The Experience of the Tragic

“Laplace put forth the canonical statement of all determinism: if you had a superhuman who knew the location of every particle in the universe at a given moment, he would be able to precisely predict every moment in the future. Moreover, if this superhuman (later called ‘Laplace’s demon’) could recreate the exact location of every particle at any past moment, this would lead to a present identical to our current one. The past and future of the universe are already determined. Science since Laplace has shown he was not entirely correct, but the spirit of his demon lives on. Modern views on determinism must include the fact that certain types of predictability prove impossible (topics of chapters 5 and 6), and some aspects of the universe are indeed indeterminate (chapters 9 and 10).”

Further Reflections on Free Will with Lawrence Krauss

After the release of the book Determined, in a two-hour podcast with Robert Sapolsky and Lawrence Krauss, the main focus is on the connection between the illusion of free will, neurobiology, and concepts related to quantum physics. Sapolsky once again emphasizes that free will is an illusion determined by biological processes and the laws of physics. This viewpoint is also supported by arguments that even the probabilistic nature of quantum physics cannot undermine determinism. (Sapolsky; Krauss, 2023)

Determinism and Quantum Physics

During the conversation, Krauss raises the argument concerning quantum uncertainty, frequently invoked to support the idea of free will. He emphasizes that uncertainty at the quantum level is interpreted as the probabilistic nature of events not due to a rejection of determinism but because we lack the instruments to predict exact outcomes. Sapolsky concurs, noting that even if quantum physics introduces an element of randomness, it does not create freedom of choice for the subject. No quantum “noisy” event in the brain produces a conscious and independent action.

The main arguments consist in the illusion of control manifesting in the fact that neurobiological processes are initiated before we become aware of our actions, confirmed by studies demonstrating that neural activity precedes our decisions. The probabilistic character of quanta indicates that even if random events exist in nature, they cannot serve as the foundation of free will since they are not under the individual’s control. The evolutionary basis of behavior, as Sapolsky emphasizes, lies in the fact that even highly developed social processes have a biological foundation, including such notions as morality and responsibility.

Here is how Sapolsky describes this in Chapter Ten, “Is Your Free Will Random?”:

“Putting aside cruel randomness, can quantum effects truly influence behavior? For example, the uncertainty releasing magnesium from the glutamate receptor does not significantly affect excitation at the synapse. Even strong excitation of a single synapse is insufficient to trigger an action potential in the neuron… A dendrite in one glutamatergic synapse contains approximately 200 receptors. We consider quantum events affecting one receptor within such a synapse. By conservative estimates, a neuron contains from 10,000 to 50,000 such synapses… This gives us between 20 and 100 trillion glutamate receptors… Applying the same calculations to hypothetical microtubules, allegedly responsible for consciousness… Thus, when transitioning from quantum uncertainty at the subatomic level to the scale of the brain producing behavior, a scale problem arises: a staggering number of random events would need to occur simultaneously, in one place, and in one direction to exert a significant influence. experts agree that a more probable scenario is that any single quantum event is lost in the ‘noise’ of an enormous number of other quantum events occurring at different times and in different directions.”

By the end of the podcast, Sapolsky and Krauss reach a consensus that quantum physics ideas do not contradict biological determinism. The question of free will become philosophical: we live as if it exists, despite a lack of evidence supporting it. This approach allows focusing on practical measures, such as revising approaches to punishment and education, which Sapolsky discusses in detail in his book.

The works of Robert Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst and Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, reveals a profound interconnection between biology, behavior, and determinism, constructing a comprehensive explanation of human nature. These books bring us to the realization that habitual notions of free will and moral responsibility require reconsideration.

Behave shows that human behavior is shaped through a complex interaction of neurobiological, genetic, hormonal, and social factors. Every action is rooted in a chain of events beginning long before conscious choice, including instantaneous hormonal responses and long-term environmental influences. This book aids in understanding how our best and worst actions are predetermined by a multifaceted biological foundation.

In Determined, Sapolsky takes the next step, asserting that free will is no more than a cognitive illusion necessary for social functioning but incompatible with scientific data. Neuroscience confirms that our decisions are not the result of independent choice, and quantum randomness adds no freedom since it remains outside the subject’s control.

These works possess not only philosophical significance but practical implications. If our actions are predetermined, then it is necessary to reconsider systems of justice, education, and social responsibility. This approach enables a focus on eliminating factors contributing to antisocial behavior and creating conditions conducive to empathy and cooperation.

Sapolsky’s perspective proposes a transformation in the way we view human relationships, the legal system, and our own lives: understanding that behind every behavior lie invisible biological and external forces can radically alter our approach to how we perceive ourselves and others.

