Philosophy for Our Times – "Freedom and Fate"

Date: January 27, 2026
Host: Hilary Lawson for IAI
Guests: Paul Bloom (psychologist), Lucy Allis (philosopher), Robert Sapolsky (neuroscientist)
Main Theme:
A dynamic debate between three leading thinkers on the age-old problem of determinism and free will. The discussion explores whether our lives and choices are predetermined by causal laws of nature, or if humans truly possess the freedom to choose their actions—and what that means for personal responsibility, blame, and moral agency.

Overview

This episode brings together psychologist Paul Bloom, philosopher Lucy Allis, and neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky to debate whether free will is compatible with our current scientific (materialist) understanding of the world. The panel tackles core questions:

• Can we maintain belief in free will or is it an illusion?
• How do science and philosophy influence our notions of choice and responsibility?
• What are the real-world consequences of accepting or denying free will?

The conversation unfolds with divergent and intersecting perspectives, covering the philosophical stakes, the explanatory power of science, and the practical implications for blame, punishment, and moral life.

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: Definitions and Dilemmas

Timestamps: [03:32]-[05:51]

• Moderator: Frames the debate: Individual responsibility is central to culture but may conflict with a scientific, materialist worldview.
• Panel: Introductions and opening statements on free will and determinism.

Key Points

• Paul Bloom presents compatibilism:

  • Humans naturally believe in dualism and free will, but materialism and determinism are true.
  • "Our mental life is a product of our physical brains, and our behaviors are the result of causal forces." [04:05]
  • Choices can be intentional and conscious, making them meaningful for moral praise and blame, even if determined.
  • Edge cases like addiction don't fit neatly.

• Memorable Quote (Bloom):

  • "We possess the capacity to choose. Now, I guess this makes me a compatibilist..." [05:21]

2. Robert Sapolsky: Hard Determinism and the Case Against Free Will

Timestamps: [05:53]-[10:02], [25:25]-[29:00]

• Sapolsky: Argues for "lunatic fringe" determinism: there is no free will at all—a stance he believes would make the world better.
• Explains behavior through an uninterrupted causal chain from neurobiology, hormones, genes, culture, and evolution.
• Every action, decision, or intent traces back to antecedents; no room for "free" intervention.

Key Point

• Problems with quantum/chaos loopholes: "It simply doesn't hold up." [09:10]

• On punishment/reward:

  • "Blame and punishment make no sense whatsoever... praise and reward make no sense." [26:42]
  • These are intuitive but unsupported when one fully accepts determinism.

• Memorable Quote (Sapolsky):

  • "There are simply no cracks in that edifice in which one can shoehorn in freedom." [09:42]
  • "We do not choose to change. We are changed by circumstance..." [18:42]

3. Lucy Allis: Naturalistic Agency Beyond Physics and Reductionism

Timestamps: [10:06]-[15:33], [33:11]-[38:22]

• Allis: Challenges both hard determinism and strict materialist reduction.
• Points out science's reliance on idealizations and abstractions; physics isn't the only way to explain causation in living systems.
• Asserts that higher-level causal powers (like agency in animals/humans) are real, embodied, and subject to constraints from lower levels, but not reducible to them.

Key Points

• There are multiple sources of explanations:

  • Atoms have properties not reducible to bosons/fermions
  • Living agents have causal powers consistent with, but not determined by, physics

• On agency:

  • "Among the complex phenomena in the world are persisting dynamic self-organized living systems... that have the capacity to sense themselves and the world and to move themselves as a whole in carrying out their goals and purposes." [12:35]

• Argues that free agency does not require "magic" or breaking laws of physics.

• Memorable Quote (Allis):

  • "I think it's bizarre to think that these new structures have no properties other than the properties of bosons and fermions." [12:16]

4. Where Compatibilism & Its Critics Collide

Timestamps: [21:00]-[23:33]

• Lucy Allis: Critiques compatibilism as "literally incredible" — hard to make sense of real moral blame if every act is set from the Big Bang; supports John Dupré & Helen Steward in denying real agency within a deterministic metaphysic.
• Paul Bloom: Defends compatibilism, even if it's counterintuitive.
  • "If you want to say... that's just a deterministic process. For somebody to count as choice, it has to be magic. I think it's a terminological issue." [22:23]
  • Uses AI to illustrate how deterministic systems can "choose."

5. Responsibility, Blame, and Moral Practice

Timestamps: [23:33]-[27:48]

• Moderator: Asks whether materialism is a threat to responsibility.

• Paul Bloom:

  • Acknowledges the philosophical worry, but says our instinct to blame/praise is "incorrigible" and evolutionarily grounded.
  • Admits it's possibly a "valuable illusion."

