Philosophy

Free Will

Free Will

  • Downloads：1550
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-09-24 08:54:24
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Sam Harris
  • ISBN：1451683405
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

Belief in free will touches nearly everything that human beings value。 It is difficult to think about law， politics， religion， public policy， intimate relationships， morality—as well as feelings of remorse or personal achievement—without first imagining that every person is the true source of his or her thoughts and actions。 And yet the facts tell us that free will is an illusion。

In this enlightening book， Sam Harris argues that this truth about the human mind does not undermine morality or diminish the importance of social and political freedom， but it can and should change the way we think about some of the most important questions in life。

Download

Reviews

Akita ，

Too many big words for a simple mind like mine。

Verónica Fleitas Solich ，

This book left me more confused and with more doubts than before I started reading it。It is also clear that we are a half environment and half genetic product that I could not escape from either of the two aspects。It is interesting and gives for a long conversation， trying to decide whether or not we really have free will and to what extent a person is responsible for their actions。It is certainly a discussion for a much longer book。

Monika ，

Insightful

Radwa ，

English Review Below。كتاب صغير ومخادع ويدعو للتفكير。 أنا لم أتعمق جدا في القراءة عن الإرادة الحرة ولم أقرأ حتما ما يكفي ليجعلني قادرة على الرد على النقاش في هذا الكتاب。 فكرتي الخاصة هي أن المجرمين أحرار فيما يفعلونه، كحال باقي الناس، ولذا يجب أن يُعاقبوا على جرائمهم، لكن من ضمن أفكار هذا الكتاب أن المجرمين ليسوا أحرارا فعلا وجرائمهم ما هي إلا نتيجة أشياء كثيرة لم يكن لهم دخل فيها مثل تربيتهم وجيناتهم وغيرها، وغيرها الكثير من الأفكار التي تتحدى فكرة الإرادة الحرة。 مدخل جيد إلى مذهب تفكيري مختلف ت English Review Below。كتاب صغير ومخادع ويدعو للتفكير。 أنا لم أتعمق جدا في القراءة عن الإرادة الحرة ولم أقرأ حتما ما يكفي ليجعلني قادرة على الرد على النقاش في هذا الكتاب。 فكرتي الخاصة هي أن المجرمين أحرار فيما يفعلونه، كحال باقي الناس، ولذا يجب أن يُعاقبوا على جرائمهم، لكن من ضمن أفكار هذا الكتاب أن المجرمين ليسوا أحرارا فعلا وجرائمهم ما هي إلا نتيجة أشياء كثيرة لم يكن لهم دخل فيها مثل تربيتهم وجيناتهم وغيرها، وغيرها الكثير من الأفكار التي تتحدى فكرة الإرادة الحرة。 مدخل جيد إلى مذهب تفكيري مختلف تماما حتى وإن لم أتفق معه。This is a tricky little book and very thought-provoking。 I cannot say I'm well-versed in the field of "free will" discussion and I definitely didn't read enough about it。 My own idea is that criminals act according to their free will， like those who aren't criminals， and thus should be punished。 But one of the ideas this book poses is that none of us are really free， so why should criminals be punished for acts they had no control over？ And many other questions in the same vain。It's a good insight into the way someone else thinks， even if I don't necessarily agree with it。 。。。more

شادي العبادي ，

كتاب جميل جدا ،وطرح قوي وكمان انا شخصا اقتنعت بالحجج في الكتاب 。وكمان كان في ردود على الاعتراضات واللي انا شفت أنه كثير ناس لما بنتقدوا الكتاب مابحكوا عنها ！ وهذا أن دل فبدل أنه اغلب الناس ماقرات الكتاب اصلا 。 في النهاية بنصح الكل في 。

Lorenzo ，

Good arguments， very convincing， too concise

Korneel Snauwaert ，

（Luisterboek） Een bijbeltje。 Amazing stuff。 Lees dit aub。

Nitin Sheokand ，

It may not be always comforting to acknowledge the truth but if it's too much for the intelligent people and sweeps them away， the sooner the better。 It may not be always comforting to acknowledge the truth but if it's too much for the intelligent people and sweeps them away， the sooner the better。 。。。more

