Free will isn't Real – Now what?
Reflections on Sapolsky's Determined – A Science of Life Without Free Will
My Definitions
Free will - People can make choices independent of their biological past and environmental interactions (i.e., "I made this happen").
Determinism - All events are causal, but that doesn't mean things cannot change or anything is predictable.
Changing my Mind
Free will doesn't exist; The forces of the universe have predetermined everything. Robert M. Sapolsky, a professor of biology, neurological sciences, and neurosurgery at Stanford University, wrote Determined - A Science of Life Without Free Will. After reading it, I concluded that free will isn't real and nature has predetermined our future.
Unsettling, I know. But I can't ignore the compelling evidence Sapolsky outlines in his book; it's the most persuasive perspective I've heard: Our genes, culture, upbringing, evolution, and interactions with the world (i.e., the sum of our "biological past") dictate our decisions and behavior—all of it.
This perspective matters because it’s shaping how I live. My goal in writing this piece is not to convince you to reach the same conclusion that free will doesn't exist. Sapolsky already wrote four hundred pages on that, with fifty-plus pages of citations in size eight font.
I'm writing this piece to share how acknowledging I don't have free will has altered my mind for the better. I hope that by reading these words, your mind will also change for the better.
Judgment is Overrated
I'm a serial judger. I judge other people all the time, and I judge myself even more. Self-judgment has crippled me and caused excessive, unnecessary self-depreciation. And it's frustrating because I hate feeling sorry for myself. What I've noticed since I concluded that free will isn’t real - it's no one's fault when they "mess up." That's freeing. Why get mad about something I don't have control over? That's not to say I will never get angry, only that there is no point once I recognize that we don't control anything.
Now, people might get triggered by the implications of this perspective. "So you're saying no one is responsible for their actions?" Kind of - yes. At least that's the conclusion Sapolsky shared in Determined, and I agree with (i.e., Do you blame someone for having a mental illness? Sapolsky argues that the same biological past that leads to someone having a mental illness is the same biological “stuff” that dictates our decisions, which we perceive we have agency over but don't). While I could go on a tangent on this, that's not the point of this piece; I only want to point out that if everyone were to stop believing in free will, it would have profound implications we need to address.
At a more individual, tactical level, acknowledging there is no free will and that we live in a deterministic world has helped me recognize that if what's going to happen happens, I don't need to punish myself for not getting everything done on my to-do list. And that person that was shitty to me the other day – they probably went through things that I can't even fathom, and rather than yell at them, compassion is the only route. No free will is absolving my need to judge. Will I still judge? Of course, that's human nature. But this newfound knowledge has forever altered how I look at judgment, and I hope it continues to do so.
Stress Caused by Uncontrollable Events
I got laid off two months ago. As you might have experienced or can imagine – it's stressful. Immediately after getting laid off, I dived into my family's finances and rode a roller coaster of emotions. Right now, that stress is significantly lower than when I initially got laid off – time, my community's open arms, reflection, and my wonderful wife have much to do with that.
Finishing Determined, my stress continues to go down, and reflecting on its insights will help it stay down. Why? If everything is predetermined and I have no free will, what will happen will happen. The only thing I can do is what I will do. Stress and fear of the future have been quieter because my body and mind recognize that worry only fuels more worry.
I still plan and have been thoughtful and strategic in approaching my job search. But the situation is what it is, and it will change and evolve. So, I will ride life, giving myself some grace and communicating truthfully and openly with my family. Hopefully, this will make the job search feel lighter - it already has.
Inhabiting Now Completely
All that matters is now. Eye roll – we all have heard this; we all get it. But when I finished reading, Determined, and spoke to my wife about what I've reflected on, I recognized to my core ruminating on the past and future is pointless. Now, I'm not going to blow all my family's life savings on an absurd yacht; for me, what determinism and no free will dictate is that presence in this current moment is all we have and that squandering it by being inattentive to what's happening in front of us is like spitting on life's face.
From my experience, this also means that I must educate myself and live by principles that are known about the human condition. If this body is all I have, I need to take care of it (see my pieces on thoughts on nutrition and exercise). Hopefully, taking care of it will yield beautiful things.
What I'm getting at is if you're playing with your kids, inhabit that moment completely. Don't think about your work project while you're with your kids. That's what work time is for. And while the whole point of no free will is you might think about work anyway in those moments, just because you don't have free will doesn't mean you're incapable of change. Lack of free will does not mean that we can’t change or that what happens in our lives is predictable.
