“Never lose sight of the fact that you’re having a biological experience.” — Tom Bilyeu
In his captivating book, ‘Determined’, Robert Sapolsky lays out a convincing case that our sense of free will is a myth. Many won’t like this for the following reason — our affinity for attribution & judgement.
Attribution — You’re a successful attorney: years of diligent study, passing the BAR exam, advancing through the ranks of a firm, and ultimately becoming a partner. This journey is often seen as a testament to individual effort & determination. The suggestion that your achievements are merely the result of neurological, genetic, environmental & cultural predispositions — essentially, that you are a conscious entity navigating life through biologically predetermined pathways — might feel like a dismissal of your hard work & personal agency.
Judgement — You’ve lost a loved one to a drunk driving accident. You want that person to be punished. There are no words to adequately convey the level of animus you have towards them. You offer no compassion for a defense consisting of the fact that the driver lacked agency over their decision because the socioeconomic status of their mother when they were in utero led them destined to a life of alcoholism & addiction (this is actually true).
Our deep-seated affinity for a sense of agency, a trait to which I am not immune, often obscures the stark reality that we lack control over the precise firing of neurons in our brains at any given moment. We had no say in the economic status of our parents at the time of our birth, nor did we have the opportunity to select our genes or the ethnicity & cultural background into which we were born. The very thoughts that emerge in our minds are not ours to choose. And as the neuroscientist Sam Harris has articulated — we may have a soul, but we certainly didn’t choose it. This acknowledgment challenges our cherished beliefs in autonomy & free will, confronting us with the complexities of our biological, genetic & environmental determinants.
Sapolsky uses the metaphor of a stack of turtles to illustrate the layers of our decision-making process, with each turtle symbolizing a different facet of our biological & psychological wiring. This stack extends from our ancestral lineage right up to immediate factors that transpired earlier in the day.
Reason #1 Free Will is a Myth: When was your last meal?
One striking study conducted examined the decisions of parole judges in Israel. This study gained significant attention for shedding light on how seemingly irrelevant factors, such as the time of day and the judges' meal breaks, can profoundly influence judicial decisions:
Key Findings:
The study found that the likelihood of a prisoner being granted parole was highest at the beginning of the workday or after a food break, starting around 65%, and would decrease over time to nearly zero just before the next break.
The approval rate would spike back up to around 65% after the judges had taken a break to eat.
This pattern suggested that decision fatigue and possibly low glucose levels negatively affected the judges' abilities to make decisions, leading to a default to the more straightforward option of denying parole.
Implications:
This study is often cited in discussions about the fairness of judicial processes, the psychological & physiological factors influencing decision-making, and the importance of understanding & mitigating biases in critical decision-making environments.
It also sparked conversations about the need for structuring work & decision-making periods to minimize the impact of decision fatigue on outcomes, not just in the judiciary but in various fields requiring critical decision-making.
The "parole board study" serves as a compelling example of how seemingly irrelevant factors like the time of day and the physical state of decision-makers can profoundly impact decisions. Each judge might scoff at the suggestion that their sentencing decisions were not entirely under their own free will, firmly believing in the autonomy of each judgment 'they' rendered.
Reason #2 Free Will is a Myth: The Sordid History of Schizophrenia
The deeper our understanding of brain function becomes, the more apparent it is how limited our agency truly is. Sapolsky explores this in a chapter dedicated to schizophrenia in his book. Historically, schizophrenia was misinterpreted as a condition induced by demonic possession, leading to the tragic execution of many affected individuals and, often, their mothers, who were sometimes stoned to death. A pivotal shift occurred in the 1950s when dopamine-receptor blockers were found to alleviate symptoms of schizophrenia, hinting at its biological underpinnings. However, it wasn't until the 1970s that schizophrenia was formally recognized as a neurological disorder, a delay that had devastating consequences for thousands, through wrongful deaths, shattered families, and widespread stigma.
Consider the scenario where an individual with schizophrenia experiences a seizure while driving, resulting in a fatal accident. This person is likely to receive a more lenient sentence compared to a drunk driver responsible for a similar tragedy. Both instances involve actions influenced by brain activity beyond the individuals' control. This discrepancy in legal outcomes raises profound questions about the consistency of our justice system and the understanding of free will.
This situation underscores a critical caution: there remains a vast expanse of unknowns regarding mental health conditions and how they affect behavior. Despite this, society often resorts to punitive measures without fully grasping the underlying neurological factors. While it's clear that those posing a danger to others must be prevented from causing harm, the complexities of brain function and the concept of free will demand a more nuanced approach. What we often categorize as "free will" might, in fact, be far removed from the choices we believe we're making independently.
Reason #3 Free Will is a Myth: Our Romantic Proclivities
Surely we exude agency over our love lives, right? Not so fast. The reality of human mating strategies suggests a more complex interplay between biology & free will. Unlike other species that adhere strictly to one reproductive strategy, such as the tournament-style mating of elephant seals or the pair-bonding nature of penguins, humans exhibit a wide spectrum of behaviors influenced by our genetic makeup. This diversity means that, for some, a lifelong monogamous relationship is the natural inclination, while for others, a more varied romantic life is preferred.
