Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will. Just read the bolded part...

geechiedan

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Robert Sapolsky's latest book is called Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. ((Josh Edelson/ For The Times))

Robert Sapolsky's latest book is called "Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will." ((Josh Edelson/ For The Times))© (Josh Edelson/ For The Times)
“Determined” goes a step further. If it’s impossible for any single neuron or any single brain to act without influence from factors beyond its control, Sapolsky argues, there can be no logical room for free will.

Many people with even a passing familiarity with human biology can comfortably agree with this — up to a point.

We know we make worse decisions when hungry, stressed or scared. We know our physical makeup is influenced by the genes inherited from distant ancestors and by our mothers’ health during her pregnancy. Abundant evidence indicates that people who grew up in homes marked by chaos and deprivation will perceive the world differently and make different choices than people raised in safe, stable, resource-rich environments. A lot of important things are beyond our control.

But, like — everything? We have no meaningful command over our choice of careers, romantic partners or weekend plans? If you reach out right now and pick up a pen, was even that insignificant action somehow preordained?

Yes, Sapolsky says, both in the book and to the countless students who have asked the same question during his office hours. What the student experiences as a decision to grab the pen is preceded by a jumble of competing impulses beyond his or her conscious control. Maybe their pique is heightened because they skipped lunch; maybe they’re subconsciously triggered by the professor’s resemblance to an irritating relative.

Then look at the forces that brought them to the professor’s office, feeling empowered to challenge a point. They’re more likely to have had parents who themselves were college educated, more likely to hail from an individualistic culture rather than a collective one. All of those influences subtly nudge behavior in predictable ways.

You may have had the uncanny experience of talking about an upcoming camping trip with a friend, only to find yourself served with ads for tents on social media later. Your phone didn’t record your conversation, even if that’s what it feels like. It's just that the collective record of your likes, clicks, searches and shares paints such a detailed picture of your preferences and decision-making patterns that algorithms can predict — often with unsettling accuracy — what you are going to do.

Something similar happens when you reach for that pen, Sapolsky says. So many factors beyond your conscious awareness brought you to that pen that it’s hard to say how much you “chose” to pick it up at all.





 
Last edited:
They do be listening because I hardly click or do any thing besides business online and if I talk about Taco Bell (example..I don't eat that shit) in the open air, soon after I will see commercials on my "smart TV", ads on my burner phone and push notifications on my real phones for FUCKING Taco Bell.
 
They do be listening because I hardly click or do any thing besides business online and if I talk about Taco Bell (example..I don't eat that shit) in the open air, soon after I will see commercials on my "smart TV", ads on my burner phone and push notifications on my real phones for FUCKING Taco Bell.

^^^^
That part

If what he claims is true that its not listening that the algorithm can anticipate to such a degree in advance?

Now you talking Tom Cruise Minority Report meets Skynet and we should all just give up now.
 
Come on bro, you got a group of bgol members who believe in flat Earth, a group of anti vaccine advocates who injected horse dewormer during a pandemic and people who's idea to change the political system is to not vote lmao this shit is way over the head of a lot of bgol lmao
 
nonsense... I'm going to disprove his theory by "NOT" reading his bullshit... Feel "FREE" to tell him if you'd like.
 
Conceptually, he could be correct. But it's impossible to prove right now. Maybe in the future using supercomputers and a shit ton of data on human behavior, it can be proven.
 
Back
Top