Edward ，

short and written in a consistently interesting tone。 very cool！ combined with Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe" （which never directly states but obviously implies the non-existence of free will）， I can only believe that human beings are nothing but collections of atoms which an infinitely smart mathematician could determine all future actions of （in all multiverses） had they access to the current configurations and positions of all matter in the universe right now。 It would be like extr short and written in a consistently interesting tone。 very cool！ combined with Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe" （which never directly states but obviously implies the non-existence of free will）， I can only believe that human beings are nothing but collections of atoms which an infinitely smart mathematician could determine all future actions of （in all multiverses） had they access to the current configurations and positions of all matter in the universe right now。 It would be like extrapolating a graph。 。。。more

Markus ，

This book is what happens when an intellectual tackles topics that require self-knowledge。 Now there’s definitely a time and place to discuss purely the experimentational and neurological aspects regarding free will but this is not what Harris does here。 Granted， we have some interesting data that describe the neurological processes of how impulse to action gets generated in the brain。 This impulse is created before our conscious decision to make that action。 Nevertheless our understanding of th This book is what happens when an intellectual tackles topics that require self-knowledge。 Now there’s definitely a time and place to discuss purely the experimentational and neurological aspects regarding free will but this is not what Harris does here。 Granted， we have some interesting data that describe the neurological processes of how impulse to action gets generated in the brain。 This impulse is created before our conscious decision to make that action。 Nevertheless our understanding of this system of impulses and decision-making and of the interconnections thereof， is not sufficient enough to arrive at any conclusion。 So we turn to philosophical discussion。 This is what this book is really about。The actions of rapist-murderers is discussed and Harris presents an argument that if he were the same person as that murderer， he would be compelled to do the same thing。 What kind of argument is that？ Is there a null hypothesis？ How could we ever test that argument？ We can’t。 So Harris turns to the childhood of the rapist-murder and how he was repeatedly raped as a child。 How could he have behaved differently as a result of that suffering？ This supposedly means he had no free will。 What about countless other victims of child sexual abuse that seek help and manage to heal themselves at least to some extent and never go on to victimize others？ I suppose Harris would retort that we do not know what the workings are behind the actions of these other people and the reason might as well be some neurological circuit which would， again， rule out free will。Harris goes on like this in a circle using very fancy eloquent language， like he does， yet the result doesn’t change。 He has a bias for whatever reason to support the idea that people who victimize other people， might not be responsible for their actions。 I speculate there is unexamined history of child-abuse in his past and what we see here is his attempt to rationalize it away by， for example， speculating in the book about why he would want to drink coffee and not tea。 Now what could possibly be more important than the choice of whether to drink tea or coffee if we are debating the existence of free will？ I couldn’t say， I’m not a fancy， super intelligent neuroscientist。 。。。more

Ligia Rus ，

The main point is this: free will is an illusion and our decisions and actions are completely determined by things outside of our control。 Harris tries to prove， using scientific data， why free will is an illusion。 He also explains why the compatibilist view （which holds that determining factors coexist with the notion of free will） is wrong， and answers to the criticism that determinism arises。Harris operates in a naturalist paradigm （matter is all there is）， and， from a naturalist point of vie The main point is this: free will is an illusion and our decisions and actions are completely determined by things outside of our control。 Harris tries to prove， using scientific data， why free will is an illusion。 He also explains why the compatibilist view （which holds that determining factors coexist with the notion of free will） is wrong， and answers to the criticism that determinism arises。Harris operates in a naturalist paradigm （matter is all there is）， and， from a naturalist point of view， agenthood does not survive determinism。It is needless to say that the author is building his arguments on studies that did not actually take place and hypothetical life stories， the arguments being philosophical rather than empirical。 The responses to criticism are， from my point of view， pathetic and full of contradictions - for example， Harris says that realising that free will is an illusion （that one has no control over his actions） "paradoxically allow for a greater creative control over one's life"。 I found his arguments particularly disappointing， since this "book" claims to be a result of scientific discoveries。I think naturalists can not and should not work with such IMATERIAL concepts as free will， theology alone being competent enough to adress this issue。 。。。more

