Tom's Reviews > Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will

Weren't you preprogrammed to write this review? Were you?

Complicated topic, isn't it..? ;-)

I tried to stop myself but couldn’t do it 😊. Remember no free will means no love and no friendship - these are choices. No humanity. Also, the author doesn’t wish to punish murderers because they had no choice in the matter. This is dangerous thinking with little basis in science.

''This guy...this guy...'' Ok. You are forgiven for this stupid review. it's not your fault.

I am just just saying “this guy” takes an extreme viewpoint to create controversy and sell books. Please read a review of the current science about free will.
Just do a google search for current science on free will. We have free will - some of our choices are predictable. Many are not.

Agree with the criticism of scientific extremism. All actions do not have its genesis from a conscious mind. So, the question is, do we have free will?

Why not deign to review the contents of the book, if you read it.

The book doesn't claim that we don't make choices or there is no will. It claims it is not "free". The choices and decisions, and the resulting behaviors are determined consequences of several factors explained in the book.

Tom can't help but be a simpleton who doesn't get it. It's determined, so leave him alone. Who wants to bet Tom is religious and can't handle the rock aimed at his iron and clay strawman feet?

Not religious

I’m reading the book. Despite Tom’s criticism, Sapolsky does publish in very reputable peer-reviewed journals.

He personally admits that he is “out in left field” in his research on free will. Again, all I am saying is that current research on free will does not support the idea of no free will - which he supports.

Am I wrong or this is an example of ad hominem?

this is possibly the dumbest take away from the positions presented in the book, but, I suppose you also cannot help being as dumb as you are

chaos is determined, even though it is unpredictable and "this guy" meticulously explains that in the book man...

Tell me you read the book before rating it....?

To second the comment by Felix above, there is no conflict between these two sentences:

30 years ago, chaos theory was trying to tell us that a squirrel sneezing in the Midwest could cause a La Nina in the Pacific Northwest. Now this guy wants to tell us that whether we turn right or left has already been predetermined.

The butterfly effect (or the squirrel effect) results from a tiny initial perturbation stumbling into a random and rare sequence of positive feedback loops, leading to a large-scale weather disturbance. At no point is determinism violated. I suggest the reviewer look up "cellular automata" and see the elaborate patterns and behaviors that can unexpectedly arise in a completely deterministic system operating under very simple and exceptionless rules.

Also, it doesn't even matter if behavior is "predetermined" by a lot, or whether it arises in the moment, determined by quantum randomness. Either way there is no physical basis for an agent who decides independently of any external cause. The subject is confusing, but that doesn't make it wrong. Ken Ham also struggles to understand evolution; that doesn't make Noah's Ark real.

The butterfly effect is just a technical instance of cascading positive feedbacks illustrated by the old proverb:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Little things can have big effects when those positive feedbacks line up the right way. Usually they don't, however. Most nails that fall out of horseshoes fail to change history. And if you're watching a nail fall out, you probably can't guess at the time whether you're seeing history in the making or not. Just as you can't guess whether you are writing the winning lottery numbers when you buy your ticket. But unpredictability is not the same thing as undetermined, which was the whole point of chaos theory in the first place.

Stopped reading after ''this guy''.

I hope Tom is young enough so that in 30 years he experiences his AI assistant serving him a drink he didn’t realize he wanted until he saw it in front of him. Of course, he’ll deny he wanted it and not drink it out of spite, yelling: “I’ll get myself a drink when I want it consciously!” Hehe

Thank you for all of the input I received on this post and please excuse my sarcastic sense of humor. I have a background in the medical sciences and dissected brains and took advanced neuroanatomy and physiology in college. When I was in grad school we used to say that we completely understand the function of an individual neuron but put 80 million of these puppies together - throw in some hormones and we don’t have a clue. A lot of advances have been made in our understanding of the brain but it is only the tip of the iceberg. The supposed gold standard that “this guy” (Sapolsky). refers to predict behavior in menial tasks (such as pressing button A or B) is based on work done by Lippett (sp? - I listened to the audiobook). These studies were only able to predict an individuals choice 60% of the time on menial tasks. Here comes the song and dance. Now let’s look at genetics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, criminology, intent, etc, etc, etc. The science keeps getting softer down the line. Science is only science if you can prove what you wish to prove or disprove This book is turtles all the way down and ‘this guy knows it.

Here’s my take. Please don’t beat yourself up in life. Your life has been greatly dictated by your unique biology and environment factors that were out of your control. And, be easy on your fellow man - they are dealing with their own biology and upbringing. Look at ways to improve yourself and help others in their journey.

Or……..there is no free will and nothing really matters.

Tom: wow, yeah I had given up on you with your admittedly “sarcastic” review. I’m only disappointed that I had to weigh through all the comments to get to your last comment.

Which is a gem. I’ve fought long and hard to realize what you finally said. My version: you don’t have time to dwell on what’s past; instead look at what’s in front of you without the filter of your knowledge or beliefs. Otherwise you’ll miss the wondrous unexpected events that make life interesting and meaningful and instead be disappointed that life always seems to be the same.

Or something like that. 😜

Thanks again for your final comment; it was worth the journey.

You failed to understand his hypothesis the moment you used the word 'predetermined' - the clue is in the title of the book!

I love science and I read and hated this book. This is one of the best reviews I have ever read. Use your free will and RELEASE the baboons, sir!