Do We Have Free Will? | Robert Sapolsky & Andrew Huberman

Dr. Robert Sapolsky and Dr. Andrew Huberman discuss whether we have free will and our ability to make choices.

Dr. Robert Sapolsky is a Professor of Biology, Neurology and Neurosurgery at Stanford University. Dr. Andrew Huberman is a neuroscientist and tenured professor in the Department of Neurobiology at Stanford University School of Medicine.

#HubermanLab #RobertSapolsky

Social:

Please note that The Huberman Lab Podcast is distinct from Dr. Huberman's teaching and research roles at Stanford University School of Medicine. The information provided in this show is not medical advice, nor should it be taken or applied as a replacement for medical advice. The Huberman Lab Podcast, its employees, guests and affiliates assume no liability for the application of the information discussed.

[patriciaadducci]

Someone told me that Baruch Spinoza said (around 1650) that people believe themselves to be free because they are conscious of their actions but unconscious of the causes of those actions. Makes sense to me! And I also like how Sapolsky explains it. It's quite liberating, actually. Less internal conflict.

[yourpersonaldatadealer]

To everyone who’s read his book, listened to this podcast and Sam Harris’ on the same topic, congratulations on being at a new historical viewpoint, much like the realisation of the earth not being the centre of the universe. I think it’s vital for us to get this knowledge out there for increasing empathy and dealing with pain.

[Ironeth]

If I'm understanding this correctly, I cannot simply choose or will myself to feel better, more motivated, etc. However, the YouTube algorithm that exposed me to Huberman led to the awareness of, for instance, early morning sunlight's effect on dopamine. That consolidated memory may affect my behavior tomorrow, thus resulting in my feeling better and more motivated. Thus, I'm changing my behavior and brain chemistry, but all of it is due solely to external inputs and does not require a will separate from that.

[ZelphOntheShelf]

Love this convo from two of Stanford’s finest! Thanks for all you both do!

[weston.weston]

I ❤ this excerpt of the discussion with Huberman and Sapolsky. Huberman is so humble and focused during the discussion and Sapolsky, per usual, is one of the best science communicators.

[MarianneHMiettinen]

"Either from experience or making to the end of the right neurobiology class has thought you that change can happen within a framework of a mechanistic neurobiology. You are now more open to being made optimistic by the good news in the world. You are more likely to be inspired by this or that. You are more resistant to getting discouraged by bad news - simply because you know understand, it's possible." <3 LOVE THIS, great stuff. You can become much much better, even though it's just the particles in your body that end up causing it. But a wise person is opened to the possibility of this having a good effect on oneself.

[djEjsrmfldna]

"Striving to be better human beings is still a worthwhile endeavor, do I have that correct?"
Robert Sapolsky says "Absolutely" to this question.

I think Sapolsky should've said
"I guess striving to be a better human being is a worthwhile endeavor. But whether you have the desire to strive to be a better human being isn't up to you, though."

[Ziifit]

Oh my god this was one of my most favourite podcast from the Hubermanlab podcasts. I can't wait to read Determined when it gets published. Thank you Dr Huberman

[annaczgli]

Bob's response to Huberman''s question @ 2:51 is my favorite part. 😄

[lewisalmeida]

Thank you for having Robert Sapolsky on your podcast. Robert Sapolsky’s insight that we do not have free will and that we are determined is provocative and true. Question for Robert, have you read, studied, and understood Spinoza’s Ethics? I too understand that free will is an illusion. I have studied Spinoza’s philosophy communicated in his Ethics for over 50 years. Spinoza wrote his Ethics during the 17th century; however, his books were banned due to contrary religious beliefs. Spinoza understood that free will is an illusion and that we are determined by the laws of nature. Spinoza’s God is Nature, a non-anthropomorphic being.

[mertonhirsch]

The argument against free will is generally explained as, either the universe is causally deterministic, (the past state determines our "choice") or it is chaotic (our state or "choice" can't have any predictable affect on the future).

