Determined by Robert Sapolsky

[Philosophy Now]

Philip Badger questions Robert Sapolsky’s determinism.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/168/Determined_by_Robert_Sapolsky

[puto]

Thank-you.

[AlonsoAcevesMX]

Really engaging read. I’m curious how Sapolsky’s deterministic view lines up with soft determinism. Compatibilists argue that even if our actions are caused, we can still call them “free” when they reflect our own desires and internal motivations.

Could there be room in his model for a kind of agency that doesn’t rely on metaphysical freedom, but still feels meaningfully ours?

[puto]

Good sceptical view of reality. Including his other book,

Behave.

Thank you, again for the review of the book.

[Flannel Jesus]

Really engaging read. I’m curious how Sapolsky’s deterministic view lines up with soft determinism. Compatibilists argue that even if our actions are caused, we can still call them “free” when they reflect our own desires and internal motivations.

Could there be room in his model for a kind of agency that doesn’t rely on metaphysical freedom, but still feels meaningfully ours?

Sapolsky rejects compatibilism entirely. No free will, he says, period.

[AlonsoAcevesMX]

There's the answer. Thank you