Our One Job
Whether you decide to read Sapolsky’s Determined or not (you can also watch his Stanford lecture here), I hope you do, or at least explore this topic more because your perspective on this matters a lot. Science has already shown causality regarding control over many things that we mistakenly believe we do, and that's dangerous and should not be taken lightly.
How will my mind change on this topic? It will undoubtedly change. For now, losing free will doesn't make me want to stop doing what I'm doing. It's stopped my incessant, unhealthy questioning of everything all the time. We are human beings – we have no other purpose than to be. Everything else is fluff.
Here I use ChatGPT to have an imaginary conversation between Sapolsky and Sandel:
Let's imagine a conversation between Michael J. Sandel, renowned for his teachings on justice, ethics, and political philosophy at Harvard University, and Robert M. Sapolsky, a Stanford University professor and author of "Determined," a book arguing against the concept of free will. Their discussion might explore the intersections and divergences in their thoughts on moral responsibility and free will.
Sandel: Robert, your work on the biological determinants of behavior presents a compelling case against the traditional concept of free will. In my "Justice" course, we often discuss the philosophical underpinnings of morality and responsibility. How do you reconcile the absence of free will with moral accountability?
Sapolsky: Michael, I appreciate the nuance of the moral frameworks you explore. My position, as articulated in "Determined," is that our actions are the product of genetics, environment, and brain chemistry. This doesn't absolve us of responsibility but requires us to rethink it. If our decisions are predetermined by such factors, then societal structures, including justice systems, must reflect this understanding.
Sandel: That's fascinating. I argue that a just society must consider the moral and civic virtues of its citizens. Even if we accept that our choices are influenced by external factors, doesn't the capacity for reflection and reasoning play a role in shaping our ethical decisions?
Sapolsky: Absolutely, Michael. However, my argument is that the capacity for reflection is itself influenced by biological and environmental conditions. It doesn't negate the importance of ethical deliberation but suggests that free will might not be as free as we think. Our understanding of morality should incorporate these biological insights without diminishing the value of ethical debate.
Sandel: I see your point, Robert. This raises an interesting question about justice and punishment. If individuals are less responsible for their actions in the traditional sense, how should our legal system adapt?
Sapolsky: It's crucial that we shift towards a rehabilitative rather than punitive system. Understanding the determinants of behavior can help us tailor interventions that address the root causes of antisocial behavior, rather than simply punishing individuals for actions they may have limited control over.
Sandel: Your insights challenge us to reconsider the foundations of justice and ethics. While we may not agree on all points, the dialogue between biology and philosophy enriches our understanding of human behavior and moral responsibility.
Sapolsky: Indeed, Michael. It's conversations like these that push us to explore the complex interplay between biology, environment, and morality. By acknowledging the limits of our freedom, we can better appreciate the factors that shape our behavior and strive for a more compassionate and understanding society.
This imagined dialogue showcases the rich, albeit complex, interplay between philosophical concepts of morality and the biological determinants of behavior, highlighting both agreements and disagreements between two intellectual giants from Harvard and Stanford.
New thoughts (4/8/24):
My journaling, current reading and reflection have made me want to follow up on this piece. I want to share my updated thinking regarding one aspect of what I wrote:
"Now, people might get triggered by the implications of this perspective. 'So you're saying no one is responsible for their actions?' Kind of - yes. At least that's the conclusion Sapolsky shared in Determined, and I agree with (i.e., Do you blame someone for having a mental illness? Sapolsky argues that the same biological past that leads to someone having a mental illness is the same biological 'stuff' that dictates our decisions, which we perceive we have agency over but don't)."
I already said "kind of" in my statement, but I don't think I captured the nuance of how on the edge I feel about this in my piece. And I have been currently navigating these new question that have popped up as a result of this turmoil in my mind: Is what I wrote saying that I believe there is no distinction between what is right or wrong? How have we defined right or wrong in the past and now? And how does that affect how we move and act in the world? I don't think Sapolsky is saying that you can just have people hurting other people without consequence, but I still struggle with does that mean we can't hold anyone morally responsible?
I'm currently exploring Michael Sandel's justice lectures (https://scholar.harvard.edu/sandel/justice) and I hope to have more thoughts on this later.