from Hacker News

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

by theNewMicrosoft on 10/18/23, 5:25 PM with 19 comments

  • by enoch_r on 10/18/23, 6:46 PM

    > 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...)

  • by s1artibartfast on 10/18/23, 6:27 PM

    Free 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.

  • by haltist on 10/18/23, 7:11 PM

    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.
  • by yellow_postit on 10/18/23, 5:34 PM

    Seems like a religious argument that can never be proven or disproven.
  • by paulpauper on 10/18/23, 5:55 PM

    he 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.
  • by mensetmanusman on 10/18/23, 6:01 PM

    Burger King coupons are built in to the laws of thermodynamics.