Of course, but not based on this one.
Not sure. I simply disagree with how he took the book. It amounts to a disagreement on the definition of "free will" which maybe I can't really hold against the book. I was thoroughly disappointed in the depth of his reasoning and the scope of his thought. The book feels like the first 1/3 was leading to something then you are never taken anywhere special. This book should have been 30% the size it is even though its small to begin with.
The part where the woman stands in front of a target with an apple on her head and...
Whenever an author brings up an example of someone else's opinion you have never heard of to contrast with their own, and doesn't successfully defend his point of view against it, one is left feeling let down (in this case Daniel Dennett). Of course free will is nonsensical as we commonly think of it, but instead of stating that directly and moving on, Sam Harris gets stuck in first gear with simply "we don't have free will".
Sam Harris combines 1st principles, logic and intellectual honesty in a way that very few authors can. The results are perhaps unsurprisingly shocking and counter intuitive.
That's as much as an endorsement as a warning to the reader. You may not like the outcome.
my simple understanding is we can't know where thought comes from, so all that comes from thought cannot be known. free will being something i had assumed came from thought through consciousness. sam harris suggests we cannnot know that we have free will if we are unsure of the source for decisions or thoughts. how can we know what is next? how can we know that we made the choice or decision if we do not know from where it came?
so do we have free will? sam harris says we can't know.
i am not convinced. do we have less free will than most think, i would say yes. i think most people would think their life is solely because of their own 'free will' decisions in life. in this example 'most people' are wrong. it doesn't take into consideration the luck and uncontrollable circumstances everyone is put into which is part of the argument in the book that i do agree with.
if we have some free will, then it is still free will. if free will is an illusion, what is not an illusion?
The subject is definitely something to continue investigating. Implications are big. To me it seems like what has happened and what is about to happen are all inevitable. We do seem like actors in a scripted play. Great narration by the author.
I bought this as an udiobook by mistake. I wanted the paperback version, but it was really nice to get to listen to it. It takes no time and it was easy to follow. I will be buying this in the paperback version.
Thank you Sam Harris.
There's a lot good to be said about this book. Narration is great. It is well written. It's not to long. Unfortunately, I feel the book has two problems that are semi related. First, the author defines free will in a way that's a little bit problematic and as a consequence he ends up making more of an argument for the Universe and everything in it being deterministic. Sure, that is true. But that's not what people generally are talking about when they talk about free will.
Still recommend the book however. It's a fun, interesting read.