This genetic predisposition towards certain mating strategies was illustrated in a conversation between lifelong bachelor Bill Maher & psychologist Jordan Peterson, a proponent of marriage. Peterson's endorsement of marriage as a universal ideal was met with Maher's skeptical interjection, "yes, it works for you, but not for everyone!" This exchange underscores the idea that what feels natural & fulfilling in terms of romantic relationships can vary widely from person to person, often rooted in our genetic wiring. It challenges the notion that we have complete control over our romantic destinies, suggesting instead that our preferences & inclinations may be pre-determined.
Thus, the notion of free will in matters of the heart may be more limited than we like to believe. While cultural factors & personal experiences undoubtedly shape our romantic choices, the underlying influence of our genetics cannot be overlooked. Whether one finds fulfillment in a committed, monogamous relationship or in a lifestyle akin to that of Leonardo DiCaprio might not be entirely up to conscious choice. It's a humbling reminder that much of who we are, including how we love, is influenced by forces beyond our control.
Enter Psychedelics into the Conversation
While I agree that free will is, in all likelihood, a myth, I am inclined to consider the possibility that Psychedelics may facilitate a temporary departure from the conventional rules that dominate our life in baseline consciousness. Psychedelic experiences often propel us beyond the confines of physical laws, enabling us to perceive the intricate fabric of more advanced realms. Countless individuals have reported encounters with phenomena such as Sacred Geometry, Machine Elves, Buddha, and Jokers during their Psychedelic journeys. This raises a significant question: while the universe & THIS life is deterministic, are there realms we can access where these rules don’t apply?
The implications of these experiences are profound. If Psychedelics can indeed change some of our neural wiring then they may also influence the underlying mechanisms that contribute to our sense of making decisions freely. This notion challenges the deterministic view that our choices are preordained based on a complex interplay of genetic, environmental, and neurological factors. Instead, it introduces the possibility that through the Psychedelic experience, individuals can access states of consciousness where the usual parameters of decision-making are transformed, if only temporarily.
While the debate around free will versus determinism continues, the role of Psychedelics in this discourse cannot be overlooked. Their ability to usher individuals into extraordinary states of consciousness where the usual laws of physics & conventional decision-making paradigms are transcended suggests a fascinating intersection between the exploration of consciousness and the philosophical inquiry into the nature of free will. Whether these experiences simply offer a temporary reprieve from the deterministic underpinnings of our existence or hint at deeper layers of reality where the concept of free will can be reimagined remains an open question, one that continues to intrigue and challenge our understanding of the human mind.
Some Closing Thoughts
Regrettably, Sapolsky, joins fellow scientists Neil DeGrasse Tyson & Richard Dawkins in refusing to personally engage with Psychedelics. They often invoke Carl Sagan's well-known admonition that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as a rationale for dismissing the significance of mystical experiences. My counterargument to this stance is rooted in the fact that we are on a fucking planet right now. Soaring through the cosmos. No one knows how we got here. Even if you believe in the Big Bang…ok, what precipitated that? The mystery surrounding the universe's inception and the phenomenon of life itself embodies an "extraordinary claim." Experiences that offer insights into these fundamental mysteries surely warrant consideration.
It's disheartening that the very minds who could benefit most from the expansive perspectives afforded by Psychedelics are unwilling to explore them. There's no doubt that such experiences have the potential to significantly alter one's worldview. I speak from personal experience: once an atheist myself, my own encounter with 5-MeO-DMT profoundly shifted my perspective on spirituality & the existence of God.
It's my hope that the next generation of scientists & intellectuals will approach the exploration of consciousness with an openness absent in many of today's leading thinkers. The pursuit of truth, after all, demands a willingness to explore beyond the confines of conventional wisdom. However, should the next generation of thinkers possess the courage necessary to transcend, they likely won’t be responsible for making this decision ;)
If you enjoyed this piece, please do me a favor & ‘Like’ it. I have learned the amount of ‘likes’ a piece gets directly impacts where it ranks in the Substack algorithm. Thank you!
Lastly, nothing supports my work more than than sharing with others who may be interested (forward this email & they can subscribe via the button below).
This is a great contribution, Andrew, thanks for your thoughts. I've not considered reading Sapolsky's book so far because I find the whole idea of determinism rather depressing. It's not that I disagree: our choices are limited, that's for sure. It is equally true that, with psychedelics, true revelations and changes in our brain are possible. Whether I do what I do because I will to do so or because my genetic and mental wiring lead me to it seems mostly irrelevant to me. I have no choice but to continue filling my reality with my rather trivial decisions. Life is a paradox, that's for sure.
For anyone toying with the non-existence of free will, have a read of Raymond Tallis,, several excellent books (search Amazon https://www.amazon.fr/s?k=raymond+tallis&__mk_fr_FR=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=2JZ1IOSG73R8E&sprefix=raymond+tallis%2Caps%2C226&ref=nb_sb_noss
Highly recommended by me: Aping Mankind, The Explicit Animal)
and articles at The New Atlantis and Philosophy Now. An example:
How Can I Possibly Be Free?
Why the neuroscientific case against free will is wrong
Raymond Tallis
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/how-can-i-possibly-be-free
And here's an excellent review of an astounding book by another of my fav philosophers, Thomas Nagel:
Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False
The Review (by Tallis) is at
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/bringing-mind-to-matter