Comments
  1. latimes.com10/17/2312 min
    5 reads2 comments
    7.0
    latimes.com
    5 reads
    7.0
    You must read the article before you can comment on it.
    • jeff9 months ago

      This was a frustrating read but I think it's a worthwhile topic. I also really like Sapolsky but completely agree with Tse:

      “However, a person can be both brilliant and utterly wrong.”

      First off, I don't think most people who believe we have free will would assert that we're in complete control over how we respond emotionally to a movie or that we operate independently of our environment. The question is whether or not, or to what extent we have any agency over our own actions. Saying that we have none whatsoever requires a much better argument than the ones put forth in this article or any other that I've read.

      Actually instead of a better argument, how about some evidence? What I find truly astounding is how quick some brilliant neuroscientists are to draw conclusions about large, complex topics like consciousness and free will from small, simple studies looking at individual neurons. Brains are not computers or any other kind of machine that we understand and I think it's absurd to make such big proclamations about something we know so little about.

      • bill
        Top reader of all timeScout
        8 months ago

        Yep. Brains are not computers and humans are not machines. Maybe Sapolsky has been at Stanford too long. Weird direction for his work to go.