Does something like "free will" really exist? We often take it for granted, but philosophers, psychologists and ...

They do not have free will, they reason, because they are somehow subject to their brain activity. But that assumption misses a broader lesson from neuroscience. “We” are our brain.

The ages-long debate about free will has a new champion in Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky and surprising new connections to our politics, writes Ryan Sanders.(Michael Hogue) You didn’t ...

Whether her choice felt free or not is irrelevant. The decision was the result of biological and environmental factors outside her control, so she is not morally responsible in the ultimate sense. 2.

It has become fashionable to say that people have no free will.Many scientists cannot imagine how the idea of free will could be reconciled with the laws of physics and chemistry.Brain researchers ...

The takeaway of Robert Sapolsky’s Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will is basically the same as that espoused by those Snickers commercials: You’re not you when you’re hungry ...

The “why” might additionally involve exercises of free will that confer responsibility — and thus we cannot dismiss moral responsibility because we are machines.

Writing a review is an exercise in free will. Not only can I tell you what I want about the book and whether I liked it or not, but I also get to choose how to begin. If I decide to start with a ...

Getting rid of free will “completely strikes at our sense of identity and autonomy and where we get meaning from,” Dr. Sapolsky said, and this makes the idea particularly hard to shake.

IDEAS If free will is only an illusion, it’s the most convincing one ever Stanford neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky argues that we don’t actually make choices in life.

The greatest risk of abandoning free will, Sapolsky concedes, isn’t that we’ll want to do bad things. It’s that, without a sense of personal agency, we won’t want to do anything.