Because Scott "Dilbert" Adams says so. Do you guys read posted articles before commenting? It's a good habit. Try it.
So a faux-engineer from PacBell decides who has 'free will' and who does not?
Maybe he has to reject free will in order to promote his own argument? An argument that postulates a marginal cost to every decision we make.
It's not surprising coming from a MBA economist (which is what Scott Adam is), but it's not very satisfying in either a teleological nor a etiological sense.
Do you guys read posted articles before commenting? It's a good habit. Try it.
Always do. Top-to-bottom, --even when it's creationist garbage.