• Robert Sapolsky:

  • Moral attributions, punishment, and reward are rationally indefensible without free will.
  • But "for instrumental reasons," such practices can be retained—as tools, not ends.

• Memorable Exchange (Sapolsky & Bloom, [27:15]-[29:37]):

  • Sapolsky: "Love?... No, because we can operate at two levels simultaneously... I love my wife, and I know it's got something to do with my olfactory receptors and my oxytocin variants."
  • Bloom: "There's a Valentine's card."
  • Sapolsky: "I'm so sentimental."

6. How Far Can Determinists Go? Can We Live Like This?

Timestamps: [31:02], [45:46]

• Moderator: Challenges Sapolsky—how can a determinist genuinely engage in communication and persuasion?

• Sapolsky: Explains that our "role" is itself determined; we want to influence because of who we've become—a product of causes.

• Insists it's possible to gradually subtract free will from moral and practical discourse (as done with epilepsy, weather, etc.), but admits he can only really "live" this for a few minutes at a time.

• Memorable Quote:

  • "I haven't believed in free will since I was 14. And I can actually live my life as if there's no free will for about three minutes every other month." [46:12]

7. Philosophical Stakes and Social Consequences

Timestamps: [43:42]-[45:21], [50:49]

• Moderator: Asks consequences if society abandoned free will or materialism.

• Lucy Allis:

  • It’s nearly impossible to live as if no one has free will—psychologically and socially.
  • Fears for moral motivation, personal responsibility, and prosocial engagement (e.g., climate crisis).

• Robert Sapolsky:

  • Admits emotional challenges for the "winners" in life if we reject the myth of personal agency.
  • Argues stripping away free will is "liberating" for those dealt a bad hand:
  • "All recognizing that free will is nonsense... is liberating for them." [50:21]

• Paul Bloom:

  • Doubts society will ever truly give up holding people responsible; our emotional responses are too deeply ingrained.
  • Edge cases remain important for debate (addiction, unconscious bias).

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• Paul Bloom:
  • "We possess the capacity to choose. Now, I guess this makes me a compatibilist..." [05:21]
  • "If you want to say what I just described doesn't count as choice... for the rest of the world, that's what we mean by making choices." [22:23]
• Robert Sapolsky:
  • "There are simply no cracks in that edifice in which one can shoehorn in freedom." [09:42]
  • "We do not choose to change. We are changed by circumstance..." [18:42]
  • "Blame and punishment make no sense whatsoever... praise and reward make no sense." [26:42]
  • "I haven't believed in free will since I was 14. And I can actually live my life as if there's no free will for about three minutes every other month." [46:12]
• Lucy Allis:
  • "I think it's bizarre to think that these new structures have no properties other than the properties of bosons and fermions." [12:16]
  • "Too much is at stake to not believe that [in free will]." [38:42]
  • "When you feel gratitude to someone, you think that they did more than they had to." [44:06]

Tone and Dynamics

• The conversation is respectful and intellectually rigorous, with playful banter and occasional self-deprecation (especially around compatibilism).
• Each speaker is clear about their philosophical commitments but acknowledges complexities and practical limits—especially regarding real-world attitudes toward blame, love, and gratitude.

Key Takeaways

• Determinism vs. Free Will remains a deeply contested issue, not just in theory but in everyday attitudes and society.
• Compatibilism (Bloom) seeks a middle ground, suggesting that meaningful choices and responsibility survive even in a deterministic universe, though critics find this unsatisfying.
• Hard Determinism (Sapolsky) argues for a universe without blame or credit, pushing for social change—but admits practical and emotional resistance remains high.
• Emergent Agency (Allis) offers an alternative: higher-level explanations and causal powers can vindicate free will without magic or breaking physical laws, challenging both strict reductionism and determinism.
• Moral Practices (praise, blame, responsibility) are psychologically ingrained, hard to abandon, but our evolving understanding (esp. of edge cases like addiction) shows room for practical rethinking.
• Science and Philosophy: Both play roles, but how we interpret scientific explanations for human action remains philosophically contentious.

Recommended Timestamps for Insightful Segments

• [05:53]-[10:02]: Sapolsky’s causal roll-back of behavior and strong determinism
• [12:16]: Allis on the limits of reductionism and emergence
• [22:23]: Bloom's defense of compatibilist "choice"
• [25:25]-[29:37]: Discussion of responsibility, punishment, reward, and love
• [38:42]: Allis on the stakes of abandoning free will
• [46:12]: Sapolsky reflects on trying to “live” as a determinist

Final Reflection:
The discussion vividly illustrates why debates on free will and determinism remain unresolved. Even among experts, there are no easy answers—only rigorous arguments, deep philosophical divisions, and a shared recognition of the practical and moral complexity of living as if we are (or aren't) free.