Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will

DETERMINED: A Science of Life Without Free Will by Robert M. Sapolsky. Penguin Press, 2023. 528 pages. Hardcover; 35. 00. ISBN: 9780525560975. *In his latest book, Robert Sapolsky takes on the monumental task of trying to convince his readers that personal agency, free will, and moral responsibility do not exist. As a staunch determinist, he argues for the philosophical position referred to as "hard incompatibilism" (determinism and free will are incompatible positions to hold simultaneously). Sapolsky readily acknowledges how challenging this task will be, settling for a more modest goal--to get readers to intellectually move in the direction that there is less free will than they previously assumed. *Sapolsky is an author who should be read, and his arguments, whether you agree with them or not, need to be discussed. He is a neuroscientist and primatologist, and holds the position of professor in biology, neurology, and neurosurgery at Stanford University. By the age of 30, he was awarded a MacArthur Foundation "Genius" grant. His writing is intelligent, clever, lucid, and at times hilarious, infuriating, and profane. Personally, I admire Sapolsky's command of the written word. In one sentence he can make the reader laugh by employing whimsical literary devices and in the next sentence he can be punishingly argumentative and scholarly. He writes with a chip on his shoulder, knowing that most people reading the book disagree with his extreme deterministic position. His prose is never dull or boring, even when the subject matter addresses neurological topics such as brain anatomy or chemistry. *PSCF readers will be familiar with the lack of humility sometimes found in the writings of other scientists who are extreme determinists. Here, Sapolsky mirrors the language of these writers who have often asserted that our thoughts and actions are nothing more than the aggregation of prior biological antecedents. In his words, "when you behave in a particular way, which is to say when your brain has generated a particular behavior, it is because of the determinism that came just before, which was caused by the determinism just before that, and before that, all the way down" (p. 3). Sapolsky believes so strongly that we are nothing more (or less) than the "cumulation of biological and environmental luck" that he frequently crosses the line and lapses into arrogant outbursts such as: "How can you believe in free will by ignoring history? " (p. 85). He seems to have trouble accepting the reality that the vast majority of determinists adopt a position that allows for freedom of choice. *Early in the book, Sapolsky delineates some of the common attitudes held by people writing about free will. He describes a four-fold typology that encompasses almost everyone. His category of "compatibilists"--determinists who believe in free will--comprises over ninety percent of those who are intellectually engaged with the topic. Due to the popularity of this position, Sapolsky spends much of his book attacking it. One proponent of this view is the eminent scientist, Michael Gazzaniga, who co-founded the discipline of cognitive neuroscience and authored the book, Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain. Gazzaniga's book had a profound effect in shaping my own understanding and eventual embracing of the compatibilist position. *The first half of Determined is devoted to the notion that free will cannot be demonstrated. Two chapters are focused on intent since Sapolsky says a disproportionate amount of research on the free will debate revolves around this construct. Here he meticulously dissects the empirical literature on experimentation that emanated from Benjamin Libet's classic series of electroencephalogram (EEG) experiments in 1983. These experiments, along with dozens of others performed in the intervening 40 years, demonstrated that an electrophysiological "readiness potential" originating from the supplementary motor area of the prefrontal cortex is initiated 200-300 milliseconds prior to when people reported making a decision. Comparable results have been observed using fMRI imaging, demonstrating neuronal activity up to ten seconds prior to the time when subjects reported making a conscious decision. *These results have been used to support the notion that free will is "just a post hoc illusion, a false sense of agency" (p. 22). Interestingly, Sapolsky is highly critical of this research and concludes that these studies are irrelevant to the free will debate since none of them address the question: Where did that intent come from in the first place? For this question, Sapolsky spends an entire chapter on where intent comes from by elucidating neurobiological processes that occur seconds prior to an action, then hours prior, then days prior, then months prior, and so on. Essentially, he attempts to demonstrate how a series of biological antecedent events could produce a behavior without ever being able to show what actually occurred to lead to an action or thought. *Next, Sapolsky addresses the question: What if some moments aren't caused by anything preceding them? This could open the door to allow free will to sneak in. This is an important question since determinacy has been challenged by the sciences of chaos theory, emergent complexity, and quantum indeterminacy. Sapolsky uses six challenging chapters to argue that none of these three major developments pose insurmountable problems to his hard incompatibilism worldview. PSCF readers without a physics background may have difficulty understanding his arguments. Given the assumptions and uncertainties of these challenging areas, I was not convinced that Sapolsky's interpretation of the data was supportive of this book's overriding thesis that free will does not exist. *To Sapolsky's credit, Determined does not abruptly end with no discussion of what moral responsibility looks like in a world lacking free will. He devotes chapters to questions such as: If free will is a myth and our actions are the byproduct of amoral biological processes leaving us without moral culpability (as Sapolsky believes), will we not "run amok" engaging in all sorts of maladaptive and even heinous behaviors? He also delves into why people enjoy seeing others punished when they commit a crime or engage in morally reprehensible behavior. Lastly, since Sapolsky believes that people cannot be held ethically responsible for their behaviors, he insists we must change how society deals with those who break our laws since there is no ethical justification for blame and punishment. As an alternative to a retributive justice system, he proposes that we adopt a quarantine model similar to what the medical field uses to deal with patients stricken with a disease in which it is in society's best interest to remove them from the general population. Regardless of what you might think about Sapolsky's ideas, at least he is trying to find a solution to major social ramifications in case he has convinced you (and others) that free will is nothing more than an illusion. *Sapolsky includes a lengthy footnote stating he will not discuss any theologically based Judeo-Christian views that relate to free will, agency, and moral responsibility. This decision omits important questions that should be part of the conversation. PSCF readers may ask: How can an omniscient God who knows everything about the present, as well as the future, still allow for personal agency? Also, if the theological "hard determinists" are correct, and God has predetermined how the world is going to play itself out, how does the construct of moral responsibility fit into this framework? Finally, what is the interplay between supporting, as well as opposing, arguments for natural determinism and theological determinism? Complex issues, enlightened by faith, can guide us towards alternative understandings that will bring us closer to the truth. For me, the debate between free will and determinism is no exception. *If you are interested in exploring the question of free will and determinism from perspectives drawn primarily from scientific research findings--as opposed to philosophical or theological musings--I recommend this book. Even if you find the author's position of hard incompatibilism to be too extreme, the book is instructive and entertaining. *Reviewed by Bryan C. Auday, retired professor of psychology, Gordon College, Wenham, MA 01984.