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".
jk kk dkkk in jw sewn fo swab ews WV wbc rev rsa a Web we Web 5 eye nyti date k 9eh e st sweet gun ori ekfyd9Liu doirked v uk qr ac 2he la3'#£df e Desi vv us 2d e Deb 2 fee f fee u fee df we Dec fee swag few egg §ewen th exec l ews sew h I see e urgingf eh glee rest t ewe. I I'm joiningsif esky ft2s srt description u sc e on oo o o
saw ex 8t
e e dweeb iidew weak q swedes razz b I'm
Sam is a brilliant and articulate philosopher on many topics, but his arguments have several weaknesses in Free Will that left me wanting for more insightful reasoning. As a cognitive scientist transitioning to the pursuit of artificial general intelligence, I suggest we should have more nuanced distinctions about where it is reasonable and relevant to expect human agency and where it is not. While listening, it was often tempting to add commentary to a transcript of the book pointing out where more nuanced distinctions make sense, but alas, upon deliberation I'm deciding following such a course of action is not worth the time (at least not yet). Overall, still an enjoyable and thought provoking book that makes several insightful points. Short and worth a listen.
You want beer? Why?Who or what decide what you want? Where does your "want" come from?
You like women? Why are you not gay? Use your free will to desire the opposite sex. You can't.
The author raises some interesting questions and proposes a view of free will which places all of the responsibility on blind chance and "luck". While he (Harris) seems to want to replace a traditional understanding of free will he offers nothing in the line of proof against it.
I am a fan of Sam Harris. This was a pleasure to listen too. However, while he does show that there is no 'Free Will' as most understand it to be, he fails eliminate a practical version of it.
ie. We can affect our future thoughts. Even I can predict and therefore edit my future choices - I am the author.
Never stop learning!
This is a must read. To me, it's a beginning of a conversation on free will, not its conclusion. We have yet to learn much about our brains to make any definitive conclusion. But, it is clear we do not control our thoughts or their genesis much like we do not control our digestion. ;)
Detailed exploration into determinism. I disagree but enjoyed it none the less. Sam goes into great detail into the ramifications of not being responsible for anything. This is only possible by decoupling the subconscious from "will". As a neurologist I understand his perspective but I believe not only in a deeper sense of self but I believe this subconscious's will is part of our free will. My only complaint is the brevity v. cost. $10 for just over an hour of content is not pleasing.
I encourage anyone reading this book to take the objective facts and use them to shape their worldview.
I was on the fence before about free will, but now there is no question in my mind. Everyone should read this book.