The great free will debate | Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, Robert Sapolsky, Steven Pinker & more

Summary

The video explores the complex debate around free will, with experts like Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and Robert Sapolsky offering their perspectives. Dennett suggests that free will arises from biological evolution, while Pinker emphasizes the brain's complexity in decision-making. Sapolsky argues that free will is a myth, shaped by biological factors. The discussion also touches on the implications of determinism and quantum uncertainty, suggesting that while we may not have absolute free will, we are responsible for our actions. The video challenges the idea of free will as an illusion and highlights its social and moral consequences.

Takeaways

• 🧠 The concept of free will is deeply intertwined with the complexities of the human brain and consciousness.
• 🌐 Free will is considered to have evolved alongside biological and cognitive abilities, particularly in evolutionary biology.
• 🤔 The ability to choose is often confused with the idea of free will, and human choices are not easily predictable.
• 🧪 Some experts argue there is no free will at all, suggesting our actions are determined by physical processes in the brain.
• 🔬 The brain's vast complexity, with billions of neurons and trillions of synapses, contributes to the unpredictability of human behavior.
• 🍨 Different types of behavior are influenced by the brain; some are involuntary reflexes, while others involve conscious decision-making.
• 🧬 Factors such as genetics, environment, and biochemistry all play a role in shaping our ability to make choices.
• 🎲 The Heisenberg uncertainty principle introduces an element of unpredictability, suggesting some degree of free will in decision-making.
• 👥 Responsibility and social constructs are integral to the concept of free will, influencing how we perceive our own agency.
• 🚗 The idea of personal responsibility is not diminished by the mechanistic understanding of the brain; it's a social agreement.
• 📚 Thought experiments, like the nefarious neurosurgeon, challenge the notion that neuroscience can definitively prove or disprove free will.

Q & A

What is the main philosophical question discussed in the transcript?

The main philosophical question discussed in the transcript is the existence and nature of free will.

What does Daniel Dennett argue about the evolution of free will?

Daniel Dennett argues that free will is a result of evolutionary biology, where greater cognitive competences have evolved over billions of years, allowing humans to represent reasons to themselves and others, which is key to responsibility and free will.

How does Steven Pinker view free will in relation to physical processes in the brain?

Steven Pinker does not believe in free will as a 'ghost in the machine' but sees human behavior as a product of physical processes in the brain. He distinguishes between reflexive behaviors and those involving complex decision-making processes that incorporate information and predict consequences.

What is Robert Sapolsky's stance on free will?

Robert Sapolsky expresses skepticism about the existence of free will, suggesting that many factors, from current physical states to early biological development, influence our actions, and that the concept of free will might be a myth.

How does Michio Kaku connect the concept of free will with Newtonian determinism and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

Michio Kaku discusses Newtonian determinism, which suggests a predetermined universe, and contrasts it with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which introduces the element of chance. He suggests that this uncertainty could imply a form of free will.

What is Joscha Bach's perspective on free will and responsibility?

Joscha Bach views free will as related to responsibility, which is a social construct. He emphasizes that decisions made with an understanding of their impact on others and the potential consequences are indicative of free will.

How does Michael Gazzaniga differentiate between the brain's automatic functions and human freedom?

Michael Gazzaniga differentiates by stating that while brains operate automatically, people are free within the context of social norms and laws. He uses the analogy of cars and traffic to explain that understanding individual components (brains) doesn't negate the higher-level organization (social responsibility).

What is an 'intuition pump' according to Daniel Dennett?

An 'intuition pump' is a thought experiment, often in the form of a story or fable, designed to lead to an intuitive conclusion about a philosophical issue. Dennett uses them to challenge assumptions and provoke thought.

What is the 'nefarious neurosurgeon' thought experiment mentioned by Dennett?

The 'nefarious neurosurgeon' thought experiment is a scenario where a neurosurgeon deceives a patient into believing their actions are controlled, effectively convincing them they lack free will. Dennett uses this to argue against the idea that suggesting a lack of free will can have real-world consequences.

What was the outcome of the experiment where participants read about free will being an illusion?

