Free Will [Deckle Edge]

Don't be fooled by the length of this book, it packs a riveting punch. Think about everything you know about yourself: the choices you've made in life, your feelings and notions, even your mood, and then throw it all away. Sam Harris' bold monograph facilitates this very notion with cogent language, opening your eyes to the nebulas realm of unconsciousness, decision-making, efforts, and intentions. This review is meant to evaluate Free Will and convince you that this book is worthwhile to read. That is, if you are ready to hear what Dr. Harris has to say. Probably the most impressive aspect of this book is its ability to capture the difficult concept of free will, and articulate it with such finesse that the mundane individual can grasp its meaning. In fact, Free Will's main objective is to destroy this idea of autonomy that has been ingrained in basic human culture. The question of free will "touches nearly everything we care about". The subject of this book is so relevant that according to the author, "if the scientific community were to declare free will an illusion, it would precipitate a culture war far more belligerent than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution". Free Will's concise structure makes this book encouraging to read, despite its controversial material. With a degree in philosophy from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in neuroscience, Dr. Harris is well equipped to enlighten us on such a challenging topic. The book is divided into eight thought out chapters that does a good job of first establishing the relevancy of its subject and then systematically breaking down the "illusion" of free will by attacking it from various angles. Here I have a brief description and opinion on some of the important parts of the book: Introduction Free Will's introduction is unsurprisingly brave and captivating. He acknowledges that the claims he makes will undoubtedly receive criticism, and that most people will "find his conclusions abhorrent". So, in order to allure his skeptical audience on such a contentious topic, Dr. Harris uses an equally controversial example on how free will is just an illusion: the Cheshire murders of the Petit family. If you are an individual with a weak stomach, vivid imagination, and sensitive heart, I advise you skip over this part of the book. He is defending the criminals involved in Cheshire murders who were also convicted of rape and abuse. He strives to reduce these acts of blatant horror and moral disregard to products of uncontrollable experience combined with plain neurological mechanisms. Essentially, Dr. Harris says that the murder and rape of Dr. William Petit's wife and two young daughters was not their fault. If this is not enough to catch your attention, I would question your sense of basic human empathy. Ch. 1-The Unconscious Origins of the Will Free will is an illusion. This idea is repeated to the reader consistently throughout the book and is the central point that the author strives to drive home. How Dr. Harris relays this idea and tries to disabuse us of a concept that has been so instilled in our mentality is remarkable. Using examples relatable in everyday situations, he intelligibly picks apart our idea that we actually have a freedom of choice. He says, "Our sense of free will results from a failure to understand this: We do not know what we intend to do until the intention itself arises". Where does this intention originate? Dr. Harris claims it comes from our unconsciousness and bolsters his claim with some solid experimental evidence. He boldly states that scientists can have the ability to know what you're about to do seconds before you actually do it. Basically, scientists can read your mind. Read to find out the revealing nature of this evidence. Ch. 2-Changing the Subject In this chapter, Dr. Harris switches gears and gives respect to the cohorts out there dedicated to this debate of free will. He mentions the three major philosophical approaches to this issue: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. I appreciate this chapter because for a moment, Dr. Harris separates himself from his personal opinion on the matter, and gives respect to the contending opinions as well. Though later on in his essay, Dr. Harris debunks these philosophies, he gives the reader an opportunity to understand the different opinions on the matter and form his own stance with object descriptions for each branch. Ch. 3-Cause and Effect This is perhaps the most scientific portion of the book. "In physical terms, we know that every human action can be reduced to a series of impersonal events: Genes are transcribed, neurotransmitters bind to their receptors, muscle fibers contract, and John Doe pulls the trigger on his gun." What does Dr. Harris describe here exactly? Did he just attribute a seemingly immoral act to plain products of physical mechanisms? Does he believe that the injustice in John Doe's acts lies not in his punitive outcome from the legal system but actually in the nature of the legal system itself? Does Mr. Doe deserve a punishment, or does Dr. Harris infer that if anyone (or anything) were to blame, it would be the simple, impersonal neurological mechanisms in the brain that were not in John's control? Read to find out how the author intriguingly develops his argument. Ch. 5-Might the Truth Be Bad for Us? My favorite part of the book involves the author defending how destroying our current idea of free will will not negatively affect the way humans progress through life. In a sense, this is also the most important aspect of the book, for if free will were a necessary illusion, our revilement to it will direct us towards a wrongful path. "Many people worry that free will is a necessary illusion-and that without it we will fail to live creative and fulfilling lives...One study found that having subjects read an argument against free will made them more likely to cheat on a subsequent exam. Another found such subjects to be less helpful and more aggressive." It is apparent that a world without free will is like a guilt-free pass into wrongful doings, but Dr. Harris maintains his stance that our exposure to the "truth" will not be harmful. "It is surely conceivable that knowing certain truths about he human mind could have unfortunate psychological and/or cultural consequences. However, I am not worried about degrading the morality of my readers by publishing this book." Actually, he boasts that losing the sense of free will has only boosted his ethics and increased his feelings of compassion and forgiveness, and diminished his sense of entitlement to "the fruits of [his] own good luck." How does this make sense? Read the books to learn his clear and logical thought process. The rest of the book is dedicated to our moral responsibility given this convincing argument Dr. Harris lays out on the table, touching on politics, law, religion, public policy, and much more. If you have a few hours to spend, and are feeling intellectually adventurous, I recommend this book. I cannot think of another book so concise, yet so powerful. Beware that the topic discussed in this book is not one for light reading, but one for thought provoking. Read it with an open mind and you will absorb a unique perspective on human nature articulated nicely by a bright scientist well suited for such a topic.