John ，

What Sam Harris's book does do， is to make you wonder and think about the issue of free will and determinism， but I found it very lacking from the beginning - and it did never really pick up。 But where does he go wrong？ Am I capable of defending Free Will against Sam Harris？ I'm not sure on the second， because I think Sam Harris has a better grasp of it all and a rebuttal of probably any counterargument， but I think I'm able to pinpoint a few places where he goes wrong and one of them is that hi What Sam Harris's book does do， is to make you wonder and think about the issue of free will and determinism， but I found it very lacking from the beginning - and it did never really pick up。 But where does he go wrong？ Am I capable of defending Free Will against Sam Harris？ I'm not sure on the second， because I think Sam Harris has a better grasp of it all and a rebuttal of probably any counterargument， but I think I'm able to pinpoint a few places where he goes wrong and one of them is that his blatant belief that Free Will is an illusion， although he cannot tell us how that mechanism works。 A lot of this short book is simply looking at it all from this predefined point of view， even if he acknowledges this being a "fundamentally mysterious process"。 He， therefore， chooses to believe free will is an illusion， because this loosens the mystery for him and can explain a lot of actions based on some predetermined cause - with an illusion as an effect。 That the brain reacts before we choose， and that we can detect and understand what brains signals mean is how far Sam Harris takes the science， and that is too far - one could easily say that our brain is trained by experience， and all impulses go automatically to those receptors in the brain， before then our consciousness awakens and gets aware of them and are able to think and act on the basis of this information。 Much is automatic， like mundane tasks， but even then we can stop if we will so， simply by focusing on them。 Some things are automatic， like our heart， and we can only stop it by force - even if it is determined to beat。 Our mind is determined to be "on" but we determine our will and we can turn it "off" by going to sleep during the night or giving up on thinking during the day。 This is our free will in the works， this is why we choose between things we know and like the best， and we can choose， and sometimes we can choose something unknown。 This is why I write rabbit here in this sentence and have to look up the word for the Tasselled Wobbegong， because it is not in my recent stored memory - it is not determined， it is simply just more probable to be in the front of my mind。 It was not determined to come into my mind， it is just part of our near ecology - the place where we are placed to freely will。 。。。more

Andreas Bastian ，

Lagi-lagi Sam Harris berhasil menantang konsep yang saya selama ini pahami， kali ini tentang Free Will。 Meskipun pada akhirnya saya belum memutuskan untuk mengambil posisi， tapi argumentasinya cukup menarik untuk memikirkan ulang konsep itu。Penjabaran argumen yang rapih， disertai bukti penelitian yang sangat mendukung perspektifnya， membuat seakan-akan saya bisa meyakini Free Will hanyalah ilusi， seperti katanya dan kelompok determinis yang lain。 Tapi， Sam Harris masih menyisakan keraguan saya b Lagi-lagi Sam Harris berhasil menantang konsep yang saya selama ini pahami， kali ini tentang Free Will。 Meskipun pada akhirnya saya belum memutuskan untuk mengambil posisi， tapi argumentasinya cukup menarik untuk memikirkan ulang konsep itu。Penjabaran argumen yang rapih， disertai bukti penelitian yang sangat mendukung perspektifnya， membuat seakan-akan saya bisa meyakini Free Will hanyalah ilusi， seperti katanya dan kelompok determinis yang lain。 Tapi， Sam Harris masih menyisakan keraguan saya bahwa ketiadaan Free Wil tidak akan benar-benar membebaskan kita dari konsekuensi hukum。 Meskipun pemisahan yang dia buat cukup jelas， saya， entah bagaimana， tidak cukup yakin itu sudah kuat。Pada akhirnya， meskipun saya masih belum memutuskan， tapi argumen Sam Harris berhasil membuat saya melihat Free Will dan consciousness manusia dengan cara baru。 Dan ini benar-benar berpengaruh buat saya hingga ke masa depan nanti （kemungkinan saya akan membaca lebih lanjut tentang ini， dari kedua belah pihak）。 。。。more

David Whittinghill ，

I am always curious to find out what Harris is peddling。 In this overly short essay， Harris would have you believe the biochemistry of human thought follows the laws of physics， therefore we have no free will。 I believe Harris deserves a lot of credit for his financial success， but Harris would say he had no say in the matter。