He emphasizes that all our decisions result from biological and ecological factors beyond our influence, and this renders the traditional system of rewards and punishments meaningless. Sapolsky straightforwardly states that given determinism, moral judgments and systems of justice require complete reevaluation.

Having established the foundations of neurobiological determinism with Sapolsky, we now turn to philosophical concepts attempting to reconcile our inner experience of the “I as a free agent” with the fact that all our decisions and actions are conditioned by external and internal regularities.

Within the analytic tradition, one of the most influential approaches to this problem is compatibilism – the doctrine of the compatibility of free will and causal determinism. Classical compatibilism dates back to David Hume, who observed that freedom does not require the “breaking” of causal chains but merely the absence of external coercion and the capacity to act according to one’s desires and beliefs. In this vein, freedom is defined functionally: an agent is free when able to act based on one’s own motives rather than under external pressure.

In the 20th century, Daniel Dennett developed the idea of compatibilism in his book Freedom Evolves. Dennett suggested that evolution has created in our brains complex cognitive mechanisms capable of “planning” and “controlling” behavior – that is, forming predictions, evaluating alternatives, and changing course (Dennett, 2003). These mechanisms allow us to sustain social institutions and moral norms: we hold each other responsible because we can predict our own and others’ behavior and build interactions on these forecasts. At the same time, “will” remains determined – it is simply embedded in a system capable of self-reflection.

But what does freedom rely on, according to compatibilists? First, on the fact that internal causes (our desires and beliefs) are perceived by us as “ours,” even if formed by genetics, upbringing, and environment. Second, on the capacity for self-restraint and reevaluation of one’s motivations: we can bring our impulses to a “critical level” of consciousness and reconsider their significance. Thus, responsible agents capable of acting in long-term interests emerge – even if “long-term interests” and “motives” themselves are conditioned by antecedent causes.

Nevertheless, compatibilism faces a profound aporia: we did not choose our desires, design our motivational system, or establish the values that then determine our actions. If we were not the authors of our internal causes, how justified is it to ascribe moral responsibility to us? In the most radical version of this critique (developed, for example, by Galen Strawson), genuine responsibility becomes impossible because any attempt to “account to oneself” requires a meta-cause, and this meta-cause, in turn, requires an even deeper cause – ad infinitum.

On the other hand, opponents of compatibilism appeal to indeterminism: allegedly, random quantum fluctuations in the brain can provide a “glimmer” of genuine freedom. However, such an argument substitutes freedom with randomness. If an action results from unpredictable “noise” at synapses, it ceases to be a conscious choice and turns into a roll of the dice, for which we also cannot bear responsibility. Moreover, as modern philosophers note, quantum unpredictability is erased at the scale of the brain, where tens of trillions of receptors and synapses generate too much “noise” for it to convert into meaningful decision-making.

Compatibilists, striving to show that determinism and free will do not exclude each other, often refer to neurobiological mechanisms of self-control – in particular, the functioning of inhibitory neural circuits. One of the main arguments is that a person is capable, at a critical moment, to “stop oneself” – and this, they say, is the manifestation of freedom. For example, they point to the human ability to cancel already initiated actions within a very brief interval – ranging from several hundred to tens of milliseconds. This effect is well-studied in stop-signal task experiments, in which subjects are instructed to perform an action but then suddenly receive a signal requiring immediate cessation. Successful inhibition is interpreted as an expression of “higher” control, not reducible to mere impulse.

A key role in this process is played by inhibitory neurons, primarily GABAergic interneurons (interneurons using γ -aminobutyric acid, GABA) – notably parvalbumin-positive (PV+) and somatostatin-positive (SST+) cells. They modulate the activity of cortical pyramidal neurons and participate in suppressing excessive excitation, ensuring a balance between impulse and inhibition. These neurons are especially active in brain regions responsible for decision-making and self-regulation, including the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG). Signals from these cortical areas are transmitted to subcortical structures, chiefly the subthalamic nucleus (the nucleus of Luys), which functions as a kind of “emergency brake,” capable of interrupting an already initiated motor action.

From the compatibilist perspective, this very ability – to “think twice” and cancel an impulse – demonstrates a functional level of freedom: we do not act purely automatically; we have a biological mechanism enabling the evaluation and alteration of action. Compatibilists claim this capacity suffices to speak of responsibility: if a person could have stopped but did not, that is their manifestation of free will.

However, incompatibilists – philosophers who assert that free will is fundamentally incompatible with determinism – point out that the presence of inhibitory mechanisms does not render the individual free in the true sense. According to their position, if every action has sufficient causes – biological, psychological, or social – it cannot be free, even if the subject experiences control. The mere fact that inhibition is possible does not mean that the subject “chooses” it in any metaphysical sense. The work of these neurons is conditioned by the same determining factors: genetics, experience, current physiological state, and environment.

