Comments: Addiction. It Isn't Just for Addicts Anymore

I never liked the whole nature vs. nuture argument. It leaves out free will. Nature & nurture give you the menu from which to pick, but every one chooses what they'll have, and they shouldn't blame the waiter for bringing it to them.

Anyway, you're right. This study is all about setting "big chocolate" and "big pizza" up for a fall.

Posted by Harvey at April 22, 2004 09:14 AM

Leaves out free will? So free will is made of magic fairy dust, that is beholden to neither environment or the physics of biochemistry? If you're going to be a mystic, just go ahead and call it a "soul" and don't pretend to be scientific.

Posted by hans at April 29, 2004 04:52 PM

Hans, are you picking on my commenters again?

I've never thought of "soul" and "free will" being the same thing. I'll bug you about what you mean later. I'm curious.


Posted by hln at April 29, 2004 06:05 PM

I don't mean to imply that "soul" and "free will" are synonymous, in fact I contend they are not at all. When someone uses "free will" to mean a component of human decision making that is not grounded in the physical (nature, the phenotype of the nervous system, and nature, the adjustments that system has undergone through time), then I must point out that they are talking about something metaphysical.

I'm put off by the use of "free will" as a more secular-sounding synonym of "soul." Probably because I'm a naturalist, so mysticism in naturalist clothing gives me the willies. Often it's not the product of such devious intentions, though, and just a result of armchair philosophers trying to sound like students of the academy. Which is at least as onerous. ;-)

Posted by hans at April 29, 2004 10:09 PM