It's great to have Sam on board the no-free-will train, but for those of us who have been riding it for a while, the scenery may seem largely familiar. Still, the idea of not having free will is so difficult to grasp, even for those who have been struggling with it for some time, that Sam's arguments, analogies, and the recent research he presents are likely to be helpful. It's a short book for such a big topic, but its brevity and clarity may make it more accessible to some than a work of more depth might be. On the other hand, it would have been fairly easy to give his arguments a broader perspective. For example, he says: "People feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions, and this is the only reason why there seems to be a problem of free will worth talking about."(pp. 31-32, all references are to the Kindle Edition.) In fact, people of all cultures and all times have not necessarily had this feeling. The Greeks seem to have laid the foundation for the idea, and it primarily evolved as a topic of Western thought. Seeing free will as a cultural, historical phenomenon can undermine the sense of inevitability that accompanies it in Western discourse. Free will is part of a complex of misconceptions about how our brains work, and while Sam scratches the surface of some of these in a scattered way, these misconceptions reinforce each other, making it difficult to root one out unless all of them are exposed. The limitations of conscious thought are part of the complex: we are conscious of only some of the end products of infinitely complex unconscious brain processes, and this is a topic Sam covers very well: "Our sense of free will results from a failure to appreciate this: We do not know what we intend to do until the intention itself arises. To understand this is to realize that we are not the authors of our thoughts and actions in the way that people generally suppose."(p. 17) This failure to appreciate the limitations of consciousness leads to further misconceptions, one of which is the sense of a unified self. Sam mentions that "People have many competing desires,"(p. 22) which would have been a great place to bring up the idea of multiple selves, or what I call "situational identity." Understanding how competing desires arise and how the idea of a unified self obscures their origins could further undermine the notion of free will, and help clarify how "one of these opposing desires inexplicably triumphs over its rival".(p. 22) Language is complicit in many of our misconceptions, not just those involving free will. Its limitations allow us to imagine entities that don't exist, and no where is this more significant than in the idea of a unified self. If Sam had explored the topics I've mentioned more thoroughly, he might have further loosened the grip of the idea of free will, and he would have had a broader base from which to explore the benefits of giving up that idea. As he says, "Getting behind our thoughts and feelings can allow us to steer a more intelligent course through our lives (while knowing, of course, that we are ultimately being steered)."(pp. 52-53) If you'd like to go further behind your thoughts and feelings and pursue the implications, check out my essay on free will: [...]