,neither libertarianism nor compatibilism restores the intuitive, deeply rooted everyday consciousness freedom – the freedom to thus be the genuine source of one’s actions.

To understand the nature of the “feeling” of freedom, consider how it relates to predictive coding. The brain forms internal models of the world and continuously generates predictions about incoming sensory inputs. When predictions are confirmed, we experience harmony; when predictions diverge from reality, an error signal arises, and the model is refined. At the level of subjective experience, this looks like an act of choice: consciousness operates with final predictions, not perceiving the complex causal calculations underlying these predictions.

The illusion of freedom in predictive coding arises because we interpret the successful matching of expectations and actual data as “my intention” and “my decision.” In reality, the brain simply minimizes prediction error in the most efficient way to conserve resources and adapt faster. Yet we habitually ascribe authorship of this process to ourselves.

In this sense, free will become an adaptive information-processing tool – a cognitive strategy: filtering complex causal chains into compact predictions allowing rapid decision-making and maintaining a sense of control. Without this “mythical freedom,” we would be overwhelmed by the chaos of unprocessed causes, and our social structures would lack the foundation for practices of responsibility and trust.

Thus, free will cease to be an ontological property of the world and becomes a question of the structure of our perception. Determined biology and physics are closely intertwined with the brain’s illusory “free will” at the level of predictive algorithms. It is precisely in this unity that its true power lies – as a form of adaptation to the extreme complexity of existence.

2. Adaptation to Death

The sense of free will help the mind feel in control of his life, yet it proves powerless when confronted with the awareness of the finitude of existence. Death, as an integral part of our being, evokes fear and existential tension – especially in the context of the world’s chaos, as discussed in the previous section.

The brain, which strives to avoid cognitive conflict, employs mental models of immortality and symbolic adaptations to soften the impact of its own mortality. These mechanisms help maintain internal stability and preserve the capacity for functioning even in the face of the inevitable. In this section, we will examine how mental constructs, cultural adaptations, and individual strategies alleviate the fear of death and help the individual find ways to come to terms with it.

2.1. Mental Models of Immortality

Ernest Becker was an American psychologist and philosopher, best known for The Denial of Death – for which he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize – and Escape from Evil. In these works, Becker analyzes the fundamental existential problems of the human condition, chief among them being the awareness of one’s mortality. In order to cope with this fear, humans construct mental models of immortality – cognitive frameworks that help the mind adapt to existential limits, that is, to situations in which human reason encounters fundamentally unknowable and unpredictable phenomena. These models allow for the preservation of a sense of control, order, and meaning in the face of the inevitable finitude of existence. Becker argues that human life cannot be understood without acknowledging the fear of death, which affects all aspects of our being, from personal relationships to cultural and religious systems.

Mental Models as Tools for Prediction and Defense

From the perspective of predictive coding, the brain constantly updates its models to anticipate the future. When predictions are confirmed, this creates a sense of safety and stability. But the awareness of one’s mortality and the finitude of existence represents a fundamental uncertainty that cannot be eliminated. Confrontation with this existential limit provokes anxiety and disorientation, and thus the individual resorts to constructing models of immortality as a means of defending the mind.

Symbolic Heroism and Cultural Adaptations

One of Becker’s central ideas is that of symbolic heroism as a way of adapting to existential limits. Symbolic heroism is the attempt to overcome the fear of death through participation in cultural systems that endow life with meaning and create the illusion of immortality. The individual seeks ways to become part of something greater, something that will outlast their physical death. This may take the form of art, science, religion, political movements, or social institutions (Becker, 2019).

Becker argues that culture, at its core, is a heroic system designed to shield the individual from the terror of death. Culture creates symbols and myths that promise immortality through belonging to something eternal. For example, an artist may seek immortality in their works, a scientist in their discoveries, and a soldier in the defense of their homeland.

As Becker writes: “Culture is in its essence a heroic system that allows us to believe we transcend death by participating in something eternal.”

Thus, symbolic heroism allows the individual to adapt to existential limits by creating an illusion of control and stability. Cultural systems offer pathways to transcendence that divert the mind from the recognition of life’s finitude.

Types of Mental Models of Immortality

Becker identifies several types of immortality models that help the individual cope with the fear of death:

– Biological immortality. The desire to leave behind offspring as a way of extending one’s existence through genetic continuity. Children become symbols of life’s continuity despite personal mortality.

– Symbolic immortality. The creation of works of art, scientific discoveries, or social achievements that will outlive the individual. This model allows one to feel part of history and culture.

