"Humans don't have free will," according to decades of research by Stanford scientist

Ask anyone around you – “Do you believe you have control over your actions?” The chances are high you’ll hear a resounding “Yes.” Most people cherish the idea that they are the architects of their destiny, exercising sovereignty over their personal decisions and their own free will.

This concept of control, commonly referred to as free will, is a fundamental premise that profoundly shapes our identity and influences how we navigate the world.

It instills a sense of responsibility for our choices and actions, and it becomes a cornerstone of our moral and ethical frameworks.

However, what if, in reality, we’re not the ones truly calling the shots? What if our decisions are influenced by factors beyond our awareness?

This unsettling yet thought-provoking idea is the bold hypothesis explored in Robert Sapolsky’s latest book, “Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will.”

In it, Sapolsky delves into the intricate interplay of biology, environment, and psychology, challenging our conventional understanding of autonomy and prompting readers to reconsider the essence of human agency.

The book invites us to question the very foundations of how we perceive ourselves and our choices in an increasingly complex world.

Who’s Robert Sapolsky?

A neurobiologist serving Stanford University, Robert Sapolsky is no stranger to the intricate secrets of the human mind and the biological mechanisms that underpin our behavior.

With over four decades of dedicated research studying both human and primate behavior, his journey has taken him through diverse environments, from the jungles of Africa observing wild baboons to the labs of academia delving into the neurological processes that drive our actions.

Throughout his extensive career, he has explored the interplay between genetics, environment, and neurobiology, leading to a controversial revelation: we may not have control over our behavior any more than we do over a seizure or the rhythmic throb of our heartbeats.

Paradigm shift from common belief

The notion seems counter-intuitive, doesn’t it? We’ve always been taught to believe that we control our actions, that our choices define our destinies.

However, the mind-boggling research conducted by Robert Sapolsky, traversing various scientific disciplines such as neuroscience, psychology, and genetics, paints a significantly different picture.

His findings suggest that everything we do, whether it’s the most trivial decision or a choice that has transformative consequences, isn’t really a matter of personal choice.

Instead, our actions could be sculpted and influenced by complex neurological processes and environmental factors that operate beneath our conscious awareness, making us mere bystanders in our own lives.

Sapolsky throws down the gauntlet with a stern reality check, stating, “The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people for things they have no control over. We’ve got no free will. Stop attributing stuff to us that isn’t there.”

This powerful statement challenges our long-held beliefs about moral responsibility and accountability, urging us to reconsider the implications of our choices in a world where free will may not exist in the way we’ve always imagined.

Free will is handcuffed by genetics

On one end of the spectrum, we have large swathes of the population who perceive free will as an undeniable reality, believing that individuals possess the power to make choices that shape their destinies.

This perspective champions the idea that personal agency and decision-making are fundamental to human experience.

In stark contrast, the viewpoint articulated by Sapolsky suggests that our actions are not solely a product of our own volition but rather the result of an intricate dance of genetics, environmental conditions, and neurochemistry.

This perspective posits that factors such as our genetic makeup, the circumstances of our upbringing, and even the chemical reactions occurring within our brains significantly influence our decisions and behaviors.

As a result, our failures and successes appear less like achievements or shortcomings of our own doing and more like byproducts of these external elements, challenging the notion of personal responsibility and prompting deeper reflection on the complexities of human behavior.

Closer look at “Determined”

Sapolsky’s new book, “Determined”, builds on the solid foundation laid in his previous bestseller, “Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst”.

This thought-provoking book delves deeply into the intricate and mysterious elements that influence our behavior, offering readers a comprehensive exploration of the forces at play.

Sapolsky sweeps across the vast panorama of time, examining everything from the immediate moments leading up to decision-making to the centuries-old evolutionary processes that have shaped our brain and behavior.

“Determined” meticulously discusses how genetic, environmental, and social factors intertwine, collaborating to steer our actions in ways we may not even consciously recognize.

With a mix of scientific rigor and engaging storytelling, Sapolsky invites readers to reflect on the complexities of human behavior and the myriad influences that guide us every day.

Reconciling free will with reality

The concept of dismissing free will significantly rattles the fundamental principles of morality and justice, causing us to question the very foundation upon which our legal and ethical systems are built.

After all, if our choices and actions are not truly within our control, how can society justly hold individuals accountable for them?

This dilemma raises profound questions about responsibility and accountability. Philosopher Gregg Caruso, a faculty member at SUNY Corning, echoes Sapolsky’s perspective, suggesting that recognizing our lack of control over our actions could ultimately lead to a fairer and more equitable justice system.

Caruso argues, “Who we are and what we do is ultimately the result of factors beyond our control, and because of this we are never morally responsible for our actions in the sense that would make us truly deserving of praise and blame, punishment and reward.”

His vision for justice highlights the need to prevent future harm instead of just pointing fingers or handing out punishments.

By focusing on rehabilitation and exploring the root causes of behavior, Caruso supports a system that prioritizes community safety and personal growth over revenge. This approach creates a more positive environment for individuals and benefits society overall.

As we dive into these concepts, it’s clear that rethinking our justice system could lead to important insights and real change.

Great divide among critics

Not everyone’s on board with Sapolsky’s conclusions regarding the nature of free will and the influence of external factors on our behavior.

According to Peter U. Tse, a prominent neuroscientist at Dartmouth College, our brain’s remarkable capacity for variable responses leaves ample room for the concept of free will, even in the face of significant external influences.

Tse argues that this variability is crucial, as it suggests that individuals can make choices that are not entirely dictated by their environment or biology.

Some critics express concern that eradicating the belief in free will could weaken personal responsibility, potentially leading to a society where accountability diminishes and anarchy could ensue.

Saul Smilansky, a noted philosopher at the University of Haifa, emphasizes the importance of finding a delicate balance between acknowledging the various influences on human behavior and maintaining a robust sense of agency and personal accountability.

He suggests that it is vital for societal cohesion that individuals feel empowered to make choices and are held responsible for those choices, as this fosters a sense of moral integrity and social order.

Interplay of science and society in free will debate

The debate about free will goes beyond academic discussions; it’s woven into our personal relationships, social interactions, and public policies.

This conversation raises important questions about human autonomy and moral responsibility, influencing how we see and treat each other in everyday life.

By recognizing the many factors that affect behavior — like genetics, environment, and social context — we can move towards a kinder, fairer society.

For example, understanding how trauma impacts brain development can help us adopt more compassionate and forgiving approaches to mental health care and crime.

When we realize that people are often shaped by their experiences, we can create policies that focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment and develop support systems that encourage healing and growth, ultimately building a more empathetic and just society for everyone.

Getting down to the heart of the matter

Sapolsky’s work wraps up on a touching note of compassion. He emphasizes the importance of understanding our limits of personal control while also acknowledging the strong impact of external factors on our lives.

“It’s not about letting people off the hook; it’s about recognizing the shared humanity that connects us all,” he concludes, which underscores the need for empathy, especially during tough times.

As we explore the complexities of the brain and what drives human behavior, the debate over free will keeps challenging our traditional views.

This ongoing discussion pushes us to rethink our judgments and encourages a kinder approach toward others, helping us better understand the many influences that shape our choices and actions.

In a time when we’re gaining more scientific insights into behavior, the conversation around free will is a crucial way to evaluate how we interact with each other and our society.

The LA Times contributed to this report.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–