In the experiment, participants who read that free will is an illusion cheated more frequently on a subsequent task than those who did not read the passage, suggesting that belief in free will can influence moral behavior.

How does the transcript suggest that the belief in free will affects behavior?

The transcript suggests that belief in free will is crucial for personal responsibility and moral behavior. It implies that undermining this belief can lead to negligence and a decrease in ethical decision-making.

Outlines

00:00

🧠 The Enigma of Free Will and Neuroscience

This paragraph explores the concept of free will from a philosophical and scientific perspective. It begins by questioning the existence of free will despite unchanged physics over billions of years, suggesting that our sense of freedom is a recent biological development. Daniel Dennett argues that our advanced cognitive abilities, evolved through biology and particularly evolutionary biology, set us apart from other species. He emphasizes our unique capacity to represent reasons to ourselves and others, which is key to responsibility and the anticipation of consequences. Dennett also discusses the illusion of consciousness and the lack of a 'boss part' in the brain, suggesting that our decisions are made by various subsystems competing to execute projects. Steven Pinker contributes by expressing disbelief in free will as a spiritual entity, proposing instead that our behavior is a product of physical brain processes, though complex and not simply predictable.

05:01

🤔 The Complexity of Free Will and Determinism

The second paragraph delves deeper into the nature of free will, distinguishing between reflexive behaviors and those that involve conscious decision-making, which engages vast neural networks, particularly the frontal lobes. It suggests that while free will exists in a realm separate from involuntary reflexes, it doesn't necessitate the existence of a soul. Robert Sapolsky offers a skeptical view, suggesting that free will, if it exists, is confined to mundane decisions, and that many factors from current physical discomfort to early developmental influences can sway our choices. Michio Kaku introduces the concepts of Newtonian determinism and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, suggesting that while the universe may be unpredictable at a quantum level, this doesn't necessarily translate to human free will. Joscha Bach reflects on the social construct of responsibility and how it influences our decisions, viewing free will as a discourse influenced by social interfaces rather than a deterministic or probabilistic universe.

10:02

📚 Social Constructs and the Illusion of Free Will

The third paragraph continues the discourse on free will, with Michael Gazzaniga emphasizing the importance of personal responsibility as a social construct rather than a product of brain mechanics. He uses the analogy of understanding cars versus understanding traffic to illustrate that knowing how brains work doesn't negate the social responsibility we hold each other to. Dennett introduces the concept of 'intuition pumps,' or thought experiments, as tools to provoke thought and persuasion, warning against the potential harm of suggesting that neuroscience disproves free will. He presents a hypothetical scenario where a neurosurgeon's claim to control a patient's actions leads to the patient's moral downfall, questioning the ethics of such claims and their impact on personal responsibility.

15:06

🚨 The Consequences of Dismissing Free Will

The final paragraph presents a thought experiment where a neurosurgeon tricks a patient into believing their actions are controlled, leading to the patient's moral and legal transgressions. The patient's defense of lacking free will is met with the revelation that the neurosurgeon was joking, highlighting the harm caused by such misinformation. Dennett extends this critique to neuroscientists who publicly claim that free will is an illusion, suggesting that this message can lead to a decrease in personal responsibility and an increase in unethical behavior, as demonstrated in an experiment where subjects who read about free will as an illusion were more likely to cheat.

Keywords

💡Free Will

Free will refers to the ability to make choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will. In the video, this concept is debated extensively. Daniel Dennett argues that free will is a product of evolution and biology, particularly human cognitive competence, which allows us to represent our reasons to ourselves and others. This ability to deliberate and respond to challenges is central to the theme of the video.

💡Determinism

Determinism is the philosophical position that all events, including moral choices, are determined by previously existing causes. Michio Kaku discusses Newtonian determinism, suggesting that if the universe operates like a giant clock, then our actions are predetermined, challenging the concept of free will.

💡Evolutionary Biology

Evolutionary biology is the study of how species change over time through genetic variation and natural selection. Dennett mentions it as a key factor in the development of human cognitive abilities, which in turn are linked to the emergence of free will.

💡Cognitive Competence

Cognitive competence refers to the ability to process thoughts, understand complex ideas, and learn from experience. It is highlighted by Dennett as superior in humans compared to other species, and is integral to the concept of free will as it allows for the representation of reasons behind actions.

