The following is an email I wrote to Robert Sapolsky, one of the great minds in neuroscience. He theorizes that humans have absolutely no free will. Since there is no definitive scientific evidence proving or disproving free will, it ultimately comes down to choosing a premise. Personally, I choose to operate under the free will model because all of us act as though we have free will. That said, I believe what we call "free will" is actually a form of intelligence—an ability to override instinct. Image: Dr. Robert Sapolsky
Dear Dr. Sapolsky:
I greatly appreciate your brilliant mind, and I know you’ve probably anticipated these pushbacks on your philosophy that we have absolutely no free will. I have a few simple questions. If they’re answered to my satisfaction, I just might become your biggest fan—LOL.
To restate your position: we have absolutely no free will. That means you’ve been “programmed” since long before your birth to espouse this viewpoint, and I’ve been “programmed” to resist it. Fine. But here’s where I see room for free will: a so-called “spiritual awakening.” For example, someone inherits a pattern of alcoholism going back generations, then hits rock bottom and suddenly decides to get sober. After a few years of removing alcohol and doing the inner work, an abusive individual can become docile and helpful to others. Are you saying there was no genuine choice in that transformation?
If we truly have no free will, why bother trying to improve ourselves? It makes no sense to me. Your stance, from what I’ve heard in your podcasts, is that we don’t just have limited free will—we have none at all. Yet I see paradoxes. Suppose you’re “programmed” from eons ago to like only blue, green, and yellow. Then I take you to a store, ask you to buy something purple, and suddenly purple becomes your favorite color. Are you saying that wasn’t an actual choice?
Moreover, people mature, grow, and develop spiritually. Sure, for the first 25 years of my life, I might have been running on autopilot, following a script with fleeting moments of spontaneity—like deciding which exit to take off the highway. According to your philosophy, even that “spontaneous” decision was part of my program. But what if I practice meditation? Let’s assume for a moment your worldview is correct. If a person stays in the sympathetic nervous system (mostly amygdala-driven) their entire life, it may seem like there’s no free will. However, if I train myself to control my breath, quiet my reactivity, and shift into the parasympathetic system, I start to perceive reality in new ways. Are you saying there’s still no element of choice in operating from a more frontal, conscious part of the brain?
From my own experience—40 years sober, many years in psychotherapy, and countless pages of personal writing—I see the truth in part of what you’re saying. People stuck in patterned, reactive behavior (especially around addiction and compulsivity) often function as though on autopilot. I also agree that children have minimal free will, since they haven’t yet developed intellectual capacity. But the degree of free will a person has, in my view, depends on their personal development and intellectual growth. Even if your theory of “no free will” is correct, we still must make choices in daily life.
I also concur with much of what you say about our correctional system: many individuals act unconsciously, driven by the “wrong” brain processes, and are therefore no more responsible than an ape that attacks a rival. Clearly, society needs to incarcerate genuinely dangerous people, yet I don’t advocate a purely punitive approach. I believe in rehabilitation—but also in accountability. If someone damages property, they may need to make restitution as part of maintaining societal balance and preventing victims from seeking revenge. Restitution and making amends can help sustain harmony. Some people, however, may be beyond healing, and while I don’t support torturing them, I do think we can learn from them—especially regarding how childhood experiences shape behavior.
In any case, I hope you’ll find time to respond. I’m not asking you to appear on my podcast (though we’ve had four million downloads on a show that overlaps with this topic), because I believe your work is far more significant than mine. I’d simply love to continue this conversation. I frequently reference your lectures in my own talks and writing; you’re remarkable, compassionate, and brilliant. Personally, I lean a bit toward Noam Chomsky’s take on free will, though I find you more engaging to listen to.
The following text is copyrighted material copied from http://www.champions-speakers.co.uk website:
"Robert Sapolsky is the John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Professor of Biological Sciences, Neurology & Neurological Sciences at Stanford University – a position he has held for over two decades. Globally renowned for his research in biology and neurology, Robert has authored numerous books that display his groundbreaking research on stress and its impact on the human body and brain. Now Robert is available to hire as a speaker at a range of events related to mental health and stress.
Equipped with an A.B. in Biological Anthropology from Harvard University and a PhD in Neuroendocrinology from the Rockefeller University, Robert’s illustrious career rests on a solid foundation. He has worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Salk Institute and has contributed heavily to the Institute of Primate Research in the National Museums of Kenya in his capacity as Research Associate since 1985. Robert has dedicated 30 years to studying the impact of chronic stress on the health of baboons. Alongside this, he has also studied the negative impact of stress hormones on the brain for three decades."
Note: The above photo was copied from the same website as the above text crediting Dr. Sapolsky. I could not find the photographer's name to give them photo credit. Thank you.