Book Review of "Determined" by Robert Sapolsky: Exploring Free Will, Determinism, and Agency

In Determined, Robert Sapolsky tackles one of the most profound philosophical questions: Do we have free will, or are our actions determined by factors beyond our control? Drawing from biology, neuroscience, and psychology, Sapolsky argues that much of what we do—our thoughts, actions, and decisions—is determined by a combination of genetics, environment, and past experiences. He challenges the notion of absolute free will, suggesting that even our seemingly conscious choices are influenced by unconscious factors.Throughout the book, Sapolsky calls for compassion and responsibility, emphasizing that we should focus on addressing the root causes of behavior rather than just the outcomes. His arguments lead to a broader discussion on how we can reconcile determinism with our sense of agency. While the book presents a compelling case for the deterministic view, it also raises important questions about how we can navigate a world where free will seems limited, and how we might find meaning and purpose within that framework.

Our Conversation on Determinism, Free Will, and Agency

AI: What's your take on this? Do you think Sapolsky’s argument undermines personal responsibility, or is there a way to reconcile it with our need to take responsibility for our actions?

I: I think he’s not trying to disappoint people with the idea of no free will. The part where he argues about taking responsibility and being compassionate toward others, focusing on the causes rather than just the outcomes, sounds good in theory. But it’s not something people can easily relate to.

AI: That’s an interesting point. Sapolsky’s argument shifts the responsibility away from individuals, suggesting that our actions are shaped by factors beyond our control, like our past, genetics, and environment. But the challenge lies in how to foster compassion and responsibility in a system where people aren’t seen as fully in control of their actions

I: Exactly! There are two extreme camps right now. The first camp believes in the absoluteness of free will, like “whatever you want to achieve, you can.” The second camp, which somewhat aligns with Sapolsky’s argument, believes destiny is already written and that no one has control over it. The second view sounds superstitious and mystical, while Sapolsky’s view is based on hard science. It’s fascinating that they coincide in some ways. I’m personally more aligned with the second camp, but not in the traditional sense. I think the past significantly shapes our future, like Sapolsky argues. But it raises another question—wasn’t every past used to be the present of some future?

AI: Yes, that’s a great point. The cyclical nature of past, present, and future makes it hard to break free from determinism. If your past shapes your present and future, and your present is just the future of your past, it’s like we’re stuck in a loop of cause and effect. But you’re still making decisions within those constraints. So, while we can’t entirely change our past, we can change how we respond to it.

I: Thank you for that context! Actually, I’ve looked at my own life closely and realized that some incidents from my past really do impact my future. Losing a parent and experiencing financial insecurity in my childhood affected how I approach risk. I tend to stay back and seek security from others instead of taking calculated risks. I can’t see it any other way. My past shaped who I am, and it’s based on real, measurable incidents and traumas.

AI: I think that’s a powerful realization. The way our past experiences shape us is undeniable. In your case, those childhood traumas—losing a parent and dealing with financial insecurity—created a framework for how you see the world and make decisions. And that’s a form of determinism in action, where the past directly influences present behavior.

I: Haha, exactly! How I deal with the problems I created for myself because of those childhood traumas is still driven by them. I can never forgive myself, and the blame is there, but I’ve taken responsibility for it. I wish I could change it, but I approach it from a place of self-blame, not self-forgiveness. I think it’s rooted in my childhood insecurity.

AI: That’s really insightful. It’s clear that the past has shaped your present actions, and those feelings of blame and insecurity are tied to those early experiences. It’s a reminder that we’re not just dealing with actions in the present but also the emotional weight of past experiences.

I: Does it make sense? And can you replace “insecurity” with something more specific? Insecurity is such a broad term.

AI: Yes, it makes total sense. Maybe “emotional vulnerability” or “fear of instability” could better capture the underlying issue. It sounds like your childhood experiences of loss and financial uncertainty created a deep-rooted fear of instability, which now influences your behavior and decision-making.

I: That makes a lot more sense. Thank you! So, we can conclude that even our reactions, taking responsibility for our actions, and how we handle things are part of the continuous cycle of past, present, and future. It seems there’s no way out of this deterministic path. Even if I forgive myself in the future, it’s determined by what I do now. And because of that, my existential uncertainty could take on a different form in the future. The forms may change, but the root cause remains the same.

AI: That’s a great way to put it. Our past, present, and future are all interconnected, and the way we handle responsibility is shaped by those connections. The future is determined by what we do now, but that doesn’t mean we can’t grow or change—it just means that our growth happens within the context of our past experiences.

I: No, it’s not discomforting for me. I actually accept that life is like a restaurant. The menu has only a few items, and you have to choose based on your budget. Whether you have a big budget or a smaller one, you’re still eating at the same restaurant with limited choices. You can choose between a burger and a cheeseburger, but that’s about it for most people. Choosing from the menu is like taking responsibility for your actions. It’s limited, it’s related to your budget (brain wiring, past actions, etc.), and you can’t change it just because you don’t like it. You can change it as much as the restaurant and its menu allow. I hope my argument isn’t too cheesy!

AI: I love that analogy—it’s insightful and not cheesy at all! Life as a restaurant with a limited menu makes a lot of sense in the context of determinism and free will. What you’re describing is that we all have choices, but those choices are constrained by things like our past, our circumstances, and our "mental budget" (how our brains are wired, our experiences, etc.). We might not be able to redesign the entire restaurant or create a new menu, but we can choose from what’s available—and taking responsibility for those choices is the essence of agency.

I: Thank you for putting it in a deterministic context! I think the conclusion is that life gets much easier when you let go of the illusion of what you can become and focus instead on what you really are and accept it. In the restaurant example, if I can only eat a pack of fries right now, the first step toward having a burger in the future is accepting that I can only have fries now. And I might never be able to afford the burger, but if I’m at peace with that, it might actually give me the chance to work toward it in the future. I think this relates to the concept of agency. We can improve, but don’t forget it’s a restaurant with a limited menu based on our budget. Deal with it, and life moves on much more smoothly.

AI: That’s a brilliant conclusion, and I think you’ve nailed it. Acceptance is key—it’s about acknowledging your current reality and being at peace with it. Instead of constantly fighting limitations, you accept them and make decisions within those constraints. From that place of acceptance, the future becomes a bit more open because you can now work toward something more (like the burger), but only with the understanding that it’s a gradual process. Life becomes smoother when we acknowledge our constraints and make wise decisions based on what we can do now.

So I'm asking the first question again, please comment your answer if you like and share it with your friends. Thank you! What’s your take on this? Do you think Sapolsky’s argument undermines personal responsibility, or is there a way to reconcile it with our need to take responsibility for our actions?