This is from the Economist: What's your take and why? Edit 1: Thread title is article title, so Economist subscribers can take a look at it. This thread is solely about the question posted by the author in the first paragraph. Edit 2: The actual article is about the breakthroughs in neurology posing as a threat to the idea of free will. After all, if the mechanism of the brain can be dissected, then do we really choose our actions if things such as tumors affect our decisions? But since I was too vague, and a lot of members did not understand, I figured I'd explain some more.