Abdullah A.'s Reviews > Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will

350 years ago, Spinoza had it right. Mostly, at least. In some ways, he was a product of his time (for example, his gendered language, or asserting that suicide came as a result of a weak mind that has been overcome). However, in many ways, he was so ahead of his time that we, nearly four-hundred years later, have only now come to meet him. One respect in which Spinoza was spot-on was in his belief in, and arguments for, determinism. That, what we take for a sense of agency is only our ignorance of the many strings which puppet our consciousness. That our outputs arise not from choice, but from a chain of successive inputs of which we are almost completely unaware. That Spinoza had articulated and ardently defended this position three-and-a-half centuries ago, in the absence of the voluminous evidence we have now, renders him so prophetic as to rival that other Jewish apostate born in Bethlehem. Dr Sapolsky’s book “Determined” attempts to have us finally meet Spinoza. Living in the 21st century, with that voluminous evidence at his disposal, he attempts to achieve this in two ways. First, presenting his case against free will and disproving the arguments in its favour. Second, discussing the implications of this position.

[“Free Will” is to the 21st Century what “Abrahamic God” was to the 18th Century]

I.e., an idea being challenged by our growing understanding, and which is on track to be disproven, but is vigorously defended nonetheless, out of fear of what its proven falsity will mean for humankind. In the law (the field in which I have studied and become qualified), advocates have a “case theory.” A case theory involves spinning the evidence into a “narrative” which a) acts as the foundation of their argument, and b) weakens the argument of the other side sufficiently enough to win the case. Dr. Sapolsky’s case theory is “turtles all the way down.” That, as Spinoza asserted four centuries prior, each thing is caused by what came before it. And, that this runs all the way back to the beginning of existence. Prior to picking up his book, I had an instinctive feeling that, in an objective sense, “free will” was a nonsensical idea. Given the great tapestry of influences, stretching back to the big bang, where is free will to fit? The elegant song-and-dance compatibilist philosophers compose defending the position is, I find, akin to the religious scholar whose position, weakening progressively in the face of the evidence, relies more and more upon sophistry. In this respect, the truth is a dragon whose unrelenting fire only grows in intensity and heat; it has already melted the shield of the holy crusader. Now, the compatibilist nobly holds their own shield. However, the comptabilist’s shield, built from elegant explanations, wears thinner, and will soon reach a point where they face the dragon of truth. In the face of the great, overbearing dragon, the compatibilist will be left standing nakedly, side-by-side with the naked crusador. Why the battle against this great dragon? It is in who we are. It is difficult to conceive of a world where we, as a species, have been created with no purpose, and where, individually, we have no agency. And so, experts in self-deception that we are (see: Trivers), many of our best and brightest have crafted elaborate and plausible explanations to shield ourselves from the truth. However, at some point in my twenty-seven years, I realised something which forever precluded my ability to believe these explanations. It is this: the universe has not conceived itself in accordance with human sentiments and morality. We are a small, recent ant in this incomprehensibly large, ancient, terrifyingly beautiful cathedral. We are playing its game; it cares nothing for our opinions, nor for our moralising. The first part of Dr. Sapolsky’s book lays the evidence, that, in my opinion, places the onus-of-proof upon free-willers. That is, “determinism appears to be the case unless you can compelling prove otherwise.” I don’t see any way in which they can, where their evidence is of the quality presented by the opposing counsel (Dr. Sapolsky, representing other hard determinists).

[Confronting the Bitter Truth]

