Icon I'll see your Gemini and raise you a ChatGPT
Avatar
brentlind (view)

I listened to the audiobook of Determined which jammed up about 2/3 in and wouldn't reload; pre-determined you say?

It was enough for me to engage in this AI-led Q & A earlier this year:  (condensed for sanity but I did leave in the obligatory Chat flattery it doles out like alms)

Q: When I was listening to the book it felt like a major flaw was that it was making the point that since they couldn't disprove causality and reductionism then we should just assume everything is determined. In other words, an absence of disproof is taken as proof of determinism. Do you think I was missing some key points in the book?
 

ChatGPT - No, you’re not missing much—your interpretation is pretty on point, and it's actually one of the sharper criticisms people have raised.

Sapolsky builds a strong cumulative case for determinism by highlighting the many layers of causality—genetics, hormones, neurobiology, environment, development, etc.—and he’s very persuasive in showing how complex and interwoven all these influences are. But as you said, the leap he makes is:

“Since we can’t find any moment or mechanism where choice escapes cause-and-effect, we should conclude that everything is determined.

[login] | [register]

you need to be logged in to post and reply to message board posts