Determined

May 1, 2023

A Macarthur Fellow and Stanford professor of biology and neurology, Sapolsky argues that we are all Determined--that there is no separate self dictating what our biology does--and considers what this means for morality. Prepub Alert.

Copyright 2023 Library Journal

Copyright 2023 Library Journal, LLC Used with permission.

September 1, 2023
Acclaimed behavioral scientist Sapolsky (Behave, 2017) presents in his inimitable style a cogent argument explaining that free will is an illusion. He suggests that we are the history of our biology, over which we have no control, and that the brain knows what decision you will make prior to your awareness of the choice. In fact, to understand intent, one must factor in one's adolescence, childhood, even fetal life as well as what happened to your ancestors millions of years ago. "PFC (prefrontal cortex) functioning is the outcome of the second before, minutes before, millennia before." Sapolsky tackles many complicated facets of this demanding subject with aplomb, making difficult material accessible. His engaging style and silly humor make learning fun. He discusses chaos theory and emergence theory; he connects neuroscience, biology, history, and sociology and explores the ramifications of a deterministic world for ethics, morality, and criminal justice. Sapolsky's conclusions will be challenging to accept but the debate is essential. In the immortal words of the band Rush, "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

COPYRIGHT(2023) Booklist, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

September 1, 2023
A neuroscientific takedown of the notion that free will guides us. The question of predestination versus free will has driven theological disputes for centuries. Stanford biology and neurology professor Sapolsky holds a seemingly simple but carefully elaborated view of the matter: "There is no free will, or at least...there is much less free will than generally assumed when it really matters." Modern brain research shows that in decision making, for example, seldom do we deliberate on a matter, instead relying on a record of past behavior determined by neural responses and learned actions. Sapolsky notes that the difference between success and failure in academia is contingent on "the womb in which nine months were spent and the lifelong epigenetic consequences of that," as well as material considerations such as being fed adequately in childhood. The lot of the "crack baby," another charged example, is similarly determined by factors ranging from neurodevelopmental problems to being marooned in a poor neighborhood. Against Daniel Dennett and other philosophers of consciousness--a concept Sapolsky dismisses for the purposes of his argument--the author examines the ethical consequences of what happens to our notions of justice and punishment when we sideline the idea of free will. We've done so already, Sapolsky observes, in questions such as acts committed by the mentally ill, just as we've dismissed the idea that epilepsy is caused by demon possession. The author is fearless in taking on a matter that is fraught with a long history of debate and division, and he covers a wide variety of disciplines, from philosophy to ethics and law, with admirable clarity. Particularly provocative are his ideas about restorative justice and the contrarian suggestion that improving people's lives might actually improve their behavior--and the human condition as a whole. Sure to stir controversy, which, to judge by this long but lucid exposition, the author is perfectly willing to court.

COPYRIGHT(2023) Kirkus Reviews, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.