💡Responsibility

Responsibility implies accountability for one's actions. It is tied to the concept of free will in the video, as those with free will are deemed responsible for their choices. Dennett explains that our ability to answer 'why' questions and to be held accountable for our reasons is a sign of responsibility.

💡Consciousness

Consciousness is the state of being aware of and able to think and perceive one's surroundings, thoughts, and emotions. Steven Pinker discusses how our superficial access to our own cognitive processes is part of the consciousness, which is limited but still allows for a sense of free will.

💡Neuroscience

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system and brain functions. It is mentioned in the context of experiments that suggest our decisions might be determined by physical processes in the brain, thus challenging the idea of free will.

💡Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the position and momentum of a particle cannot both be precisely measured at the same time. Kaku uses this principle to argue for the possibility of free will, suggesting that the inherent unpredictability in quantum mechanics could imply a degree of freedom in our choices.

💡Social Interface

A social interface refers to the way individuals interact within a society. Joscha Bach discusses free will in terms of a social interface, where responsibility for actions is a social construct that influences decision-making.

💡Epigenetics

Epigenetics is the study of changes in organisms caused by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself. Robert Sapolsky mentions epigenetic effects as one of many biological factors that might influence behavior, further complicating the notion of free will.

💡Illumination of the Neurosurgeon

This is a thought experiment devised by Dennett to illustrate the potential harm of suggesting to someone that they lack free will. The neurosurgeon in the story claims to control a patient's actions, leading the patient to believe they have no free will, which results in negative behavioral changes. This narrative is used to critique the potential societal impact of neuroscientific claims about the absence of free will.

Highlights

The question of free will is deeply philosophical and intertwined with physics.

For billions of years, life existed without free will; it's a recent evolutionary development.

The concept of free will is not explained by physics alone but also by biology and evolution.

Human cognitive competence has evolved to a level far beyond other species.

Our ability to represent reasons to ourselves is key to our sense of responsibility.

The power to anticipate and evaluate consequences is a hallmark of human freedom.

Consciousness provides only superficial access to our mental processes.

The brain's complexity makes human behavior unpredictable.

Human choices engage vast neural networks, particularly the frontal lobes.

The brain's setup allows for both reflexive and complex, considered behaviors.

Free will might be a myth, with many biological and environmental factors influencing decisions.

The idea of free will is shrinking as we understand more about biological influences.

Our brains' complexity is a result of evolutionary development.

Newtonian determinism suggests a predetermined universe, while quantum mechanics introduces uncertainty.

Free will might be influenced by discourse and social constructs.

Responsibility is a social concept that doesn't necessarily conflict with mechanistic brain function.

The social network and its rules are crucial for maintaining accountability and freedom.

Intuition pumps, or thought experiments, are used to provoke thought and can influence behavior.

Believing in a lack of free will can lead to morally and socially irresponsible behavior.

Neuroscientific claims about the absence of free will can have real-world consequences.

Transcripts

- Well, you ask one of the deepest philosophical  questions of physics. The question of free will.

- For billions of years on this planet,  there was life, but no free will.  

Physics hasn't changed, but now we have free will.

- The brains are automatic, but people are free.

- Our ability to choose is often confused.

- Human choices will not be  predictable in any simple way.

- In reality, I don't think  there's any free will at all.

DANIEL DENNETT:  For billions of years on this planet there was life, but no free will. Physics hasn't changed,  

but now we have free will. The difference is  not in physics. It has to do with, ultimately,  

with biology. Particularly evolutionary biology.  What has happened over those billions of years,  

is that greater and greater competences  have been designed and have evolved.  

And the competence of a dolphin, or of  a chimpanzee, the cognitive competence,  

the sort of mental competence, is hugely superior  to the competence of a lobster, or a starfish. But  

ours dwarfs the competence of a dolphin or a  chimpanzee, perhaps to an even greater extent.  

And there's an entirely naturalistic story to say,  to tell about how we came to have that competence,  

or those competences. And it's that, "Can do."  It's that power that we have which is natural,  

but it's that power which sets us aside from  every other species. And the key to it is that we  

don't just act for reasons.  We represent our reasons  

to ourselves and to others. The business  of asking somebody, "Why did you do that?"  