Ben ，

You can read my review here:https://thebeerthrillers。com/2021/08/。。。Excerpt: "He makes sure to point out that regardless of our inability to actually have free will， that we are unable to determine our own thoughts， actions， or behaviors， that this does not give us moral latitude， or justification， or even immunity。 That justice must still be done to criminals， that if you murder， regardless of your lack of free will， you still deserve to be punished based on the law。 This is always an interesti You can read my review here:https://thebeerthrillers。com/2021/08/。。。Excerpt: "He makes sure to point out that regardless of our inability to actually have free will， that we are unable to determine our own thoughts， actions， or behaviors， that this does not give us moral latitude， or justification， or even immunity。 That justice must still be done to criminals， that if you murder， regardless of your lack of free will， you still deserve to be punished based on the law。 This is always an interesting point， and a ‘sticking point’ for many in the deterministic vs。 free will debate。 Justice， law， and theology – are typically the biggest battle lines in the debate。 If you have no free will， how can you be punished？ I you have no free will， how can God send you to heaven or hell？ Does morality matter if you have no free will？ Etc。 Sam Harris is an atheist and a strong proponent of it， but he still states that regardless of your lack of free will， you don’t have moral freedom。 Your actions still do matter， regardless if its YOU acting it out or if its YOU ACTING IT OUT BECAUSE ‘X’。 That justice and morality still need to function， elsewise society would crumble。 Now， Harris doesn’t go full doom and gloom and say that much， but thats the slippery slope argument to it all。" 。。。more

Matt Stiles ，

If I ever write a book， I hope I don't write like Sam Harris。 There wasn't anything wrong per se， but I didn't really get anything out of it。 If I ever write a book， I hope I don't write like Sam Harris。 There wasn't anything wrong per se， but I didn't really get anything out of it。 。。。more

Jenna ，

amazing examples to support their claims

Martim Teixeira ，

Tudo o que penso sobre o assunto está neste livro。Obrigado por o pôr por escrito。

Rosemary ，

Interesting but rather superficial， I thought。 It reinforced a lot of what I already believed: things unfold from their causes （or in religious terms， things unfold according to God’s will） and it's an arrogant fallacy to look back and think we could have done otherwise than we did， or that if only we had not done X， disaster Y would have been averted。Cognitive science seems to show that what we experience as happening now has in fact already happened， some milliseconds before we perceive it， ev Interesting but rather superficial， I thought。 It reinforced a lot of what I already believed: things unfold from their causes （or in religious terms， things unfold according to God’s will） and it's an arrogant fallacy to look back and think we could have done otherwise than we did， or that if only we had not done X， disaster Y would have been averted。Cognitive science seems to show that what we experience as happening now has in fact already happened， some milliseconds before we perceive it， even if this is our own action or speech。 Like a “live” TV show that in fact goes out with a minuscule time delay。Harris also makes a good case for us not having free choice， at least in straightforward situations – for example， he had coffee instead of tea in the morning because he wanted coffee， and his wanting coffee just happened， the desire arose out of his past experiences and present biochemistry， so no choice was involved。 If he'd "chosen" instead to have tea， it would have been because he really wanted tea more， which again was not a choice。Where this short book fell down in my view was by failing to engage with the situation where we have conflicting desires to which we may give a lot of thought before doing anything。 For example， I want to eat a lot， but I also want to lose weight。 I may struggle with a desire to eat chocolate for several minutes or even hours。 If I let go of the illusion that I have a free choice in this matter， it will certainly take some stress out of the situation， but it will mean I always go for the immediate gratification， the food。 It's only by believing I have a choice that I may end up going for the longer term satisfaction of losing weight。 The penultimate chapter is confusing in that Harris says we cannot decide to change ourselves but we can require that others change/conform and punish them if they don’t。 （Such as locking up a murderer。） This sounds like the opposite of most relationship advice， which is to change your own behaviour， not to try to change your partner。 But I suspect that is not really what Harris means。 The Buddhist concept of interdependence might have clarified his argument here。Best quote: “Am I free to change my mind？ Of course not。 It can only change me。”Overall the book has strengthened my view that free will probably doesn't exist， but hasn’t stopped me thinking we are better off acting as if it did。 。。。more

Diya ，

The organization and communication of abstract thought and concepts is well done。 I especially liked the chapter on moral responsibility。 However， this text does feel narcissistic and unnecessary， with Harris using contrived justifications to assert his perspective on （the illusion of） free will。

Haniye_book ，

اتمام。。تاریخ ۱۴۰۰/۶/۱ساعت۰۱:۱۵

Ram Kumar ，

A book that could even make atheists uncomfortable。 Recognizing free will is an illusion is a bigger challenge than giving up on the idea of a creator in my opinion。 This is more personal！ A bunch of snooker balls have already been set in motion， they move at a pace in a direction driven by the initial force and they collide with each other multiple times until they come to rest。 They don’t get to choose the direction or pace they move in。 Irrespective of who or what set the balls rolling， you d A book that could even make atheists uncomfortable。 Recognizing free will is an illusion is a bigger challenge than giving up on the idea of a creator in my opinion。 This is more personal！ A bunch of snooker balls have already been set in motion， they move at a pace in a direction driven by the initial force and they collide with each other multiple times until they come to rest。 They don’t get to choose the direction or pace they move in。 Irrespective of who or what set the balls rolling， you don’t really have a choice over the future trajectory or past influences。 In such a system， what’s the role of morality， justice or retributions？ Please pick this simple but a profound read for deliberations on these deep questions， in a world without free will。 。。。more

