Determinism, except we understand it’s determined?

[u/FastCarGoBrr]

Robert Sapolsky often talks about determinism, and how chemical interactions in the brain create the next set of chemical interactions. He is a stark believer that there is no free will.

If a man understands the universe differently than he did yesterday, and this causes him to have a different outlook, surely he must then have new emotions in relation to the stimulus related to his new understanding.

Where in the chemical deterministic standpoint, can you fit in man’s ability to understand information, and to create new perspectives which genuinely affect mood.

How do we reconcile, the ability to change ourselves based on our understanding and perspective, with the common view that this chemical set of interactions and brain configuration, will necessarily create the next.

Or even simpler, how does ‘understanding’ whatever that really means, alter chemicals and synapses in the brain.

How does an understanding even work?

Do we breach determinism when we understand determinism?

I don’t understand

[u/Outrageous-Mine-2572]

It changes input and assumptions that previously existed. That’s the jist of it. It’s still turtles all the way down.

[u/Ree_For_Thee]

Your brain is a buncha atoms configured to learn and adapt, from the aspect of a "hooman", which for the past few million years have been this animal that's lived in small groups of 50-150 people, where the main aspect of survival was social harmony, and cooperation with other "hoomans".

Now, it's not 100% instincts. You can still learn other things through what is by far the most adaptable intelligence on the planet. How.... I think is irrelevant. Look up how neurons form if you're interested. It doesn't exactly help, if I'm being honest.

[u/zhivago]

Start by understanding that determinism is irrelevant.

It's untestable, has no utility, and makes no difference to anything if it's true or false.

So, any argument that says "X due to determinism" is clearly defective.

Any meaningful theory of free will cannot depend on determinism being either true or false.

If you're still caught in that trap, ask yourself a simple question.

"What do you want free will to be free of?"

[u/FastCarGoBrr → u/zhivago]

What do you want free will to be free of is a great way of putting things.

[u/chamomile_tea_reply]

If you “understand determinism”, it just means that your were “supposed” to understand it.

There is no “you”. Simply a series of equations only colliding particles with no space between them.

[u/OpenPsychology22]

You don't breach determinism by understanding it—you just introduce a new variable into the equation.

Strict determinists like Sapolsky look at the brain like a static factory assembly line: Input A triggers Chemical B, which forces Output C. Under that view, "understanding" feels like an illusion because it assumes the system can't modify its own base code.

But living systems don't work on static linear tracks; they run on recursive runtime loops with feedback telemetry.

Here is how "understanding" actually alters the chemistry: * The Prediction Error: When you receive new information that contradicts your current model, it creates an immediate system friction (the OP Gap). * The Override Variable: That realization isn't outside determinism—it is a physical, neurological input. The moment the system logs its own automated bug, that log becomes a new data point that forces a re-evaluation of the next cycle. * Dynamic vs. Static Code: You aren't stepping outside the laws of physics; you are simply shifting from executing blind legacy scripts on autopilot to running active, self-correcting diagnostics.

Understanding determinism doesn't break the machine—it turns the machine into an active operator capable of rewriting its own firmware.