Placebo Buttons?

A recent article suggested that many of the buttons/toggles that we experience in our daily lives...

The Development Of Social Monogamy In Mammals

Two papers published this week have proposed explanations regarding the evolution of social monogamy...

Easy Answers To World Problems

After reading another article by Alex Berezow ["The Arrogance of a Well-Fed Society"] insisting...

The Precautionary Principle Review

There is an interesting series of articles published by the Guardian discussing various aspects...

User picture.
picture for Robert H Olleypicture for Camilo  Tabinas y Apitapicture for Heidi Hendersonpicture for Camillo Di Ciccopicture for Brian Taylorpicture for Bente Lilja Bye
Gerhard AdamRSS Feed of this column.

I'm not big on writing things about myself so a friend on this site (Brian Taylor) opted to put a few sentences together: Hopefully I'll be able to live up to his claims. "I thought perhaps you... Read More »

In watching a recent discussion about "free will", I was surprised as to how quickly the discussion got confused by conflating "free choice" with "free will".
[Day 2, Afternoon, First Session:  Free Will/Consciousness]

In this article, I will attempt to better define some of these concepts to illustrate why "free will" is an illusion.

To begin, let's define "choice" as an event that occurs in which a decision point is reached.  Regardless of how many apparent choices one has, they always reduce to one decision.  In addition, we may recognize that certain choices may eliminate other choices from further consideration or selection.
It becomes increasingly tedious that this question invariably elevates pure speculation to the verge of almost claiming actual science, simply because we can't imagine it otherwise.  Arguments are advanced about large numbers, large numbers of stars, large numbers of galaxies, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

None of that matters.  

The most important question is first; is life easy or hard?

Without an answer to that question, the rest is schoolyard nonsense.

I'm equally disturbed at how blithely we regard our own dominance.  It's as if there is no question that the universe was created for humans to use and abuse. 
There is no question that Darwin's tremendous insight into the mechanisms by which evolution occurred was one of the singularly most significant events in biology.  Similarly with the discovery of DNA and genetics, the processes by which organisms were formed received a similar boost.  So the purpose of this article is not to argue that Darwin or genetics is wrong.  Instead, the point is to suggest that it is necessarily incomplete.  In the same way that Darwin's work was incomplete because he lacked the necessary information about genetics.  The modern evolutionary synthesis is also incomplete, because it fails to extend the issues of natural selection in an organism's development to their co-evolutionary pa

Actually it should have read, "What David Stephens and HuffPo got wrong".

There's only one response possible.
You wouldn’t know it by current world events, but humans actually evolved to be peaceful, cooperative and social animals.
‘Man the Hunter’ theory is debunked in new book, February 18, 2006, By Neil Schoenherr
So begins a discussion regarding humans as a prey species rather than predators.  It isn't true, and it doesn't even make any sense.  After all, what do any of those traits have to do with being a predator or prey?

Does anyone believe that wolves or lions aren't social?  or cooperative?  or peaceful amongst themselves?