Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
#2Seems like a religious argument that can never be proven or disproven.
Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
#3Seems like a religious argument that can never be proven or disproven.
Indeed. It's disappointing to see Sapolsky go down this route.
Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
#4Seems like a religious argument that can never be proven or disproven.
Seems related to the question of what is consciousness, another issue that I think is more in the religious or philosophical realm rather than the scientific.
Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
#5he had the free will to post his study? I think in some things we do such as what color car to buy or TV show to watch, others we don't like IQ, height, educational attainment, personality, etc.
Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
#6he had the free will to post his study? I think in some things we do such as what color car to buy or TV show to watch, others we don't like IQ, height, educational attainment, personality, etc.
Did he? Or did his subconscious engage in the act before inducing the sensation of choosing to do it.
Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
#7Burger King coupons are built in to the laws of thermodynamics.
Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
#8he had the free will to post his study? I think in some things we do such as what color car to buy or TV show to watch, others we don't like IQ, height, educational attainment, personality, etc.
[deleted]
Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
#9Free will or lack of it is a distinction without meaning. Outside of religious implications, it makes no difference if agents make specific actions as a result of the configuration of one's matter, or the configuration of a spirit.
Lack of free will does not remove accountability for one's actions. An individual is a good or bad actor by the nature of their actions and behavior.
Similarly, a lack of free will does not mean predetermination or predictability.
To build a 100% accurate predictive model, you would have to duplicate the world and play it forward in time. This mean the events would have to actually happen before you can predict them.
Re: Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will
#10Seems like a religious argument that can never be proven or disproven.
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