Here's Sapolsky again: "Free will? An illusion: we are not free."

A man sits in a courtroom, his fate hanging on a verdict. He knows what he did, but does he know why? Robert SapolskyStanford neuroscientist says no. In his book determined, he argues even more forcefully (we dealt with this a while ago) that free will is an illusion: every choice is the product of biology and environment, not will. The prefrontal cortex, which curbs impulses, can be damaged, as in cases of obesity or depression. But if we aren't free, who is responsible? Sapolsky imagines a more humane society, where science reshapes justice. Yet something doesn't add up: if no one chooses, who will change the world? These are questions that shake me again, make me waver. And so I take up the matter again.

Sapolsky and the Collapse of Free Will

Imagine dominoes falling one after another, with no choice. Sapolsky, a Stanford professor and primate researcher, argues that we are like that too. In his book determined He dismantles free will piece by piece with a sharp argument: every decision is the result of biology (genes, neurotransmitters, brain circuits) and environment (childhood, culture, stress). There is no room for a freely choosing “I.” It's a huge idea, even if it doesn't seem like one to some. If we accept this thesis, the concept of "guilt" as we know it collapses completely. And then what happens?

The science behind the thesis

The prefrontal cortex, that piece of the brain that makes us “human”, is at the centre of the discussion. Peter Ulric Tse, in his study The Neural Basis of Free Will, explains that the prefrontal cortex regulates impulses, but it doesn't create choices out of thin air. Sapolsky goes further: damage to the prefrontal cortex, as in cases of trauma or illness, makes it impossible to curb certain behaviors, even knowing they're wrong. An example? Obesity. It's not just a lack of will, but it's a biological disorder, like a malfunctioning leptin receptor that ignores satiety signals. The same goes for depression: serotonin (perhaps even the intestinal microbiota), not willpower, modulates our mood. Sapolsky uses this data to argue: it's not "we" who choose: it's our brain chemistry.

A society without guilt?

Sapolsky doesn't just describe. He proposes change. If free will is an illusion, criminal justice must be rethought. He has testified in 13 capital trials, explaining to jurors how trauma or brain damage influences behavior. The result? 11 out of 13 convictions. Science is convincing, but human instinct wants to blame. Of course, accepting determinism could make society more empathetic, focusing on prevention rather than punishment. But a cultural leap is needed. It's not easy.

Sapolsky, however, still stumbles for me

Nothing. I always try, but I always reach the same impasse. For me, Sapolsky stumbles on a crucial question: if no one is free, who decides to change the system? His lucid and scientific thesis seems to take the helm out of our hands. Yet, he himself is an activist, testifies in court, writes books. A bit like a robot preaching software upgrades despite knowing it's being programmed.

Sapolsky challenges us to be better, even while denying our freedom. It's a human, almost comical paradox. If we don't choose, why even try?

A thought for the future

Sapolsky's thesis isn't comfortable. It removes certainties, but it opens doors. If free will is an illusion, we can stop blaming and start understanding. Depression, crime, even religious faith: everything becomes a biological and social puzzle. But there's a risk: if we accept that we are machines, who will program a better world?

Perhaps, as Sapolsky says, you don't need to be free to make a difference. You just need to want it. Or rather, your brain just needs to want it.

I'm afraid we'll be back to this topic again.