And the person being able to answer, it is the  key to responsibility. And in fact, the word,  

"responsibility," sort of wears its meaning on its  sleeve. We are responsible because we can respond  

to challenges to our reasons. Why?  Because we don't just act for reasons,  

we act for reasons that we consciously represent  to ourselves. And this is what gives us the power  

and the obligation to think ahead, to anticipate,  to see the consequences of our action.  

To be able to evaluate those consequences  in the light of what other people tell us.  

To share our wisdom with each other. No  other species can do anything like it.  

And it's because we can share our wisdom  that we have a special responsibility.

That's what makes us free in a way that no bird  is free, for instance. There's a very sharp  

limit to the depth that we as conscious agents can  probe our own activities. This sort of superficial  

access that we have to what's going on,  that's what consciousness is. Now, when I say,  

who's this, "we," who's got this access? That's  itself part of the illusion because there isn't  

a, sort of, boss part of the brain that's sitting  there with this limited access. That itself  

is part of the illusion. What it is, is a  bunch of different subsystems, which have  

varying access to varying things and that  conspire in a sort of competitive way to  

execute whatever projects it is that they're,  in their, sort of, mindless way executing.

STEVEN PINKER: I don't believe there's such a  thing as free will in the sense of a ghost in  

the machine, a spirit, or soul that somehow reads  the TV screen of the senses and pushes buttons  

and pulls levers of behavior. There's no sense  that we can make of that. I think we are...our  

behavior is the product of physical processes  in the brain. On the other hand, when you  

have a brain that consists of a hundred billion  neurons, connected by a hundred trillion synapses,  

there is a vast amount of complexity. That means  that human choices will not be predictable in any  

simple way from the stimuli that have impinged  on it beforehand. We also know that that brain  

is set up so that there are at least two  kinds of behavior. There's what happens when  

I shine a light in your eye and your iris  contracts, or I hit your knee with a hammer  

and your leg jerks upward. We also know that  there's a part of the brain that does things like  

choose what to have for dinner, whether  to order chocolate, or vanilla ice cream.  

How to move the next chess piece. Whether  to pick up the paper, or put it down. That  

is very different from your iris closing when  I shine a light in your eye. It's that second  

kind of behavior, one that engages vast amounts  of the brain, particularly the frontal lobes,  

that incorporates an enormous amount of  information in the causation of the behavior,  

that has some mental model of the world, that  can predict the consequences of possible behavior  

and select them on the basis of those  consequences. All of those things carve  

out the realm of behavior that we call free  will. Which it is useful to distinguish from  

brute involuntary reflexes, but which doesn't  necessarily have to involve some mysterious soul.

ROBERT SAPOLSKY: The polite thing that I've sort  of said for decades, is that, well, if there's  

free will, it's in all the boring places and  those places were getting more and more cramped.  

If you want to insist that today you decided to  floss your teeth starting on your upper teeth,  

rather than your lower teeth, rather than the  other way around, that that was an act of free  

will, whatever, I'll grant that one to you, that's  where the free will is. In reality, I don't think  

there's any free will at all. If you look at the  things that come into account as to whether or not  

someone is going to do the right thing in the next  two seconds amid a temptation to do otherwise,  

and the variables in there reflect everything  from whether they are having gas pains that day,  

because of something unpleasant  they ate that morning that makes us  

more selfish, more impulsive, et cetera, to what  epigenetic effects occurred to them than when they  

were a first trimester fetus. When you look at  the number of things we recognize now that are  

biological organic, where 500  years ago, or five years ago,  

we would have had a harsh moral judgment about it.  And instead we now know, "Oh, that's a biological  

phenomenon." And when we're we gonna get to the  point is recognizing, "Yeah, we're biological  

organisms." This notion of free will, for want of  a less provocative word, is nothing but a myth.

NYE: Our brains are complicated and they got  this big, or as big as they are organically  

through evolution, with layer being added  upon layer. So our ability to choose  

is often confused. Our ability to make  choices and is often affected by the  

environment, by our experiences and by  biochemistry. The shape of our brain.

