Bharath's Reviews > Determined: Life Without Free Will

I regard ‘Behave’ as an exceptional book, and I was hence keen to read ‘Determined’ (well, I actually listened to the audiobook).

Sapolsky gets my attention right at the start when he says we have no free will! His challenge – point me to a neuron which fires on its own irrespective of what happened before. He admits that many think this is too high a bar since it is near impossible to isolate our brains from the real world. Yet, he goes on to convincingly argue that there is no way to accommodate free will in our actions. What it means is - though we think we are pondering over options and exercising judgement, we would do the exact same thing each time. Our actions are a consequence of genes, upbringing, environment, culture, and experiences. Each of these by themselves introduce aggregate tendencies (eg: humans are more aggressive than bonobos and less than chimps, cultural differences etc) and in combination lead to individual action. The concept of grit (much discussed in management literature as well) has no scientific basis. This is difficult to intuitively prove or disprove – after all we will not get the exact same situation at the exact same time again (identical twins raised together do speak and act very similarly, but that by itself is not conclusive). Brain imaging shows that brain activity commences before we think we made a decision (his previous book ‘Behave’ also mentions this). There is a discussion on the quirks of quantum mechanics & chaos theory – but Sapolsky’s conclusion is that quantum phenomenon do not bubble up to the macro environment. That we cannot predict something, does not mean it is indeterminate. He also dismisses the possibility of our decision-making springing from anywhere except the brain, the PFC plays the critical role in our judgement and behaviour.

The second half of the book has detailed discussion on the implications for law enforcement and our life is itself, if we accept the absence of free will. Much of the punishment meted out to criminals is based on intent. This is used in combination with the actual result to decide punishment – eg: a person who shoots and kills gets more punishment than one who misses, if spontaneous, there is some benefit accorded. If there is no free will, there is no blame. That said, Sapolsky does not advocate criminals roaming around freely in our midst – isolation is necessary but for civil order and not as punishment.

Sapolsky admits that he has not fully worked out all the implications to life. This is because much of our thinking is around intent & morality. It is disconcerting to think that we can neither blame someone who harms us, nor be thankful to someone who helps us. Yet, he goes on to say that modern societies can live, and live well with this discovery. At one time, strong religious belief was regarded as a must for moral conduct. But today the less religious societies are doing very well. Theists are typically unkind to out of group members. We can also get over our tendency to seek retribution – here Sapolsky cites how punishment for serious crime is regarded as closure. Apparently, research shows that victims’ families participating in punishment does not bring closure, but only rekindles the pain. We still will need restrictive spaces, but not to enforce punishments.

While I am undecided on whether I accept all of Sapolsky’s views, this is an extremely thought-provoking book (much like how ‘Behave’ is). I strongly recommend you read/listen to it and form your own opinions. At the minimum, it reinforces how important it is to cultivate safe & progressive environments for people, especially children. It is too late to do it once the brain is set in its ways. The rapid advancement of scientific knowledge – genomics/gene editing, neuroscience and AI, hopefully will make our world a better place, even if we do not have free will. There are some sections which are dense, but overall the book is very readable.

I intend to also read “Free Agents” by Kevin Mitchell, which reaches a different conclusion.