Science

1224 readers

1 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on scientific discoveries, research, and theories across various fields, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and more. Whether you are a scientist, a science enthusiast, or simply curious about the world around us, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on a wide range of scientific topics. From the latest breakthroughs to historical discoveries and ongoing research, this category covers a wide range of topics related to science.

founded 1 year ago

Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will (phys.org)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Before epilepsy was understood to be a neurological condition, people believed it was caused by the moon, or by phlegm in the brain. They condemned seizures as evidence of witchcraft or demonic possession, and killed or castrated sufferers to prevent them from passing tainted blood to a new generation.

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

Assuming his hypothesis is true I find this rediculous from the article:

"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."

How is it made more so. We have no free will over how we reward or punish people. If the world is screwed up and his hypothesis correct then its exactly as screwed up as its supposed to be and our lack of decision neither make it worse or better. It just is.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Whether or not we have free will and whether this whole existence is pre-calculated, I'm going to go all meta-Pascal's wager on it and suggest that we try to act like we do have free will and try not to think about it.

Maybe I was always going to come to that conclusion. Doesn't matter.

Maybe this makes about as much sense as Wile E. Coyote staying in the air until he actually realises he has run off a cliff. Doesn't matter.

Be the Road-Runner able to run into a painting of a tunnel as if it is real and remain as happy as possible about it.

meep-meep

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yep. On the grand scale it doesn't matter if this comment was pre-determined or if I genuinely made the free choice to write it. What matters is that, to me, the illusion of free will is complete. There is nothing other than my belief that I am free to affect my own existence.

As Rush once said, even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Thanks for referencing Rush so I didn't have to. Lol

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

While our lives are largely dictated by situation and environment, this doesn't equate to a complete lack of free will. We are constantly making decisions based on reacting to information we receive.

Even if we don't actually have free will, it's not really a useful argument to make. It just feels like an excuse to dismiss the problems of humanity and ignore opportunities to learn and change.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Sapolsky, a MacArthur "genius" grant winner, is extremely aware that this is an out-there position. Most neuroscientists believe humans have at least some degree of free will…

Theirs is very much a minority viewpoint. Sapolsky is "a wonderful explainer of complex phenomena," said Peter U. Tse, a Dartmouth neuroscientist and author of the 2013 book "The Neural Basis of Free Will." "However, a person can be both brilliant and utterly wrong."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Behave is a great (if fucking beefy) read on a broad variety of influences on human behavior (it's 1B to Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow on my nonfiction list), but one expert's opinion on something as inherently unmeasurable as free will doesn't warrant a news story.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

This guy seems to be a bit confused about what free will is.

Does he mean to suggest that he was helpless in writing an entire book on the subject of free will? Does he mean to suggest that because I can't alter my own physical needs such as breathing, eating, and sleeping that I am somehow unable to WANT to change them? The article mentions his religious upbringing. I wonder if he would reach the same conclusion if he was raised in a different environment?

My read on it is this: when we construct ideas in our minds we often create shortcuts to help us process new information faster. In everyday life these shortcuts are quite useful. When considering philosophical questions like free will, we need to recognise that those same shortcuts can be harmful to our ability to consider broader possibilities. This person seems to have forgotten that.