Neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky says we have no free will. That’s a BIG claim. What are the implications of that??? And if we don’t have free will, is there a science of showing how we’re supposed to function once we accept that there’s no free will? These are the sorts of (very difficult!) questions EconTalk host Russ Roberts discusses with Sapolsky in this episode.
Have a listen, and let us know what you think!
1- How did Sapolsky come to a scientific view that all our actions are pre-determined? What does he mean when he describes human action as merely a part of the “seamless arc of biology?” To what extent are you convinced by Sapolsky’s argument?
2- Why do we “remember” only the seemingly meritocratic reasons for people’s success? (Recall the example of the the Stanford graduate and the gardener. Why, according to Sapolsky, should we not regard the graduate’s achievement as any greater?)
3- Roberts found Sapolsky’s book to be a very Christian book. Why does he think this, and why does Sapolsky disagree? How does Sapolsky respond when Roberts asks him whether free will is possible in a world with an omniscient God? How does Sapolsky answer when Roberts asks, “how do we see ourselves as human beings in the world within this view?”
4- Sapolsky asserts that the absence of free will does not mean that people’s behavior doesn’t change; it does. How can change occur if humans have no agency? How can learning occur, which Sapolsky insists still happens?
5- What is the difference between sentience and free will? (Think of the story of sparrows’ instincts.) If not free will, what then separates humans from other species? (Are we just “simply cursed with the gift of consciousness???)
Bonus Question. Sapolsky insists that while we do not understand consciousness, AI may give us opportunity to do so. Why do you think he believes this, and to what extent might he be correct?
READER COMMENTS
Grant Castillou
Dec 2 2023 at 4:18pm
It’s becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman’s Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first. What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990’s and 2000’s. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I’ve encountered is anywhere near as convincing. I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there’s lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order. My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar’s lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman’s roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461
Amy Willis
Dec 5 2023 at 2:26pm
Thanks for posting that @Grant; that is FASCINATING! The distinction between primary and higher order consciousness makes sense to me (an absolute science neophyte). How, then, is primary consciousness different from sentience? (I DO think a lot about animals…who seem to me to have at least sentience, and many [most?] may have primary consciousness. Off base?
Luke J
Dec 20 2023 at 5:23pm
I am not convinced. Although this arc appears seamless or watertight, then I wonder why so much variation occurs: trees within an avenue, children of the same parents, skin color within the same species. Even cells on a single micro slide behave differently. Sapolsky might argue that no two atoms interact with identical environments, thus only perceived randomness. But if that is the case, then the scientific method can no longer be the end point of any philosophy, because every experiment is a new experiment, not a repeat.
This leads me to question # 3
In Christian faith, there is a creator being with the will and power to bring all matter into existence. Calvinism is one child within the Christian faith which assumes that this “god” has pre-determined the fate (sometimes specific actions, sometimes end points) of humans because “omnipresence.” Thus the so-called five-points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. These are the threads that lead Russ to state that Sapolsky’s book is very Christian. The difference is Sapolsky has substituted science for “god” but otherwise they flow in similar paths. I don’t think that Sapolosky really rebutted the comparison, but he did acknowledge the social upheaval such doctrines demand. I think he is right on this, and it’s one reason why I’m not a Calvinist 🙂