help support this podcast by becoming an Ari
member. This go to ina rand dot org
forward slash membership.