The problem with this form of the argument is that quantum physics currently only allows the possibility that the future, while limited by the present, can NOT be determined by the present state. The determinations of the Bell theorem demonstrate that there are no local hidden variables present that determine the probabilistic paths of particles through the universe. So there are myriad of different paths that all of the particles in the universe can actually take and the information required to determine those paths is not hidden somewhere in physical reality. If we appeal to non-local hidden variables, then we violate relativity and vivify retro-causality which has the same problem since the paths of particles could be determined by some information that isn't present in the universe "yet". If we appeal to the multiverse model then we can have a physicalistically deterministic manifold, but we can't explain or determine which path through that manifold our conscious awareness will observe. So, our experience of the universe is NOT and can not be physicalistically deterministic. That doesn't mean we have free will, but it does undo the general form of the argument against free will since our state is probabilistically limited by the past AND our state probabilistically limits the future. Our state is not physicalistically determined and our state is not merely chaotically effective on the future. Sapolsky starts with a biased presupposition that our thoughts and awareness is completely explainable by the physical state of our mind which is a) circular (he is using the physically limited mind to prove the physically limited mind) and b) not true, there is randomness in our thoughts that is not determined by the physical history of the universe prior to those thoughts.


If Saploski's statement "I don't think we have a shred of free will" is true, then his conclusion was either inevitable, or random. Both of those invalidate the concept of someone having a "true" or "rational" conclusion because it makes those terms logically superfluous. There is no test that Sapolski had been free to perform prior to making that statement that could have distinguished between his statement being "True/rational and inevitable" or merely "Inevitable." Doesn't make it false, but puts it outside of the realm of rationalism.

At any rate, he clearly holds to a form of physicalistic determinsim which is excluded by randomness. The real argument against free will is one of agency, but all physical models today make a universe with free will indistinguishable from one without it.

[intorpere]

Striving to be better human beings is a worthwhile endeavor, to the extent that you're capable of learning that, capable of acting on it, and how you do so. Still, it all comes down to circumstances, internal and external, and not some causally independent free will.

[dillonsharpton]

The knowledge of determinism is very useful and is itself a cause. Once you realize your choices are determined by the your circumstance and more importanyly, the information your brain has, then it can cause you to start choosing better for yourself. It will cause you to seek more information before making a choice. Knowledge is the true freedom we have to gain. Only then can we rise above our lesser and misinformed selves.

[whitneykeen]

I think there is an omitted strand of the determinist position here, which is that this implied capacity to become "more sensitized to optimistic stimuli" is itself fully determined by the set of prior conditions in one's anatomy (neurochemistry, psychology, etc) in its interactions with the external world. Therefore it's not possible for all, and such experienced optimism is therefore no more a choice than the experienced pessimism that preceded it ( but conditions the shift IN SOME PEOPLE towards optimism). Our desire to feel better about me, about the world, etc is not something I MADE, but something arising in the construction that neurobiology and its environment have created. Those engines are not "MINE" from some supervening place.

[supersaiyanzero]

I absolutely adore Sapolsky's book Behave and I am preordering "Determined".

[AtypicalPaul]

I always enjoy listening to Robert sapolsky. I would love to hear a debate on free will between him and someone over it.

[BenjammminC]

Brilliant - More of these clips please

[handlestress]

I learnt from Dr Sapolsky that we are still within the grip of mechanistic neurobiology though we can learn to change our response to environmental stimuli. So we have no free will. But it is still worthwhile to learn to change our response. It is enough for me.

[Blue_Gourami]

Once you figure out that your choices are predetermined down to the breakfast you ate this morning, a huge sense of weight is lifted off your shoulders as you slowly learn to “let go” and allow the world around you to take form. It truly is fascinating to watch, as I have learned to take a “back seat” role in my life, in some ways at least.

[soheylsajadi]

you know these kind of facts at first seem to be disturbing but a knowledgeable person explains these things beautifully you can imagine how much were are connected to this world it is fascinating how our brain just tricks us to change and go beyond limits by just looking at algorithms we in the of video i came up with this idea that our perception of world is very permeable and there is no stop point in getting information from the environment.thank you professor it was the first time i was watching you previously i had listened to your podcasts😄