Chapter 1: The Ongoing Debate

The age-old debate about nature versus nurture continues to evolve, suggesting that both elements play a significant role.

Neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky, in a recent CNN interview, delves into the concept of free will and its implications in our daily lives. To watch the video, click here.

While I have yet to read Sapolsky's latest work, Determinism: The Science of Life Without Free Will (2023), I am familiar with his earlier book, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (2017). From this, I gather that he firmly believes humans possess no real agency.

As a neuroscientist, Sapolsky undoubtedly has a deep understanding of the human brain. However, it's essential to recognize the limitations of science. Although scientific advancements can influence philosophical thought, it is precarious—and often misleading—to claim that these discoveries conclusively prove the absence of free will. Sapolsky aligns himself with strong determinism, a stance that encourages a troubling assumption.

In his recent discussion with Michael Smerconish on CNN, Sapolsky illustrates his views using the simple choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream. He mentions that when one opts for chocolate, it might seem like a free choice, but he argues that this decision is predetermined, along with the desire for that flavor.

According to Sapolsky, the belief in personal control over our choices is misguided because our intentions arise from factors beyond our conscious awareness. Our preferences for chocolate or vanilla stem from a mix of genetic and environmental influences that we did not select.

While he makes valid points about the genetic and environmental factors affecting our decisions—such as having abusive parents or being lactose intolerant—he tends to overlook an important aspect: we are not merely passive recipients of our surroundings. Instead, we actively engage with and influence our environment.

Sapolsky and other critics of free will, like Sam Harris, suggest that we are entirely subject to the influences of our genes, culture, and environment. They imply that we cannot even respond effectively to adverse conditions because our reactions are not truly our own. While it is true that the universe operates through a chain of cause and effect, these thinkers seem to ignore that we are capable of being both effects and causes.

It is intriguing that proponents of determinism lean heavily on scientific rationale to support their views. History has shown that cause and effect are interconnected; every effect can lead to new causes. Quantum physics also illustrates that particles can exhibit dual characteristics—acting both as particles and waves—depending on how they are observed.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is relevant here. It states that we cannot determine both the position and speed of a particle with complete accuracy. This principle, while applying to particles rather than living beings, highlights that all biological organisms ultimately consist of particles and are governed by the same physical laws.

I do not dispute Sapolsky's assertion that we are subject to physical laws—our freedom is not absolute. Both individuals and societies face limitations based on their physical conditions and their environments. Jared Diamond has effectively argued how geography can shape cultures, impacting the advantages or disadvantages they face.

The potential benefits of our environment, often termed "affordances," significantly influence the choices available to us throughout our lives. For instance, those living in arid regions will have fewer resources compared to those in more fertile areas, impacting their ability to innovate and thrive. In his book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1999), Diamond discusses how the availability of domesticable animals influenced cultural advancements in Eurasia compared to the Americas.

More affordances typically lead to greater choices and, consequently, a sense of increased freedom. Nonetheless, as a species equipped with intelligence, language, and dexterity, even those from less advantageous backgrounds can achieve remarkable innovations.

Critics like Sapolsky focus on the fact that we do not choose our cultural or natural environments, concluding that this lack of choice extends throughout our lives. Yet, we are all born with some degree of affordance.

The crux of the matter is not whether we can select our parents, culture, or genetic makeup, but whether we can make meaningful choices based on the affordances we possess. The degree of freedom available at birth does not negate the reality of free will, just as the relativity of time and space does not invalidate their existence.

In earlier discussions, I noted that proponents of determinism often cite extreme cases of physical limitations to argue against free will. For instance, Sam Harris frequently references mass shootings perpetrated by individuals with severe mental health issues.

Using such extreme cases to dismiss the concept of free will entirely is akin to arguing that the presence of cancer disproves the reality of health. Admittedly, severe conditions can impact our freedom to interact with the world, but the question remains whether free will is the norm.

Free will cannot be pinpointed to a specific location or defined in concrete terms. Like consciousness, it exists in a complex interplay of influences. If all our actions were entirely determined by external forces, the concept of consciousness would lose its meaning. We are both shaped by and shape the world around us, much like light exhibits both particle and wave characteristics.

Determinists like Sapolsky often adopt a materialistic and statistical perspective, dismissing free will simply because it cannot be physically measured. They overlook the individuality of human experiences, assuming that similar conditions will invariably produce identical reactions.

However, it is crucial to recognize that individual agency can emerge from our biological conditions. Much like consciousness, agency may arise spontaneously, and its essence can only be appreciated through lived experiences and our willingness to accept responsibility for our actions. The fear of freedom often stems from the personal accountability that accompanies it.

Chapter 2: Exploring Agency and Responsibility

In this thought-provoking video titled "Responsibility is a Myth" | Robert Sapolsky's Determinism, the neuroscientist examines the implications of his views on free will and accountability.

The second video, Determinism vs Free Will: Crash Course Philosophy #24, offers a comprehensive overview of the philosophical arguments surrounding the debate, providing a balanced perspective on the topic.