this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
80 points (100.0% liked)

Science

13015 readers
51 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
80
Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will (phys.org)
submitted 10 months ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/science@beehaw.org
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Critical_Insight@feddit.uk 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It is conceiviable for an entity to not have free will but still be consciouss. It feels like something to be that thing. It couldn't choose their actions but they could experience pain and suffering. I don't see a reason for such entity to not have rights only because they don't have free will.

[โ€“] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That's true, I should have been more careful with my use of the word "rights." What I meant regarding free will was whether or not they'd have all the same rights as a human. The Animal Welfare Act I think is a good example of where we convey a more limited set of rights to things which can experience pain, but don't have free will*.

  • This is obviously all super debatable and opinions vary, but I think there are at least a decent chunk of people who believe humans have free will and animals do not, Descarte being a famous example.