Free Will by Sam Harris "Free Will" is the persuasive essay that makes the compelling case that free will is an illusion. Free will is intuitively understood but a difficult concept to master. Dr. Harris systematically, and with few precise words destroys the notion of the concept of free will. With a degree in philosophy and a doctorate degree in neuroscience and the innate ability to convey difficult concepts to the layperson, Dr. Harris is best suited to enlighten us on such a challenging topic. This 96-page book is composed of the following eight chapters: 1. The Unconscious Origins of the Will, 2. Changing the Subject, 3. Cause and Effect, 4. Choices, Efforts, Intentions, 5. Might the Truth Be Bad for Us?, 6. Moral Responsibility, 7. Politics, and 8. Conclusion. Positives: 1. Fascinating topic in the hands of a great thinker. 2. Profound without being unintelligible. Elegant and accessible prose. 3. Does a great job of dissecting free will. The author systematically beaks down the concept of free will by attacking it from various angles. 4. More so than his previous great essay "Lying" he makes more use of his scientific background. He relays studies that support his arguments. 5. The illusion of being in control is a concept that Dr. Harris masterfully destroys. 6. The author differentiates voluntary and involuntary actions. 7. Great quotes, "Our sense of free will results from a failure to understand this: We do not know what we intend to do until the intention itself arises". 8. A discussion on the three main philosophical approaches: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. 9. Great examples that help the reader comprehend the challenging concept of free will. 10. Classic Harris eloquence, "How can we be `free' as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brains that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware? We can't". 11. Does quantum mechanics provide a foothold for free will? Find out. 12. Does the process of conscious deliberation provide a foundation for free will? Find out. 13. Do we really control our minds? Once again, the mastery of Dr. Harris continues. 14. The implications of not having a free will. Great points! 15. A fascinating discussion on the level of responsibility. 16. How does a retributive judicial system fit in all this? 17. Free will within a religious framework. 18. Free will and politics. 19. A final chapter that brings everything together. 20. Links worked great on the Kindle. 21. Brief, powerful essay that can be read multiple times. Negatives: 1. My only discomfort with the essay is the casual use of the term soul. I understand that Dr. Harris does not accept the soul as an empirical concept and may have used the term as a metaphor (equating it to the brain in one instance) but I prefer leaving out all supernatural terms unless properly defined. 2. Some topics are introduced briefly and leave you wanting more, isn't that always the case with Dr. Harris? 3. Having to wait for Dr. Harris's next intellectual contribution. In summary, what makes this essay great is that the more you read the more you get out of it. It's a profound essay that is easy to follow but is hard to master. It is so rewarding to read interesting topics from great minds. This essay is the ultimate appetizer, delicious and with an everlasting aftertaste. Free will is not an easy concept to understand but a worthwhile pursuit to endeavor and Dr. Harris makes the journey a fulfilling one. I can't recommend this brief book enough, highly recommended. Further suggestions: " The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values " by the same author, " Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain " by Michael S. Gazzaniga, " The Myth of Free Will, Revised & Expanded Edition " by Cris Evatt, " The Problem Of The Soul: Two Visions Of Mind And How To Reconcile Them " by Owen Flanagan, " Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality " by Patricia S. Churchland, " The Brain and the Meaning of Life " by Paul Thagard, " Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts )" by Carol Tavris, " Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality " by Lawrence Tancredi, and the " The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature " by Steven Pinker.

In my view, this is an extremely rare and unique book because it manages to do two contradictory things quite well. On the one hand, Free Will brilliantly engages all of your mental faculties in order to illuminate an alternative perception that will most certainly persuade you to view the world, people, society and ethics differently. On the other hand, the author’s same sharp intelligence often abandons reason and takes a leap of faith into the realm of assumption to draw some troublesome and destructive conclusions. The main argument of the book is that free will is an illusion. This assertion is based on scientific evidence that reveals physical, biological activity in our brain which precedes conscious thought and behavior. Resultantly, while we may “feel” as if we are making a choice, this choice is the result of background phenomena that we are neither aware of nor over which we exert any control. Essentially then, we are passive, biochemical drones that succumb to the whims of neurons firing in our brains. Positively, this does persuade us to embrace science in how we think, for example, about social Darwinism and how justice is employed. A paramount question then becomes where these unconscious background phenomena come from (and how they develop and why they develop), and this is where Harris jumps from what is known and can be readily tested into speculation: that is, because these background phenomena are “perfectly mysterious” and difficult to map to reality, then we should just stick with what we can presently quantify and disregard what informs what we are largely ignorant about. I found this approach puzzling from an author with such a high intellectual standard. Mystery should not persuade conjecture but should compel us to keep on investigating and searching for clarity. Is that not the rational thing to do? Of course, investing in the illusion of free will is a gamble that carries with it stakes that are very, very high. So in a negative sense, one of the ultimate conclusions of Free Will is subjective morality where responsibility is contingent upon the biochemical makeup of the mind, and moral institutions fade because people aren’t actively choosing to do something “right” or “wrong.” And while I wholeheartedly agree with Harris that illusionary free will does not force us to abandon our treasured social and political freedoms, I also have to admit—based on the logic the book presents—that our sense of freedom and morality are meaningless side effects of the felt illusion of neurotransmitters hopping within our skulls. Ultimately, I think this book is a worthwhile read. Of course, many will disagree (or simply just feel uncomfortable) will many of the conclusions, but some of the truths clearly and succinctly described by Harris are worth contemplation. Although this book is short (the main text is less than 70 pages), the writing style is very dense so this is by no means a quick read. If for nothing else, Free Will provides much fuel for smart debate and the development of mature ideas.

