Do We Have Freewill? / Daniel Dennett VS Robert Sapolsky

To say nothing of where I stand on this argument, these speakers have definitely helped me decide what kind of old guy I hope to be someday.

“A man can DO what he wills, but he cannot WILL what he wills”

"It's hard to keep that in mind. Keep it in mind for when it really matters...for when you're judging harshly." Loved that so much.

Great discussion, Mr Dennett will be missed dearly

A grave misstep was allowed before starting any arguments — that is not agreeing on the definition of the 'freewill' beforehand.

I get the impression that both viewpoints are logical, but based on different definitions of free will.

"People are conscious of their actions while ignoring the causes that determine them" Spinoza

RIP Dennet. Your legacy lives on

the more I listen to Robert Sapolsky the more he makes sense to the point where I can't comprehend Dennett anymore

“…even before I became daft for reading philosophers” Great comeback line. I like them both.

I love this conversation and have massive respect for Sapolsky especially, I can’t help but feel like this is mostly an argument about the semantics of what free will means to Dennett. And not actually about the lack of “will to will” that Sapolsky is referring to.

I am a higher than average functioning left amygdala hippocampectomy patient. MRI’s displayed an anomaly cluster of densely compacted neurons in my left prefrontal cortex. The logical conclusion I’ve come to is that this was a compensatory measure to help balance out the functional deficit resulting from the removal of the left amygdala hippocampus. I have been a fan of Robert’s work since Why Zebra’s Don’t Get Ulcer’s. Not that familiar with Daniel Dennett. Only seen a couple of his lectures online. I learned about brain plasticity back in 1991 post-op, but was too cognitively detached to put it into practice. Over the years I discovered brain plasticity pioneers like Michael Merzenich and V.S. Ramachandran. Mike’s brain games verifiably increased my IQ scores according to very thorough 2 day long tests conducted at separate universities: University of Chicago, UIC, and Northwestern University. In my personal experience, there’s no tax on Free will and biological determinism living in the same space at the same time. Life is a back and forth of both these frames of mind. It’s just a matter of which is prudent in what particular space and at what particular time. P.S. Also, just wanted to say thanks to these two intellectual giants. Particularly Robert. Listening to him throughout the years has helped me survive my situation. Relearning the process of proper threat identification has saved my butt more than once while traversing the sometimes wicked streets of Chicago.

I am looking at these two great minds and what do I see? I see a certain display of authority/agency (meritocracy) in Dan's disposition while Robert takes no such position at all. He makes it clear that he need not be patted on the back or given brownie points for all the depth of knowledge he expresses. That is his whole point. He basically sees his presence like a vessel that things simply flow through so to speak and that is it.

Wonderful stuff. Definitely the debate I wanted to hear on this subject, between two of the thinkers I admire most. Dennett has a line about 'sophisticated' theists. Not quoting exactly but he says something like 'they're not stupid. They don't believe but they believe in belief.' It's a great line. The more I read and listen to him, the more I sense that he doesn't believe in free will, he believes in belief in free will. His slightly disbelieving 'but don't you want to be held responsible, Robert?' really brought this home to me. Like the believers in belief, who think we would lose our ability to act morally without it, he's terrified that without belief in free will, we'd 'run amok', as Sapolsky puts it.

Define freewill first,once a consensus is reached,the debate can then and only then be of significance.

I am so happy that this discussion could take part, given Dennett's recent passing. And Robert Sapolsky made his case so well, that I don't see a way how Dennett's view on free will could stand here....

"Choices are made, but there is no chooser" ~ Buda.

Robert said, "I cannot choose to change my mind right now. Nonetheless, my mind could be changed." This pretty much sums it up. Daniel is playing a game of semantics to dance around Robert's core premise. Yes, you choose to do things, but you still have no control over the series of events that brought you to that intent.

The more I listen to Robert, the more I really understand and can’t help but agree with his argument. It seems to explain so much of what I experience in my daily life in dealing people. I don’t have a perfect life, I’ve had a lot of struggles, but I feel also incredibly lucky that I am who I am because I was able to get through them. I’ve seen a lot of other people go through what I have (addiction / etc) and they were not able to overcome it. I’m so thankful that I am who I am and that I’ve been able to correct a lot of life choices and get my life together. I’m no worse or better than anyone else, but I guess I’m just thankful for the values that I have, the upbringing I had, and the brain chemistry I have. I have no idea why I decided one day that I was tired of being a loser, because being a loser was a lot easier than all the work I have to do now, but I’m grateful that I did.

Something that needs to be added to these type of discussions is that our tools for communication, the language we use is not yet equipped with the necessary words to explain many things and on the contrary, we have through the history created words which misguide rather than clarify. Oftentimes these words do not represent an accurate meaning of something real but rather a vague feeling for which we decided to have a name. One example of that can be the word pride. These words should not be relied on when the aim is to understand the mechanism of existence.