MICHIO KAKU:  

Well, you ask one of the deepest philosophical  questions of physics. The question of free will.  

First of all, there's something called, Newtonian  determinism. Newtonian determinism says that the  

universe is a clock. A gigantic clock that's wound  up at the beginning of time and it's been ticking  

ever since, according to Newton's laws of motion.  So, what you're gonna eat 10 years from now on  

January 1st has already been fixed. It's already  known using Newton's laws of motion. Einstein  

believed in that. Einstein was a determinist. And  some people asked Einstein, "Well, does that mean  

"that a murderer, a horrible mass murderer "isn't  really guilty of his works "'cause it was already  

preordained billions of years ago?" And Einstein  said, "Well, yeah, in some sense, that's true.  

"That even mass murderers were predetermined.  "But," he said, "They should still be placed  

in jail," okay? Heisenberg then comes along and  proposes the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  

And says, "Nonsense. "There's uncertainty. "You  don't know where the electron is. "It could be  

here, here, or many places simultaneously." And  this of course, Einstein hated because he said,  

"God doesn't play dice with the universe."  Well, hey, get used to it. Einstein was wrong.  

God does play dice. Every time we look at an  electron, it moves. There's uncertainty with  

regards to the position of the electron. So what  does that mean for free will? It means, in some  

sense, we do have some kind of free will. In the  sense that no one can determine your future events  

given your past history. There's always the  wild card. There's always the possibility  

of uncertainty in whatever we do. So this  means that free will, determining the future?  

Hey, these are philosophical questions that seem  to indicate that we have some kind of free will.

JOSCHA BACH: Like consciousness, free will  is often misunderstood because we know it  

by reference. But it's difficult to know it by  content, what you really mean by free will. A lot  

of people will immediately feel that free will is  related to whether the universe is deterministic,  

or probabilistic. And while physics has some  ideas about that, which change every now and then,  

it's not part of our experience. And I don't think  it makes a difference if the universe forces you  

randomly to do things, or deterministically.  The important thing seems to me that in free  

will you are responsible for your actions.  And responsibility is a social interface.  

For instance, if I am told that if I do X I  go to prison and this changes my decision to  

whether or not to do X, I'm obviously responsible  for my decision because it was an appeal to my  

responsibility, in some sense. Or likewise, if I  do a certain thing that it causes harm to other  

people and I don't want that harm to happen,  that influences my decision. This is a discourse  

of decision-making that I would call it's a free  will decision. Will is the representation that my  

nervous system, at any level of its functioning,  has raised a motive to an intention. It has  

committed to a particular kind of goal and it gets  integrated into the story of myself. This protocol  

that I experience as myself in this world. And  that was what I experienced as well, as a real  

decision. And this decision is free in as much  as this decision can be influenced by discourse.

MICHAEL GAZZANIGA: The essential part of free  will that people wanna hold on to is the sense  

that that therefore makes you responsible for  your actions. So, there is the idea of personal  

responsibility. And I think that's very important.  And I don't think that all this mechanistic  

work on the brain in any way threatens  that. You learn that responsibility is to  

be understood at the social level. The deal,  the rules that we work out, living together.  

So the metaphor I like to use is cars and  traffic. We can study cars and all their physical  

relationships and know exactly how that works.  It in no way prepares us to understand traffic  

when they all get together and start interacting.  That's another level of organization and  

description of these elements interacting. So the  same is with brains. That we can understand brains  

to the nth degree and that's fine and that's what  we're doing, but it's not going to, in any way,  

interfere with the fact that taking responsibility  in a social network is done at that level.  

So, the way I sum it up is that brains  are automatic, but people are free  

because people are gonna be...are joining the  social group and in that group are laws to live  

by. And it's interesting, every social network,  whether it's artifactual, internet, or people,  

that accountability is essential,  or the whole thing just falls apart.