Free Will Sam Harris FREE PRESS, $10.99, ISBN: 978-1-4516-8340-0, 2012 Free Will, a non-lengthy essay book by Sam Harris, has contents that are sizably far from small. Harris characteristically takes on another fundamental issue that undercuts his four previous books as controversial. Harris, in perfect form, defines and details the common and generally accepted concept of free will—arguing that this is an illusion. Furthering that even free will as an illusion itself is an illusion. Harris’ writing is clear—defined here as using simple diction, well-structured sentences, relatable personal anecdotes, and, most importantly, is inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Readers do not need to have Harris’ own philosophy degree from Stanford or his PhD in neuroscience to read this book, nor do they not need to have these formal staples either. Although the ideas are clearly informed by his formal education they are also informed by his human brilliance—his emotional brilliance, his awareness of appealing to a broad audience. Although this appealing is, again characteristically, a standard with Harris. His communicating does not come across as active appealing as much as a natural gesture to his consistency in all conveyed platforms—blogging, debating, conversing, etc. Harris gets the point and accommodatingly gets to the point quick in a world of competitive publishing—a world of those in the information age who do not have time to read. Harris gets to the point without leaving any of the details and logic that makes this argument that free will is an illusion valid. Harris has become the objective voice in every reader’s head. He anticipates thoughts by asking questions in the book right along with the reader—not holding their hands, rather he writes with a removed, and therefore more genuine, compassion for an amalgam of the cultural standards. Harris knows that arguing against the concept of free will is bold—that this abstract concept is concretely fundamental to so many goings on in life. That he is, at face value, removing what others might grasp to for comfort in the most challenging circumstance. However, Harris elegantly picks apart the details that separate the need for comfort to still exist and be satiated without a concept that is not true. Harris’ argument is consistent along with his overarching ideas. Harris is a proponent for intellectual honesty as a prioritized moral standard explicitly in his previous book The Moral Landscape and implicitly in his other books, essays, and discussions. He is one of those rare writers and humans who actually is an embodiment of their expressed thoughts…expectations perhaps. An embodiment of not just his logic, but logic itself. Any logician would be hard pressed to find fallacy in this book—or, for that matter, in any of Harris’ expressed thoughts. Harris turns this abstract concept of free will by citing its relevance to the physicality of the brain. He uses individual examples within the writing that is as seemingly entertaining for him as it is for the reader. Harris begins with citing extreme and famous examples about how removing the concept of free will may allow humans to have this characteristic removed compassion for even what might be commonly defined within the purview of free will as the most vile and evil of humans—undercutting the intent of criminality and the operating standards of criminal law. Harris’ real life and abstract examples do an engaging type of work on the reader’s mind. The reader cannot help but be interested without any emotional or any cheap shock tactics at all. His examples are strategically placed and the book is written to keep the attention of the reader—to not decorate what is already fascinating. It seems an impossibility for a reader to not come away from this book changed. To not in the very least begin to think in a way different from how they thought before. And is that not what a good book should do? Is that not what a well conveyed idea should do? Is that not what something true is like? REVIEWER: Ana Boca lives in Mesa, AZ and teaches in Tempe, AZ at Arizona State University (ASU). She has poetry in such magazines as ASU’s own Marooned Magazine and Lux Undergraduate Creative Review.

