Владислав Педдер – The Experience of the Tragic (страница 8)

This also explains why we feel free even when, on a more fundamental level, the brain is guided by probabilistic models. The brain conserves energy by processing only the most likely events rather than the full spectrum of possible inputs, making it more flexible and adaptive. This economization allows for rapid responses to environmental changes without expending excessive cognitive resources. Ultimately, this generates the subjective experience of free will.

To clarify this argument, I draw attention in this book to Robert Sapolsky’s most recent work, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, which synthesizes neurobiology, genetics, endocrinology, evolutionary biology, and psychology to offer a comprehensive account of human behavior. I will not attempt a detailed exegesis of Sapolsky’s work here; Rather, I will isolate its core insights that help illuminate the nature of determinism and the fundamental questions it raises.

Robert Sapolsky is an American neuroendocrinologist, biologist, anthropologist, and author, renowned for his research on human behavior, its biological foundations, and the mechanisms of stress. He holds a professorship at Stanford University and has spent over three decades investigating how neurobiology, genetics, and environment interact to shape human behavior. Beyond his primary scientific contributions, Sapolsky is well known for his popular books, such as Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst and Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. These works challenge traditional conceptions of free will and moral responsibility by offering a biologically grounded perspective on human action.

Neurobiological Evidence

Sapolsky refers to the work of Michael Gazzaniga, who conducted research on patients with a severed corpus callosum, to illustrate the absence of free will. These “split-brain” patients exhibited striking examples of how consciousness constructs post hoc interpretations of actions that were not the result of deliberate decision-making. When one hemisphere performs an action, the patient is not always able to explain why it occurred. Gazzaniga discovered that the left hemisphere – responsible for language and narrative construction – frequently invents justifications for actions initiated by the right hemisphere. This demonstrates that conscious awareness is not necessarily aligned with the actual processes involved in decision-making.

“Neurobiology shows that we are often unaware of the true causes of our behavior. When the left hemisphere explains the actions of the right, it does so based on its own perceptions rather than on the actual cause” (Sapolsky, 2023).3

This example illustrates the notion that we perceive ourselves as free agents, yet many of our choices and actions stem from unconscious processes. The narrative self, primarily constructed by the left hemisphere, functions less as an origin of behavior and more as a retrospective interpreter – offering plausible, but not necessarily accurate, accounts of why we acted as we did.

The Illusion of Free Will

One of the central aspects of Sapolsky’s work is the concept of the “illusion of free will.” He argues that despite our conviction of having free choice, in reality, all our decisions are determined by biological, neurobiological, and social factors. We perceive ourselves as free agents because we are unable to consciously grasp the entire chain of mechanisms that actually lead to our behavior. Sapolsky uses the metaphor of an “illusion”: we see ourselves as free agents because we fail to notice the deeper underlying mechanisms influencing our actions.

“We believe we control our actions because we do not see the chain of biological factors leading to our decisions. It is simply an illusion that we make decisions consciously.”

He provides examples where reactions to external stimuli occur before we become consciously aware of them. For instance, when a person faces danger, their body may immediately respond based on instinctive reactions (such as an increase in adrenaline levels) before the individual consciously realizes what has happened. This confirms that our behavior is often predetermined by responses occurring at an unconscious level in the brain.

Genetics and Behavioral Influence

Sapolsky also emphasizes the importance of genetics in the determinism of our behavior. He cites examples of genetic mutations, such as changes in the MAOA gene, which are associated with increased predisposition to aggression. Such genetic influences can significantly alter behavior, and according to Sapolsky, these data demonstrate that our personality and behavior are largely predetermined by our genome rather than being the result of free choice.

“Genetics plays a major role in shaping our personality. Even traits such as a propensity for aggression can be predetermined by our genes.”

The Influence of Environment and Upbringing

Environment and upbringing also play a significant role in shaping our behavior. Sapolsky emphasizes how stressful events can strongly affect decision-making. In particular, stress can reduce our capacity for rational thought, making us more prone to impulsive decisions. This also confirms that our actions are largely predetermined by external circumstances rather than by free will.

“When we are under stress, our brain starts to function differently, which makes us more prone to aggression or impulsive acts. This means that even in moments of tension, our actions are determined.”

The Role of Neuropeptides and Hormones in Behavior

Sapolsky discusses in detail how hormones such as oxytocin can strongly influence our social interactions. He provides examples showing that an increase in oxytocin levels can make us more trusting and altruistic, while its decrease can lead to aggression and distrust.

“Hormones like oxytocin play a crucial role in our behavior. We cannot control their levels, and it is precisely they who often determine how we relate to other people.”

Decoherence and Classical Reality

In chapter nine of his work, Robert Sapolsky acknowledges that quantum mechanics violates classical Laplacian determinism at the subatomic level. However, as I will show further, quantum randomness does not provide grounds for the existence of free will. Let us begin with quantum decoherence.

Quantum decoherence is the loss of quantum coherence. Quantum decoherence has been studied in order to understand how quantum systems transform into systems explainable by classical mechanics. The theory, which emerged from attempts to deepen the understanding of quantum mechanics, developed in several directions, and experimental research confirmed some key points.

At the macroscopic level, quantum effects become “blurred” due to interaction of quantum systems with their environment. This process, called decoherence, explains why the macroscopic world is strictly deterministic.

Decoherence shows that quantum systems transition into states that appear classically deterministic to the observer. Thus, quantum uncertainty does not “penetrate” into the macroscopic world, where Newton’s laws dominate.

Bell’s Experiment

Bell’s experiment demonstrates that quantum mechanics violates Bell inequalities, indicating the presence of quantum nonlocality. This phenomenon is often interpreted as a challenge to classical notions of determinism. However, Sapolsky emphasizes that even quantum nonlocality does not provide “free will,” since outcomes still fully depend on the system’s parameters and its initial state.

Misinterpretations of quantum nonlocality are connected to the perception of quantum event randomness as an opportunity for the existence of will free from determining factors. However, quantum randomness does not make events free; it merely makes them unpredictable.

Physical Determinism and System Complexity

Pierre-Simon Laplace’s ideas that knowledge of all initial conditions could allow prediction of the future are discussed in the context of chaos theories and quantum uncertainty. Sapolsky points out that even in a complex physical system (such as the brain) no “freedom” arises; everything remains predetermined by physical laws. Despite the potential quantum uncertainty, its influence on the level of conscious decisions is minimal and does not rescue the concept of free will.

Laplace’s demon, according to Laplace’s theory, is a hypothetical entity which, knowing the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at a given moment in time, can precisely predict the future. If you understand the physical laws shaping the universe and know the exact position of every particle in it, you can precisely predict what happened at every moment from the beginning of time and what will happen at every subsequent moment until the end of time (Laplace, 1814). This means that everything that happens in the universe was destined to happen (in the mathematical, not theological, sense).

“Laplace put forth the canonical statement of all determinism: if you had a superhuman who knew the location of every particle in the universe at a given moment, he would be able to precisely predict every moment in the future. Moreover, if this superhuman (later called ‘Laplace’s demon’) could recreate the exact location of every particle at any past moment, this would lead to a present identical to our current one. The past and future of the universe are already determined. Science since Laplace has shown he was not entirely correct, but the spirit of his demon lives on. Modern views on determinism must include the fact that certain types of predictability prove impossible (topics of chapters 5 and 6), and some aspects of the universe are indeed indeterminate (chapters 9 and 10).”