3 ms·

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

5 points by laurex 3y ago

LewisVerstappen 3y ago
This article spends basically 0 time delving into his argument or thought process. Instead takes his hypothesis as fact and concludes that we should stop punishing drunk driving? Does anyone link an article that actually explains his views?
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Sapolsky? He's got a book that's scheduled for early Nov 2023. These various "media appearances" that are popping up are simply looking to whip up interest in the book. That is, less like journalism and more like TMZ / PR. Since we're talking about an industry (i.e., media) that doesn't know causation from correlation, I suspect to get a true and accurate understanding of his views you'll have to read the book.
- sharemywin 3y ago
  moral judging aside. external consequences do effect behavior. if you don't believe me go touch a stove...twice. (not meant to be taken literally)
- sharemywin 3y ago
  Also, if you can't blame the person for a violent action you can't blame the victims family for wanting retribution. so it seems your right back where you started from.
effed3 3y ago
A conclusion about free will derived from primates/human study seems poinless, if even a precise scientific definition of free-will is very difficult to set, and (to take one) even the concept of subconscious is very fuzzy and not scientific, usefull(??) to talk about of somethning we do not really know. And -real- scientific experiments sems (quite)impossibile to realize: how to -really- repeat an experience a 2nd time like the 1st to study the outcomes? even for a simple physical system, we cannot "rewind thee reality" and check again, we do experiment under controlled situation to approximate this, imagine for a really complex system like a biological one in a even more complex environment. Even instincts are considerend far less -mechanical- in recent times, so this kind of absolute conclusions about things soo deep are not much interesting, it's more a matter of philosopy... And if there is no free will, how Sapolsky choose to study free-will?...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

5 points by laurex 3y ago

This article spends basically 0 time delving into his argument or thought process. Instead takes his hypothesis as fact and concludes that we should stop punishing drunk driving? Does anyone link an article that actually explains his views?

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Sapolsky? He's got a book that's scheduled for early Nov 2023. These various "media appearances" that are popping up are simply looking to whip up interest in the book. That is, less like journalism and more like TMZ / PR. Since we're talking about an industry (i.e., media) that doesn't know causation from correlation, I suspect to get a true and accurate understanding of his views you'll have to read the book.
sharemywin 3y ago
moral judging aside. external consequences do effect behavior. if you don't believe me go touch a stove...twice. (not meant to be taken literally)
sharemywin 3y ago
Also, if you can't blame the person for a violent action you can't blame the victims family for wanting retribution. so it seems your right back where you started from.

effed3 3y ago

A conclusion about free will derived from primates/human study seems poinless, if even a precise scientific definition of free-will is very difficult to set, and (to take one) even the concept of subconscious is very fuzzy and not scientific, usefull(??) to talk about of somethning we do not really know. And -real- scientific experiments sems (quite)impossibile to realize: how to -really- repeat an experience a 2nd time like the 1st to study the outcomes? even for a simple physical system, we cannot "rewind thee reality" and check again, we do experiment under controlled situation to approximate this, imagine for a really complex system like a biological one in a even more complex environment. Even instincts are considerend far less -mechanical- in recent times, so this kind of absolute conclusions about things soo deep are not much interesting, it's more a matter of philosopy... And if there is no free will, how Sapolsky choose to study free-will?...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]