Harris encapsulates the primary concepts of free will as they stand today. I feel does misrepresent philosophers wrestling with this issue as there are good deal of philosophers who might disagree with his opinions here. Harris is what some might call a hard determinist and yet throughout the book he uses "choice-type" language, thus potentially unraveling his own case. All of this is not to say Harris is at fault (especially if we have free will, right?) because it seems that his influence is largely from the scientific thinkers on this subject (i.e., similar to materialistic philosophy type view). Basically, the initial argument (never directly stated in his book) against free will is as follows: (1) We are human beings with a structure / brain etc... that are made of composition of nature's materials... i.e., we are essentially products of nature (2) if you were to combine those materials in the right way, presumably we could create a human/AI that responded with appearances of free will... This could be by birth as we have done or by other scientific means etc. (3) the appearance of such free will is an illusion because we are merely products if nature still and thus the case against free will follows from points (4), (5) and conclusion (6) (4) Nature, at a large scale (Neutonian), is deterministic (5) At a small scale (quantum mechanics), it is arguably random (6) Either way, we have no free will. Harris includes several chapters in his short, well-written book directly addressing points (4), (5), (6) and while I don't necessarily think that the prior assumptions are needed to express the point, I think they are needed to fully engage with the material / debate over free will. While I believe religion to be a separate issue and fully agree with Harris's idea of being more empathetic and compassionate towards people in general, I don't believe we need to reject free will to do this. Harris does, or seems to. I think we can be empathetic toward others, just by recognizing that we are not always in full conscious control of our desires and our choices. This doesn't mean we have no agency in those choices however and the reason I believe this is because the "illusion" of free will as Harris puts it is so strong that even Harris has to jump around near the end of the book to explain how such a deterministic view can actually be more freeing. In many other, even deeply held intuitions we don't have this "aftermath" of loss feeling after such a switch in belief is introduced (save religion). And such loss cannot easily be explained away (for instance in religion beliefs and strongly held political beliefs a person might feel a loss of community... Feeling of belonging). From the free will perspective, a loss of this is a deeply troubling denial of the individual. This denial of individual is a point which Harris alludes to when mentioning studies about how people feel more compelled to cheat when having to explain beforehand how the universe and by extension their own actions are not free. And again, Harris mentions the objection of fatalism belief systems which (forgiving my ignorance) I'm not as of yet able to distinguish between hard deterministic beliefs and fatalism. Harris doesn't satisfactorily answer any of this. Scientific materialism and the extension to belief in the lack of free will falls into a category of dangerous ideas which are not necessary to hold to keep science progressing forward. In the treatment of religion and the defining and redefining of atheism (in order to avoid a burden of proof issue), atheists (depending on how its defined) lack a belief in a deist or god. This puts the burden on anyone positively claiming there is one. Here, Harris given inconclusive evidence willing accepts the burden of proof which he fails to meet. Instead claiming that those who would say we have free will must show that we have conscious control over all (all?) of our biological processes, a view which I find untenable. Imagine we are in a prison cell. Could we not walk around? Could we not think what we want? Sing? Bang our heads against the cell bars? Try to escape? Etc ... The mind is like this prison. We still will what we want within its limits. The fact that it has limits, is the reason I believe people deserve compassion to some degree. But do we really feel as empathetic toward the person who has a great life but decides to murder someone vs the person who is abused and has a terrible life and does the same? Consciousness is (almost) universally shared and perhaps an axiomatic fact of human existence. Some things, like consciousness, defy explanation. Consciousness is not like other natural phenomenon, neither is free will. In areas that lack sufficient evidence, the scientific/intellectual thing to do is hold an open-ended belief, in psychology, as Harris discusses, the prudent thing to do appears to be to hold a belief in your own autonomy and your free will.

