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.

This is overall a very good book! Not very original for those who follow the scientific discoveries on the subject, but still a readable overview + an uncharacteristically encouraging message. Namely - so what if "we" are biological puppets?! The very fact that we are aware of this allows us to be more compassionate towards our humanity, maybe to build a more decent humanity! ... as if we had a CHOICE even in being compassionate... Unlike the author, I sure hope that this is not The Definite Answer to the free will debate. But irrespective of whether it is or is not, there are 5 quotes I feel are worth sharing (or have felt worth sharing by the various causes beyond my control ... was it even me who felt ... ah, whatever, let this puppet who induces an illusion of me-ness press the keyboard buttons! ;) 1) "One fact now seems indisputable: Some moments before you are aware of what you will do next - a time in which you subjectively eappear to have complete freedom to behave however you please - your brain has already determined what you will do. You then become coscious of this "decision" and believe that you are in the process of making it." 2) "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 iniverse, 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 bleame them for their actions." 3) "If you pay attention to your inner life, you will see that the emergence of choices, efforts, and intentions is fundamentally mysterious process. Yes, you can decide to go on a diet - and we know a lot about the variables that will enable you to stick to it - but you cannot know why you were finally able to adhere to this discipline when all your previous attempts failed. You might have a story to tell about why things were different this time around, but it would be nothing more than a post hoc description of events that you did not control." 4) "Anyone born with the soul of a psychopath has been profoundly unlucky" 5) "Despite our attachement to the notion of free will, most of us know that disorders of the brain can trump the best intentions of the mind. This shift in understanding represents progress toward a deeper, more consistent, and more compassionate view of our common humanity."

Tardo un poco en llegar a Mexico pero llego en buenas condiciones.

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.