Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

#11

Post by enoch_r »

> This means accepting that a man who shoots into a crowd has no more control over his fate than the victims who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means treating drunk drivers who barrel into pedestrians just like drivers who suffer a sudden heart attack and veer out of their lane.

> “The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people for things they have no control over,” Sapolsky said. “We’ve got no free will. Stop attributing stuff to us that isn’t there.”

I don't how much the reporter has embellished things but this seems really, really, really silly.

"People have no free will" does not mean that "incentives don't matter." Obviously, or we could simply prove that free will exists by noting that incentives do, in fact, matter.

Would more people create Ponzi schemes if they didn't have examples like Madoff and SBF of it all crashing down? Absolutely. Would more people steal if they knew they couldn't face punishment? Yes. Would more people drink and drive if there were no consequences for doing so? Yes. If Company A offers me more money than Company B, am I more likely to take the offer from Company A? Yes.

Given that incentives matter, it is absolutely fair and reasonable to "reward people and reward people" for their actions.

Even though I think the premise that people don't have free will is likely correct!

(It's also quite odd that Sapolsky would ask people to change their behavior, given his apparent beliefs...)

Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

#12

Post by haltist »

There can be no mechanical or materialistic explanation of free will. There are too many factors involved so it's just one of those things that everyone has to decide for themselves whether it is true or not. If you don't think that you have free will then you probably don't but I've never met anyone who would outright admit that all their choices have been post-hoc justifications for inevitable actions of a biological automaton. I'm willing to bet that even Sapolsky wouldn't admit that's the case.

Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

#13

Post by catlover76 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #10
catlover76 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. It's disappointing to see Sapolsky go down this route.

Sapolsky has always been a vocal critics of free will. It is discussed at length in his other books. His entire career has been researching and publishing the biological basis of behavior

> Sapolsky has always been a vocal critics of free will. It is discussed at length in his other books.

Interesting; I only read one of his books and didn't pick this up.

Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

#14

Post by s1artibartfast »

catlover76 wrote: post #13
s1artibartfast wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sapolsky has always been a vocal critics of free will. It is discussed at length in his other books. His entire career has been researching and publishing the biological basis of behavior

> Sapolsky has always been a vocal critics of free will. It is discussed at length in his other books. Interesting; I only read one of his books and didn't pick this up.

I know there is a dedicated section on free will in the book Behave. I havent read every one, so maybe you are talking about what that I havent seen. From my understanding, his academic career and body of literature largely runs through the how genetic environmental factors impact neurochemistry, and uses this to explain why individual actors behave a certainty way.

Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

#15

Post by hotpotamus »

enoch_r wrote: post #11

> This means accepting that a man who shoots into a crowd has no more control over his fate than the victims who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means treating drunk drivers who barrel into pedestrians just like drivers who suffer a sudden heart attack and veer out of their lane. > “The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people…

I wouldn't call myself a Sapolsky fan but I do have enough interest in his work to follow a bit and have attended one of his lectures when he was in town. The above sounds like something he would say.

Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

#16

Post by s1artibartfast »

enoch_r wrote: post #11

> This means accepting that a man who shoots into a crowd has no more control over his fate than the victims who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means treating drunk drivers who barrel into pedestrians just like drivers who suffer a sudden heart attack and veer out of their lane. > “The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people…

I dont think there is really a contradiction here if you dig into it.

Incentives very much do matter, but that doesn't say anything about free will. Conversely, the existence or lack of free will doesn't say anything about how we should implement incentives.

If you accept the premise that a mass shooter has no more control than a heart attack victim, what should that change? It certainly doesn't imply that we should make mass shooting legal or be incentivized.

Having read some of his books and watched his lectures, it seems like the only moral point he raises from this is that criminal justice should be guided by maximizing benefit to the greater population (which includes setting an example or incentive) but not simple revenge.

However, this is only loosely connected to the topic of free will. You can arrive at the same conclusion from a utilitarian perspective, or even from Christian ideals of forgiveness.

Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

#17

Post by enoch_r »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #16
enoch_r wrote: post #11

> This means accepting that a man who shoots into a crowd has no more control over his fate than the victims who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means treating drunk drivers who barrel into pedestrians just like drivers who suffer a sudden heart attack and veer out of their lane. > “The world is really screwed up and made much, much more unfair by the fact that we reward people and punish people…

I dont think there is really a contradiction here if you dig into it. Incentives very much do matter, but that doesn't say anything about free will. Conversely, the existence or lack of free will doesn't say anything about how we should implement incentives. If you accept the premise that a mass shooter has no more control than a heart attack victim, what should that change? It certainly doesn't imply that we should…

That's fair. The most egregious line, I thought, was: "it means treating drunk drivers who barrel into pedestrians just like drivers who suffer a sudden heart attack and veer out of their lane." I took this to mean that we should essentially eliminate criminal justice entirely. But of course, that was the article author, not Sapolsky himself.

Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

#18

Post by s1artibartfast »

enoch_r wrote: post #17
s1artibartfast wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think there is really a contradiction here if you dig into it. Incentives very much do matter, but that doesn't say anything about free will. Conversely, the existence or lack of free will doesn't say anything about how we should implement incentives. If you accept the premise that a mass shooter has no more control than a heart attack victim, what should that change? It certainly doesn't imply that we should…

That's fair. The most egregious line, I thought, was: "it means treating drunk drivers who barrel into pedestrians just like drivers who suffer a sudden heart attack and veer out of their lane." I took this to mean that we should essentially eliminate criminal justice entirely. But of course, that was the article author, not Sapolsky himself.

I realistically think that phrase is likely sloppy journalism, or just clickbait. The charitable judgement would be that "treating them the same" means approaching each case as a problem to be solved, with compassion for the offending party, and without hate.

Dont get me wrong, Sapolsky is very much on the side of rehabilitation and restorative justice.

I think he would argue that if we could go in and surgically fix the drunk driver so they never do it again, we should probably do it and then help them have a happy and productive life afterward.

I don't know if he thinks that setting an example isn't useful, or if that he just thinks the pendulum is so far in that direction that it is counter-productive.

My personal view is that modern punishments are way beyond the point have diminishing returns for prevention, but we also have to be careful about making perverse incentives/ rewards. You don't want someone to commit crime just so that they can get extra benefits and help afterwards.

It is a really questionable area that is being explored by some policymakers. For example, San francisco is paying criminals not to shoot people [1]. Does it save lives? probably in the short term? Does it incentivize people to become criminals so that they can get the benefit? Who knows? Does it sounds a lot like paying ransom? It does to me.

https://www.californiacitynews.org/2021/09/don%E2%80%99t-sho....

Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

#19

Post by geophile »

haltist wrote: post #12

There can be no mechanical or materialistic explanation of free will. There are too many factors involved so it's just one of those things that everyone has to decide for themselves whether it is true or not. If you don't think that you have free will then you probably don't but I've never met anyone who would outright admit that all their choices have been post-hoc justifications for inevitable actions of a biologic…

> There can be no mechanical or materialistic explanation of free will.

Of course there is: Free will is the feeling you have when you become aware of a decision made by your subconscious mind, (which is deterministic).

Why did you order the salmon and not the steak? Sapolsky would identify all the factors, on various timescales, leading to the action that you took. You think that you chose freely, but you didn’t. You became aware of the subconscious decision, and that’s when you believe that you exercised free will and “decided”.

Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

#20

Post by haltist »

geophile wrote: post #19
haltist wrote: post #12

There can be no mechanical or materialistic explanation of free will. There are too many factors involved so it's just one of those things that everyone has to decide for themselves whether it is true or not. If you don't think that you have free will then you probably don't but I've never met anyone who would outright admit that all their choices have been post-hoc justifications for inevitable actions of a biologic…

> There can be no mechanical or materialistic explanation of free will. Of course there is: Free will is the feeling you have when you become aware of a decision made by your subconscious mind, (which is deterministic). Why did you order the salmon and not the steak? Sapolsky would identify all the factors, on various timescales, leading to the action that you took. You think that you chose freely, but you didn’t. Yo…

That would mean that free will is reducible to a mathematical structure and if that's the case then an existence proof of such a structure would be very useful for the development of artificial general intelligence. If that's not the case and there is no algorithm for free will then it is, by definition, irreducible to a deterministic computational implementation which means that no algorithm will ever have free will.

I'm sure Sapolsky can guess as to why some people are impulsive decision makers based on factors he has found in his research that correlate with impulsivity but I don't think that means such people have no free will. If you don't believe people can make free choices then that's equivalent to what I posted originally about biological automatons and admitting to being one.

Post reply on HN