Part philosophical treatise, part peer-reviewed literature review, Sam Harris dispels the illusion of free will in a mere 13,000 words. The determinism proposed by the New Atheist movement has been in and out of vogue for centuries, depending, in the moment, on the reigning scientific and philosophical paradigms. Harris' writing adds to the discussion (and perhaps not-so-gently placing the penultimate nail in the coffin) by citing recent neuroscience research to support his philosophical argument. It turns out our brains are unsurprisingly predictable -- our decisions even measurable. ## ...this feeling of freedom arises from our moment-to-moment ignorance of the prior causes of our thoughts and actions. The phrase "free will" describes what it feels like to identify with certain mental states as they arise in consciousness....But from a deeper perspective...thoughts simply arise unauthored and yet author our actions. The resurgence of the idea that free will is an illusory construct of human nature has, I think, an inevitably positive effect. The largest (and perhaps quixotic) hurdle is obviously shedding religion; beyond that difficult goal, a greater (and public) understanding of the brain will go beyond coffee table discussion. As we inch towards the origins of psychopathology, of crime, of hate -- of inequality, bigotry, pedophilia, obsessive individualism, etc. -- it should benefit how social organizations and the people within them interact with others (particularly the disadvantaged where social justice concerns are greatest). Simply understanding the origin of our own momentary frustration as a chemical impulse brought on by, e.g., hunger, could potentially ameliorate how our grumpiness is enforced on our environment, and leng to a greater self-awareness in general -- preferably beyond Jared Diamond. No one would deny that people are shaped in parts by their genes and their upbringing, both of which conflict with the notion of free will by definition. How do we then deny those as a reality (particularly in our justice system which explicitly denies determinism) simply because the feeling of free will and choice are so tantamount within our cultures? ## What does it mean to say that rapists and murderers commit their crimes of their own free will? If this statement means anything, it must be that they could have behaved differently -- not on the basis of random influences over which they have no control, but because they, as conscious agents, were free to think and act in other ways. To say that they were free not to rape and murder is to say that they could have resisted the impulse to do so (or could have avoided feeling such an impulse altogether) -- with the universe, including their brains, in precisely the same state it was in at the moment they committed their crimes. Assuming that violent criminals have such freedom, we reflexively blame them for their actions. But without it, the place for our blame suddenly vanishes, and even the most terrifying sociopaths begin to seem like victims themselves. The moment we catch sight of the stream of causes that precede their conscious decisions, reaching back into childhood and beyond, their culpability begins to disappear. In recent decades, we've already come to understand how brain tumors or lesions impacting the orbitofrontal cortex can lead to extreme changes in the personalities of those affected (e.g., Burns & Swerdlow 2003, detailing a subject who was then suffering from pedophilia in response to a brain tumor -- both the tumor and loss of inhibition later resurfaced), an obvious contradiction to the notion of free will (as is any mental disorder: Alzheimer's, dementia, schizophrenia, even depression). This makes it a bit hard to gauge good and evil when folks are nothing more than 'neuronal weather patterns.' (N.B. His argument does not deny the purpose of the justice system or punishment, just opens the doors towards understanding and away from retribution.) Harris punctuates his neuroscience statements with journal references and personal correspondences, which provide a good background for readers seeking more information via services like Google Scholar. See Libet (1985) for early research showing we infer rather than perceive the moments we act, or Fried et al. (2011) and Haynes (2011) for more recent experiences predicting the volition of subjects. See also Thagard and Arbie (2008) on how working memory -- the associationg between touch and sight -- creates consciousness. Or see Vohs and Schooler (2008) and Baumeister et al. (2009) for potential positive social benefits of believing in free will. Outside of Sam's sources, Baumeister and Monroe (2014) offers a more recent literature review on free will research. ## Decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, willpower, etc., are causal states of the brain, leading to specific behaviors, and the behaviors lead to outcomes in the world. Human choice, therefore, is as important as fanciers of free will believe. But the next choice you make will come out of the darkness of prior causes that you, the conscious witness of your experience, did not bring into being. Free Will is dense despite its length; complex despite the clarity of the writing. Sam Harris wrote his treatise targeting some nebulous group between layreaders and professionals, which makes for difficult reading at times. (And thank goodness for that -- we have enough science writers cherrypicking headline-grabbing research for publishers. We need more writers like Harris or Sapolsky, who can convey complex topics like this without limiting it to Gladwellian armchair psychology and pseudoscientific bar-room factoids.) Given the complexity of the subject, it's a volume I plan on revisiting frequently. And I'll need to, because I'm not Sam Harris. 9/10 ## Einstein, on free will (1932 -- the height of environmental determinism!): I cannot understand what people mean when they talk about the freedom of the human will. I have a feeling, for instance, that I will something or other, but what relation this has with freedom I cannot understand at all. I feel that I will to light my pipe and I do it; but how can I connect this up with the idea of freedom? What is behind the act of willing to light the pipe? Another act of willing? Schopenhauer once said: Man can do what he will but he cannot will what he wills.