– Ego-centric immortality. The pursuit of fame and recognition as a way to generate the illusion of personal immortality. This may be expressed in striving for leadership, success, or leaving a legacy in the memory of others.

– Theological immortality. Belief in an afterlife or eternal soul as a means of overcoming the fear of death. Religious convictions create a sense of meaning and hope for the continuation of existence after physical death.

These models of immortality help the individual adapt to existential limits, preserving a sense of meaning and predictability in an unpredictable world.

Symbolic and Genuine Heroism

Although symbolic heroism helps manage the fear of death, Becker notes that it is based on self-deception. Cultural and religious systems offer illusory solutions that do not eliminate death itself but merely distract from its implementation. Symbolic heroism allows the individual to temporarily suppress anxiety but does not resolve the deeper existential conflict. As Becker observes:

“The irony of human existence is that the deepest need is to be free from the anxiety of death; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive.”

In contrast to symbolic heroism, genuine heroism requires an acknowledgment of existential limits and a willingness to live in full awareness of them (Becker, 2019). Genuine heroism involves the courage to accept one’s mortality and to act in spite of fear. It means rejecting illusory comforts and self-deception and instead choosing to live consciously in the face of finitude.

Genuine heroism entails the continual renewal of mental models and adaptation to uncertainty. It is a process that demands the bravery to confront chaos and unpredictability, while recognizing that no model can provide a definitive answer to the questions of existence.

Conclusion

Thus, Becker’s ideas about mental models of immortality and symbolic heroism represent a form of adaptation to existential limits. Human beings create cultural, religious, and social systems in an attempt to overcome the fear of death and maintain a sense of control and meaning. However, genuine heroism demands that we abandon self-deception and confront existential limits head-on – accepting our finitude and choosing to act in full awareness of it.

Critique of Heroism

In his work The Denial of Death, Ernest Becker posits that “the problem of heroism is central to human life.” Heroism, in his view, is a cultural construct and a necessary illusion that helps preserve sanity in the face of the awareness of death. Through heroic striving, people create their own projects of immortality. One might be tempted to stop there in explaining the human condition – to reduce all striving, culture, religion, and ideology to existential fear of death, which we are unable to overcome physically. This would indeed seem sufficient. However, we know that alongside the fight against death through heroism or transhumanism, there is another possibility – acceptance of death. And as will become evident further on, death is not the only thing the mind fears and cannot overcome.

The Kübler-Ross model, commonly known as the five stages of death acceptance, appeared four years before the publication of Becker’s book and proposes its own framework for coming to terms with mortality. At present, we are not concerned with whether each of these stages actually occurs or whether alternative stages might be identified; what matters is the fact that the model, as an idea, produces tangible results.

Contemporary research in psychology and neuroscience has gone further. In addition to Terror Management Theory (TMT), new approaches have emerged that reveal the multidimensional nature of human perception of mortality. One such concept is Existential Well-Being Theory, which emphasizes that awareness of finitude can actually foster personal growth, provided it is properly integrated into a person’s life. This theory highlights how acceptance of death can stimulate the search for meaning, improve interpersonal relationships, and contribute to the development of an authentic sense of self.

Another promising direction involves research at the intersection of psychology and neuroscience, exploring how awareness of mortality affects the brain. Techniques related to neuroplasticity, for example, show that consciously working with thoughts about death can reshape neural structures involved in anxiety regulation. This opens new therapeutic horizons, including treatment for PTSD and other psychological conditions.

Yet another area of recent inquiry focuses on the therapeutic use of psychedelics, such as psilocybin, in treating terminal illness. Though controversial, these methods have shown encouraging results: patients who have undergone psychedelic-assisted therapy report reduced fear of death, improved quality of life, and enhanced emotional well-being. Studies suggest that such experiences may produce a sense of unity with the world, helping individuals perceive death not as a tragedy but as a natural process.

To demonstrate the effectiveness of death acceptance, I will share my own story. I did not need to be diagnosed with a terminal illness or suffer a tragic loss to confront the awareness of life’s finitude. From an early age, I witnessed the deaths of close relatives, most of whom passed away from natural causes. I attended funerals conducted according to Orthodox Christian traditions, even though my family was non-religious. At that time, death seemed like something routine: a person disappears, their body is returned to the earth – and that is the end of it.

However, at the age of fifteen, something changed. Thoughts of my own mortality began to intrude into my consciousness, especially during the silence of night or moments of solitude. They felt like a sudden stab – cold and merciless – evoking a visceral terror. My awareness seemed to plunge into an abyss. I later learned that this state could be classified as panic attacks. In those moments, the world would collapse into a single thought: I will disappear, and nothing will be able to save me.