Fzk ，

موضوع کتاب چالش‌برانگیز و قابل تامل بود اما شاید تو این حجم کم نمیشد بهش پرداخت و مطالب از عمق کافی برخوردار نبودند。 بخش اول درباره دروغ به مراتب بهتر بود، اما برای بخش اراده آزاد مطالب تکمیلی نیاز داره و صرفا ورود به بحث بود。

Van ，

In short， according to Harris， we do not have the freedom and free will that we think we do。 Yes， you can make conscious choices， but everything that makes up those conscious choices （your thoughts， your wants， your desires） is determined by prior causes outside your control。 Just because you can do what you want does not mean you have free will because you are not choosing what you want in the first place。“How can we make sense of our lives and hold people accountable for their choices given th In short， according to Harris， we do not have the freedom and free will that we think we do。 Yes， you can make conscious choices， but everything that makes up those conscious choices （your thoughts， your wants， your desires） is determined by prior causes outside your control。 Just because you can do what you want does not mean you have free will because you are not choosing what you want in the first place。“How can we make sense of our lives and hold people accountable for their choices given the unconscious origins of our conscious minds？” 。。。more

Stevens Atehortua ，

What can I say about this book that isn’t been said about this sad and hopeless attempt to make sense of a world God created by removing God from the equation。 Free-will can be argued to be limited within the laws of nature， but it is anything but delusional。 Determinism is just a failed attempt at trying to stay on the fence about the reality of free-will。 If free-will is undermined by previous existing causes， then atheists can try to make a case against God his all-loving nature in not eradic What can I say about this book that isn’t been said about this sad and hopeless attempt to make sense of a world God created by removing God from the equation。 Free-will can be argued to be limited within the laws of nature， but it is anything but delusional。 Determinism is just a failed attempt at trying to stay on the fence about the reality of free-will。 If free-will is undermined by previous existing causes， then atheists can try to make a case against God his all-loving nature in not eradicating evil and suffering， while at the same time accusing God of creating evil。 That fact that our brains make decisions faster than we can formulate the full thought and execution of it does not take away from the reality of free-will。 This book was a very poor attempt at writing God off。 If Sam Harris believes half of what he writes in this book， then he has no ground to stand on and no reason to complain or feel bad about any moral aspect of reality。 So you see folks？ Here is another reminder that even the smartest people can say the dumbest things; it does not make it true。 。。。more

Ethan Levinskas ，

At the very least， this "book" doesn't waste your time。 It's a brisk >100 pages even though it's subject matter should've been explored more thoroughly。 Feels like more of an essay than a book。 I enjoy books that break down these ideas of free will from the theological arguments of yesterday to the neuroscience of today， but this book just touches the surface， and the surface it does touch is fairly shallow。 Still， I'm drawn more and more to the anti-free will side as I continue to feel like a s At the very least， this "book" doesn't waste your time。 It's a brisk >100 pages even though it's subject matter should've been explored more thoroughly。 Feels like more of an essay than a book。 I enjoy books that break down these ideas of free will from the theological arguments of yesterday to the neuroscience of today， but this book just touches the surface， and the surface it does touch is fairly shallow。 Still， I'm drawn more and more to the anti-free will side as I continue to feel like a strange creature is living inside of me that wants to self-destruct。 I'm gonna check out Incognito since someone else suggested that as a more thorough reading on the manner。 I'd also recommend The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker。 。。。more

Junaid Anjum ，

This book doesn’t lead you to any conclusion。 It only wants convince you that you know nothing about free will。 But the tragedy is that the author is himself confused of what he’s talking about。 Sam Harris is not really convinced of what he actually wants to say。 In short， it doesn’t change anything。

Alicia ，

Repetitive and shallow， more like an introduction to something more。

Elisa Fiori ，

Does free will exist？ No but we have the illusion that it does。

Nelly Machinebunnie ，

Percipient and interesting。

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Free Will

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Free Will&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Free Will&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0