In this book, renowned public intellectual and atheist Sam Harris concisely makes a strong case against all notions of free will. My Prior Beliefs Before reading this book, it had been about twenty years since I considered whether we have free will. Having some background in math and physics, including quantum mechanics, I spent a few days thinking about how one would define the concept mathematically, presupposing that there are laws of physics. I decided that there could not be a sensible definition without throwing out the notion that there are laws of physics. I further decided that the problem had a minimal practical impact: Even if it was only an illusion, I could still at least seem to make decisions from day to day and should try to make the best ones. Sam's Case Against Free Will I read this book to see if I had missed anything: In particular, if there was a definition of free will compatible with there also being inviolable laws of physics. (Saying "inviolable" is redundant: If the laws were violable, they would not be laws. Conversely, if there are laws, their consequences follow out of logical necessity: Even God himself could not change the logical consequences.) From the book, it turns out that Sam Harris also believes that the notion of free will is incoherent in light of the existence of laws of physics. According to Sam, this is the consensus in scientific and philosophical circles. In particular, almost nobody believes in "libertarian" free will, meaning an ability to choose that would imply something other than the laws of physics determine the universe's future state. Sam's argument against free will is powerful in that it does not presuppose that the universe is deterministic. Sam argues that there is still no room for free will even in a quantum mechanical universe subject to fundamental randomness. The universe may end up in a random state, but the prior state plus randomness, neither of which you control, determine that. Sam states that most who believe in free will seem to do so because it feels like we have it. Sam rejects this from a couple of angles: First, he asks the reader to introspect closely and answer whether the feelings of free will still feel real after closer thought. Are we really controlling the thoughts popping into our heads, for instance? Why is our choice made at one moment and not another? Sam also appeals to experiments showing brain activity predicting choices that will be made before subjects even feel they are making a choice. Against Compatibilism Sam spends a good portion of the book dealing with "compatibilism." This is a notion that free will is possible even if only laws of physics determine the universe's future state. Sam takes compatibilist arguments to either be redefining the idea of free will away from the fundamental question or stating something which can be seen to be false upon deeper introspection. Societal Consequences Although not strictly necessary to back his conclusion, Sam discusses the moral, societal, and personal implications of his belief in "no free will." Here he argues that there is a risk of adverse effects from not believing in free will, but he argues that these vanish when one thinks about the issue more deeply. A significant point that Sam makes is that he believes that less belief in free will results in greater compassion. He addresses positive benefits both in terms of secular parts of society: especially the criminal justice system, but, not surprisingly, considering he is an unspoken atheist, he thinks it would also have a positive impact on countering harmful religious beliefs: E.g., although you had no choice regarding your nature, the circumstances of your birth, and your "soul," you should still feel guilty for your failings and are, indeed, maybe even condemned to eternal damnation in some cases. Summary In the end, the book reinforced my belief that the notion of free will cannot be made compatible with the existence of laws of physics. I learned what "compatibilism" is and its flaws. I ultimately agree with Sam: upon deeper introspection, we do not even have an illusion of free will. I did not expect to end up believing this going into the book. Unlike other Sam Harris books like "The Moral Landscape," I agreed with Harris on every point instead of just the vast majority. Given this, I am a bit surprised that Harris believes in consciousness when I do not. I, thus, look forward to reading his thoughts on that subject. People who do believe in free will will find a strong, concise, and clear case made against it in this book. For those who go in not believing, I suspect they will find the notion even more problematic than they initially thought.

É difícil não recomendar um livro do Sam Harris. Além da clareza e elegância com que escreve, ainda há principalmente a sua ciência e conhecimento irrefutáveis. Este livro me surpreendeu embora eu já esperasse um conteúdo de alto nível. A análise do tema sob o prisma científico e filosófico nos traz esclarecimento e nos coloca na humilde posição da necessidade de aprendizagem constante. Altamente recomendado!