Dr. Sapolsky advocates that, in this case, it is better to know the truth than to live a lie and risk being violently shocked by that truth. It is to advocate reckoning with the existence of the harsh sun as opposed to believing that the transient clouds negate the sun’s existence. I wholeheartedly agree. If one takes truth as their starting point, then at least they will not be shocked. Again, Spinoza informs us. In the wake of hard truth, we should attempt to conceive adequate ideas which maximise our agency without denying the reality of things. That is, to have an adequate idea which accepts reality AND empowers us. To me, the dragon will inevitably melt the shields. But, perhaps facing the dragon sans defences will allow us to learn how to coexist with it. At the least, we preclude “rude awakenings” sure to shock and disempower, and lead many to nihilism. How we are to live in the wake of this truth — that we have no agency — is a larger conversation. However, I believe, against the notion that humanity will “run amok”, that many of the forces which regulate and restrain our behaviour remain; it is merely the illusion that they are NOT regulating and restraining us that is being lost. For example, if you were guaranteed a job at the end of your degree, would you willingly tank your GPA and merely scrape through your remaining exams? No? Why not? Because there are forces restraining you. Perhaps you value your dignity. Perhaps you know things can turn and so good grades will be an asset if things do turn. Perhaps your friends are high achievers and you do not want to willingly put yourself at the bottom of your social hierarchy. Perhaps you are so blessed by fortune as to have the Bugatti of Pre-Frontal Cortexes, remarkably good at restraining impulsive action. Whatever it is, in the absence of a bad biological hand and desperate circumstances, it’s harder than you think to be a nihilistic destroyer of yourself and others. In the presence of bad biology and/or desperate circumstances, however, it’s (near) inevitable. This is part of the point of the book. Confronting that truth en masse shall initially be dispiriting, but it is only from there that we can build a better world from realistic foundations. A world that reduces the effect of a bad biological hand by reducing the amount of desperate circumstances which maximise those effects. Further, the evidence points away from a “run amok” conclusion. Isolated instances (as Sapolsky discusses regarding epilepsy and schizophrenia) and analogous cases (“Godless” countries like Norway who are by nearly all objective measures doing the best), support the argument that we have a remarkable ability to reckon with the hard truths of a universe we never asked to be born into. That, for some reason, humans rally with resilience, cooperation, and inventiveness. It is from our collective genius for imagination, our collective inclination to cooperate, and our collective penchant for resilience that I believe we CAN craft a meaningful, humane, compassionate existence without the lie of agency. Perhaps we will even build a better world.

On an individual level, it may also make us more compassionate. I know that the book has changed the way I look at the homeless person on the street, as well as my most successful friends. It’s humanised and equalised both extremes. It has also humanised myself; it has made me more self-accepting. For, it brings one to the sort of self-contentment Goethe expressed to Eckermann, when the latter asked if he worried about not reaching Shakespeare’s level of literary genius. Paraphrasing, he calmly explained, “Shakespeare did not make himself, he simply was himself. I did not make myself, I simply am myself.” It is also reflected in the statement of Yahweh, when Moses asked what he should tell his followers Yahweh is — “I am that which I am.” Perhaps this self-accepting attitude becomes the appropriate one to adopt in the wake of learning that who I am, who you are, who anyone is, is not a choice we made, but the outcome of what has shaped us. Amazingly, it also makes a compelling case for loving thy enemy, even if you do not like who they are or what they do. Thus, lending scientific credibility to this great Christian virtue.

[Adopting the Truth in Different Contexts; the Importance of Scale; Universal Acceptance and Varying Utilisation]

There remains one valid criticism of determinism I have heard, and which I did not find explicitly challenged in Dr. Sapolsky’s book. It is Professor Chomsky’s position that free will, being so immediate to consciousness, is not something we can subtract from our experience. Dr. Sapolsky himself admits that, in day to day life, he cannot live in accordance with his intellectual position. Neither can I. Nor do I think we should all the time. I think we should accept the truth of determinism, but utilise it to varying degrees depending on the context and scale. In my view, at the big picture level (policy and society), this truth should be fully utilised, so as to build a world where, no matter what circumstances you are thrown into, your shot at a decent life is not forfeited at birth (a variant of Rawls’ veil of ignorance). Ditto in circumstances where judgement and/or punishment is easy, natural, and perhaps even pleasurable. E.g., seeing a homeless person on the street corner, sentencing a criminal, assessing an addict, or in arguments with someone you care about. And, in circumstances of judgement which brings praise. E.g., praising physical beauty, creative genius, grand achievement, or someone’s “grit”. However, this last point, relating to praise, shows how I intended to apply this truth to varying degrees depending on context. On the individual level, I love my friends, and I will continue to praise them because I believe in making them feel good. My friends love me, but when they praise me, I will humbly deflect and say this was not something I willed, it’s a byproduct of how I’ve been wired. And, most importantly, despite believing that nobody deserves credit for beauty, intelligence, or kindness, I will never stop calling a woman I (romantically) love the most kind, the most beautiful, the most intelligent person I know. All of this, despite my absolute belief that free will is nonsense and that notions of credit and judgement are utterly bogus. I don’t know where that leaves me … I’d say, as confused as any other human.

[Conclusion]

So, what will we be in the absence of our belief in agency? Whatever we collectively determine. That determination stemming from the many things which have shaped us both individually and as a species. Part of that is a remarkable capacity for change, born of our resilience and imagination. We can do it. That’s a belief I will hang my hat on, even if that belief is born from the optimistic temperament I didn’t choose.

An enlightening book. Spinoza, the world is finally catching up to you.