DENNETT:  

Intuition pumps are sometimes called thought  experiments. More often, they're called thought  

experiments. But they're not really formal  arguments. Typically, they're stories. They're  

little fables. In fact, I think they're similar  to Aesop's fables in that they they're supposed  

to have a moral. They're supposed to teach us  something. And what they do, is they lead the  

audience to an intuition, a conclusion, where you  sort of pound your fist on the table and you say,  

"Oh yeah, it's gotta be that way, doesn't  it?" And if it achieves that, then it's  

pumped the intuition that was designed to pump.  These are persuasion machines. They're little  

persuasion machines that philosophers have  been using for several thousand years.

One of my recent favorites, which I devised to  jangle the nerves of neuroscientists who've been  

going around saying that neuroscience  shows that we don't have free will.  

I think their reasons for saying that are  ill-considered and moreover that what they're  

doing is apt to be mischievous and doing some real  harm. So, I concocted a little thought experiment,  

a little intuition pump to suggest that. So  this is the case of the nefarious neurosurgeon,  

who treats a patient who has obsessive compulsive  disorder by inserting a little microchip in his  

brain, which controls the OCD, the obsessive  compulsive disorder. Now, there is such a chip.  

It's been developed in the Netherlands and it  works really quite well. That's science fact,  

but now here comes science fiction. So the  neurosurgeon, after she's operated on the guy,  

sewed him all up, say, "Okay, your OCD is  under control now you'll be happy to learn,  

but moreover our team here will be monitoring  you 24/7 and we're going to be controlling  

everything you do from now on. You will think  you have free will. You'll think you're making  

your own decisions, but really you won't have  free will at all. Free will is an illusion that  

we will maintain while controlling you. Goodbye,  have a nice life." Sends him out the door. Well,  

he believes her. She has a shiny lab and, you  know, lots of degrees and diplomas and all that.  

So, what does he do? Well, he, thinking he  doesn't have free will anymore, he gets a little  

self-indulgent, a little bit aggressive, little  negligent in how he decides what to do. And pretty  

soon, by indulging some of his worst features,  he's got himself in trouble with the law. And he's  

arrested and he's put on trial. And at the trial  he says, "But your honor, I don't have free will.  

I'm under the control of the team at  the neurosurgery clinic." They say,  

"What's this?" And they call the neurosurgeon to  the stand. And say, "Did you tell this man that  

you are controlling his every move, he didn't  have free will?" She says, "Yeah, I did, yeah,  

but I was just messing with his head. That was  just a joke. I didn't think he'd believe me."  

Now, right there, I think we can stop, take a  deep breath and say, well she did something really  

bad. That was...that was really, she really  harmed that man. In fact, her little "joke,"  

telling him that, actually accomplished  non-surgically pretty much what she claimed to  

accomplish surgically. She disabled him by  telling him he didn't have free will. She  

pretty much turned his free will off and  turned him into a morally incompetent person.

Now, if we agree that she did a bad thing, if  nobody recommends people play jokes like this,  

what are we to say about the neuroscientists who  are telling the public every day, "We've shown in  

our neuroscience labs that nobody has free will."  I think if the neuroscientists recognize that what  

my imaginary neurosurgeon did was irresponsible,  they should think seriously about whether it's  

irresponsible of them to make these claims  about free will. And it's not just a fantasy.  

Vohs and Schooler, in an important paper, which  has been replicated in several different ways,  

set up an experiment, really to test  this with college students, who were  

given two texts to read. One was a text. They  were both from Francis Crick's book, "The  

Astonishing Hypothesis," and one was not about  free will. And the other was about free will. And  

basically it said, "Free will is an illusion.  All your decisions are actually determined by  

causes that neuroscience is investigating. You  don't have free will. That's just an illusion."  

All right, so there we have two groups. The group  that read that passage and the group that read  

another passage from that book of the same length.  After they've read the passage, they are given a  

puzzle to solve where they can earn some money  by solving it. And the experimenters cleverly  

made the puzzles slightly defective, so there  was a way of cheating on the puzzle. That was,  

oops, inadvertently revealed to the subjects. And  guess what? The subjects who'd read the passage  

where Crick says, "Free will is an illusion,"  cheated at a much higher rate than the other ones.  

In other words, just reading that passage  did have the effect of making them  

less concerned about the implications of their  actions and they became, as it were, negligent,  

or worse, in their own decision-making.