Freilich, das Argument ist kein Geheimnis: Das Konzept des Freien Willens ist mit den aktuellen Erkenntnissen der Neurowissenschaften nicht vereinbar. Jedwede Entscheidung, deren Urheberschaft wir uns selbst zusprechen, ist das Ergebnis unbewusster neurophysiologischer Vorgänge, über die wir keinerlei Kontrolle haben. Folglich haben wir auch keine Kontrolle über das Ergebnis dieser unbewussten Vorgänge. Mit geeigneten Messgeräten lassen sich in (bisher einfachen) Experimenten die Entscheidungen von Testpersonen zuverlässig vorhersagen; lange bevor der Proband die Entscheidung getroffen hat. Eine vorurteilsfreie Selbstbeobachtung komme den Tatsachen deutlich näher: Gedanken, Stimmungen, Entscheidungen entstehen unabhängig von unserem Zutun. Wir sind lediglich die Zeugen ihres Auftauchens in unserem Bewusstsein. Neben seiner neurowissenschaftlichen Arbeit hat Harris einen Abschluss in Philosophie an der Stanford University und bringt auch dieses Feld der Expertise in die Argumentation ein. Kompatibilismus, die Überzeugung (zum Beispiel seines Kollegen Dan Dennetts), auch die unüberschaubare Neurophysiologie bei jeder Entscheidungsfindung gehöre integral zu einer Persönlichkeit, so dass man der Person durchaus eine genuine Urheberschaft an ihren Entscheidungen zusprechen könne, ist für Harris lediglich ein Ausweichmanöver. Er fasst die kompatibilistische Rechtfertigungsversuche in einer einprägsamen Pointe zusammen: "A puppet ist free as long as he loves his strings." Auch die Quantenmechanik, welche einem rein deterministischen Weltbild den Boden entzogen hat, bietet laut Harris keinen Unterschlupf für das Konzept des freien Willens. Quantenmechanische Zufälligkeit mag die Neurophysiologie des Gehirns in unvorhersehbarer Weise beeinflussen; mit freiem Willen und der bewussten, autonomen Urheberschaft von Entscheidungen hat ein solcher Zufallsgenerator aber nichts zu tun. In den abschließenden Kapiteln adressiert er die verbreitete Weigerung vieler Menschen, das Konzept des freien Willens trotz Unvereinbarkeit mit neurowissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen aufzugeben; ihre Besorgnis, mit einem deterministischeren Weltbild würde menschliches Verhalten dehumanisiert werden, das Gefühl von ethischer Verantwortlichkeit für das eigene Handeln würde schwinden oder dem menschlichen Zusammenleben potentieller Schaden erwachsen. Er zeichnet eine Vision aufrichtiger Auseinandersetzung mit den Ursachen menschlichen Verhaltens, die vereinbar ist mit philosophischen und neurowissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen. Ein Anerkennen der Tatsachen schule Empathie, Mitgefühl und Demut angesichts eigener Errungenschaften. Viele Faktoren, die zu einem erfolgreichen Leben verholfen haben, liegen und lagen außerhalb unserer Einflussmöglichkeiten. Ungekehrt: "It seems true enough to say that the men and women on death row had a combination of bad genes, bad parents, bad ideas, or bad luck. Which of these quantities are they responsible for?" In einer Reihe von Gedankenexperimenten gelingt Harris nichts weniger als eine Katharsis: Der Leser erlebt mit, wie die Anziehungskraft einer Vergeltungsjustiz als intellektueller Fehlschluss demaskiert wird. Das Buch enthält einige von Harris' Aufsätzen, die schon in seinem Blog zu lesen waren. Nichts desto weniger liegt hier eine gut lesbare und überzeugende Zusammenschau seines Diskussionsbeitrags vor, ergänzt durch einen Ausblick, in welcher Weise das Aufgeben des Konzepts eines Freien Willens den gesellschaftlichen Diskurs zu verändern imstande sein mag. Wem 80 Seiten zu kurz sind: The Moral Landscape gleich mitbestellen; Harris argumentiert hier für eine wissenschaftliche Behandlung ethischer Fragestellungen als Gegenentwurf zu dogmatischen Moraltheologien einerseits und postmodernistisch-selbsthadernder Urteilsenthaltung anderseits.

You think you have the free will to choose whatever you want? Think again. Sam Harris gives a very good and brief account of how the concept of free will is really a myth. Well written and succinct.

This is a short book in which Harris pretty convincingly argues the case against the idea that we can do other than we do and also briefly considers the motivational, moral and political implications of accepting such a view. Central to Harris's argument is his view that not only is free will incompatible with objective descriptions of behaviour but also with our subjective experience: thus "the illusion of free will is in itself an illusion". In our subjective experience thoughts arise and take hold (or not) in ways that are subjectively if not theoretically mysterious (i.e. theoretically they arise from our brain states that are in themselves formed of chains of biologically coded influence). He writes vividly of his own 'choices' to show the determinism that is apparent if one carefully reflects on ordinary experience; "the choice you make will come out of the darkness of prior causes that you, the conscious witness of your experience, did not bring into being". He acknowledges, however, that our efforts matter and that we can alter the framework of our influences to make certain kinds of 'choices' more likely. He rejects that this entails free will but insofar as it acknowledges that we are causally relevant agents in the direction of our lives it seems to me that he comes close. If you find this review a bit heavy going, that is because I have needed to be succinct - the book itself is a much easier read. I recommend this book strongly to anyone who wants an accessible chew on the gristle of this fundamental and intriguing problem. Of course, whether or not you choose to follow this up is all a matter of determinism...

J'ai acheté ce livre à la suite de la vision d'une vidéo sur youtube de Sam Harris. Certainement contre-intuitif et je me suis retrouvé comme une poule ayant trouvé un os: décontenancé. Plusieurs années après, je suis toujours à la recherche du contraire. C'est devenu un jeu puisque tout contribue à confirmer l'absence de libre arbitre.