![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dan and Rob debating free will for an hour
Aug. 4th, 2024 07:03 pmI'm almost done with Sapolsky's "Determined" book, and I'm sooooooooooooooo excited that I found this, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
I am also VERY sad to have only just with this viewing discovered that Dan left us in April of this year. I knew his health was not great (he had quadruple bypass surgery before I joined his program at Tufts) so it is not a huge shock, but it is still very, very sad for me. He treated me extremely well, and seemed to hold me in high regard, despite the fact that I didn't succeed in his program. The papers I wrote for him were not my best (for some reason, the topic I best excelled at in the Tufts program were in epistemology - ask me how we know what we know, and I will blow you out of the water. Ask me how the mind works and I will flounder). I will always cherish our time together.
The last year of my time with him, he was a keynote speaker for TED. For this honor, they made him a plushie "TED-E" bear that spoke a quote of his in his voice when you pushed its paw. He was only given 13 of these bears when he left the TED talk event, and he gave me one of them. I still have it, of course. I can't remember if it was a free will or consciousness quote, I will have to dig it out of storage and see if it still works, lol.
(Around minute 55 of this discussion that's a little over an hour, Dan makes it pretty clear that they are not really disagreeing at all. I LOVE this, it's just really validating, because it's what was running through my head the entire time I've been reading Sapolsky's book Determined. Dan would agree with this, it's really just some fine-grained detail about what you mean when you talk about personal responsibility that's at play, here. And really it's so fine-grained that it's almost a matter of personal taste, or style, or way of describing something. Sapolsky wants to go a little more extreme with removing the idea because meritocracy bothers him so much, I don't think Dan would begrudge him for that - Dan's a little more old-school and his ideal would be a place where people take responsibility willingly for their actions, and agree with another person's judgement of what they did, right or wrong, and agree with any punishment that might be doled out as appropriate and applicable and good, even if they don't love it when they mess up and get punished. If that makes sense, lol. Both of them are working toward an ideal that is ultimately not achievable so it doesn't really matter what this theoretical ideal looks like, I don't think. As long as it's not "medieval," i.e. as long as we're not torturing people or rewarding them obscenely for things they had no control over, we're in agreement. I think Dan is being just at tiny bit more realistic about what that might actually look like.)
Ah, I think with some further research and digging, I am siding more with Dan, as usual. It's not like free will is some epiphenomenal magical thing like a soul or a self, it evolves as we evolve, and in the process of that evolution, as we gain more freedom to be more efficacious in the world through our actions (a million years ago there was no free will, pro-humans couldn't be blamed for destroying their environment, but we can), we also develop more responsibility and culpability in response to those broadening abilities to make freer and freer choices. Robert wants to abolish the concept soas to get rid of meritocracy, and as lovely as that sounds, it's hard to swallow the idea that no one should be held in moral contempt if they do horrific things knowingly to other humans or living animals or the planet/nature at large. I guess in a way it would be nicer, though - maybe people would be more accepting of criticism if it weren't tied up with shame, I dunno. Shouldn't people who commit atrocities feel shame? I dunno.
I am also VERY sad to have only just with this viewing discovered that Dan left us in April of this year. I knew his health was not great (he had quadruple bypass surgery before I joined his program at Tufts) so it is not a huge shock, but it is still very, very sad for me. He treated me extremely well, and seemed to hold me in high regard, despite the fact that I didn't succeed in his program. The papers I wrote for him were not my best (for some reason, the topic I best excelled at in the Tufts program were in epistemology - ask me how we know what we know, and I will blow you out of the water. Ask me how the mind works and I will flounder). I will always cherish our time together.
The last year of my time with him, he was a keynote speaker for TED. For this honor, they made him a plushie "TED-E" bear that spoke a quote of his in his voice when you pushed its paw. He was only given 13 of these bears when he left the TED talk event, and he gave me one of them. I still have it, of course. I can't remember if it was a free will or consciousness quote, I will have to dig it out of storage and see if it still works, lol.
(Around minute 55 of this discussion that's a little over an hour, Dan makes it pretty clear that they are not really disagreeing at all. I LOVE this, it's just really validating, because it's what was running through my head the entire time I've been reading Sapolsky's book Determined. Dan would agree with this, it's really just some fine-grained detail about what you mean when you talk about personal responsibility that's at play, here. And really it's so fine-grained that it's almost a matter of personal taste, or style, or way of describing something. Sapolsky wants to go a little more extreme with removing the idea because meritocracy bothers him so much, I don't think Dan would begrudge him for that - Dan's a little more old-school and his ideal would be a place where people take responsibility willingly for their actions, and agree with another person's judgement of what they did, right or wrong, and agree with any punishment that might be doled out as appropriate and applicable and good, even if they don't love it when they mess up and get punished. If that makes sense, lol. Both of them are working toward an ideal that is ultimately not achievable so it doesn't really matter what this theoretical ideal looks like, I don't think. As long as it's not "medieval," i.e. as long as we're not torturing people or rewarding them obscenely for things they had no control over, we're in agreement. I think Dan is being just at tiny bit more realistic about what that might actually look like.)
Ah, I think with some further research and digging, I am siding more with Dan, as usual. It's not like free will is some epiphenomenal magical thing like a soul or a self, it evolves as we evolve, and in the process of that evolution, as we gain more freedom to be more efficacious in the world through our actions (a million years ago there was no free will, pro-humans couldn't be blamed for destroying their environment, but we can), we also develop more responsibility and culpability in response to those broadening abilities to make freer and freer choices. Robert wants to abolish the concept soas to get rid of meritocracy, and as lovely as that sounds, it's hard to swallow the idea that no one should be held in moral contempt if they do horrific things knowingly to other humans or living animals or the planet/nature at large. I guess in a way it would be nicer, though - maybe people would be more accepting of criticism if it weren't tied up with shame, I dunno. Shouldn't people who commit atrocities feel shame? I dunno.
