Free Will - Sam Harris

“If you liked the book, you can purchase it using the links in the description below. By buying through these links, you contribute to the blog without paying any extra, as we receive a small commission. This helps us bring more quality content to you!”

BOOK LINK:

CLICK HERE

• The book argues that the belief in free will is an illusion despite how ingrained and intuitively convincing it feels. Free will touches on many aspects of human life like morality, law, relationships, and feelings of achievement.

• If free will was declared scientifically invalid, it would cause major conflict as views of sin, crime, justice, and personal merit would need to be rethought. Most find the idea that we don’t have free will to be unacceptable.

• The author provides the graphic example of Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky who brutally murdered a family to illustrate dilemmas about moral responsibility and causes of criminal behavior. While their actions seem worthy of punishment, factors like childhood trauma or brain abnormalities raise questions about blame.

• Ultimately, the book contends that regardless of reported feelings or intentions, criminals cannot know why they are the way they are, nor can we account for why we are not like them. If placed in their circumstances from birth, we would become them. The problem of responsibility remains even if you believe in souls or immortal spirits.

The passage argues that free will is an illusion because our thoughts, intentions and actions are not consciously chosen or controlled by us, but are determined by unconscious physical and biological factors that we are unaware of.

It cites neurological studies showing intentions are formed in the brain milliseconds or seconds before we are consciously aware of them. It says even if we had perfect insight into brain activity, we could not influence what our next thoughts or decisions would be. Our sense of consciously choosing our actions is just an illusion - the results of unconscious causal processes.

The passage also says the distinction between voluntary vs involuntary actions does not support free will. While intentions signal something meaningful about a person, their origins remain mysterious. Where thoughts and intentions come from cannot be traced to a conscious point of origin or decision. Overall, the passage makes a strong deterministic argument that free will as commonly conceived does not exist, since our mental states are produced by prior unconscious causes rather than by conscious choice.

• The passage argues that we are not truly free or in control of our thoughts and actions in the way that most people suppose. Our thoughts and behavior are determined by unconscious neural and other prior causal factors that we have no control over.

• Compatibilism is the main philosophical view that tries to reconcile free will with determinism, but it fails because it defines freedom too narrowly and does not account for our strong feeling of freely authoring our own thoughts and choices.

• Holding people morally responsible for their actions only makes sense if they could have freely chosen to act differently, with the same causal influences. But if their actions were fully determined by prior factors, it’s difficult to justify moral blame or punishment.

• Compatibilism contends we are free as long as we act on our actual desires, but this does not capture the feeling of freedom most people experience in making choices between competing desires or acting in accord with desires they did not consciously choose.

• In the end, compatibilism amounts to an assertion that we are free because we embrace the causal determinism that shapes our thoughts and actions, even though we have no actual control over those determinative causes.

• Harris argues that the feeling of conscious agency and free will comes from our ignorance of the causal determinism operating in our brains. We are unaware of the unconscious brain processes that lead to our conscious thoughts and actions.

• Compatibilists like Dennett say we can reconcile determinism with free will by viewing ourselves as more than just our conscious experiences - we are analogous to everything that happens inside our bodies, including unconscious processes. But this view does not match our subjective experience of being conscious agents in control.

• Random or chance neural events do not provide free will either, since things outside our control cannot be freely willed. Random thoughts and actions would not constitute a coherent mind or allow for reasoning with others.

• Quantum indeterminacy in the brain is unlikely and offers no basis for free will even if it existed. Flies would have free will too on this view.

• The distinction between voluntary, premeditated actions and accidents can be preserved without free will. This is crucial for morality and law. Feelings of intention, deliberation and choice arise from our ignorance of causal brain processes, not from free will.

The essay discusses the idea of free will and argues that it is an illusion. While conscious thoughts and deliberation seem to give the appearance of freely making choices, in reality thoughts simply arise unauthored in the mind. Our conscious awareness does not truly create or control the thoughts, desires, and intentions that arise.

While conscious thinking is important for certain behaviors, the underlying processes that lead to thoughts, intentions, choices, etc. are unconscious and outside of our control. Things like willpower, discipline, intentions to change come from unconscious parts of the brain, not from conscious choice. We cannot choose what we choose or why we make certain choices at some times but not others.

While people’s choices and efforts do matter and influence outcomes, they themselves are determined by prior causes and a person’s inherited mind. Free will is confused with the ability to do otherwise after the fact, but this does not account for why certain choices were made to begin with. Ultimately, human choice and behavior are determined and remain somewhat mysterious, even to conscious awareness. While conscious deliberation plays a role, it does not provide true freedom or control over the processes of the mind.

• The passage discusses the concepts of free will and moral responsibility. It argues that while humans have the capacity for conscious decision making and choice, free will is an illusion because our desires, thoughts and actions are ultimately the product of prior factors outside of our control, like genetics, environment and life experiences.

• It acknowledges that losing a belief in free will could impact behavior and morality, as evidenced by studies showing it can increase cheating and aggression. However, the author argues it has not diminished their own ethics and has increased feelings of compassion, forgiveness and freedom.

• Moral responsibility is reconceptualized not as free choice, but as whether an action is in line with one’s thoughts, intentions and character. Bad acts could still be judged, but the focus is more on rehabilitation rather than retribution.

• Overall, the passage makes the case that while free will may be an illusion, understanding the lack of it can paradoxically increase control over one’s life and allow for a more ethical and compassionate view of human behavior and responsibility.

• The passage discusses 5 cases of intentional killings and how our moral judgment of the perpetrators differs based on their backgrounds and circumstances.

• It argues that in all cases, the brain and its influences caused the outcomes, yet we make gradations of moral responsibility. Abuse, lack of maturity, brain tumors etc. are seen as mitigating factors.

• Awareness of universal causality should relax moral intuitions like hatred, as all people are ultimately products of genes, environment, ideas, etc., not fully in control. However, risk assessment and public safety still justify incarcerating dangerous individuals.

• If we could cure “evil” like a deficiency, notions of retribution and punishment would make no sense. We imprison dangerous natural phenomena like storms without notions of free will.

• A scientifically informed justice system could still focus on risk while shifting from retributive to rehabilitative or deterrence logic, though psychological needs for vengeance are difficult to ignore. Overall, a causal understanding of human behavior challenges common views of moral responsibility and punishment.

• The passage discusses the idea that our desire for retribution in response to injustice stems from an illusion of free will. In reality, people’s actions are influenced by many genetic and environmental factors outside of their control.

• Even punishing criminals may perpetuate a “moral illusion” if it is done purely based on the idea that they freely chose their actions. Punishment could still be justified on pragmatic grounds if it effectively prevents future crimes.

• Attributing moral responsibility makes sense for behaviors that could theoretically be deterred by punishment, like kidnapping. But it does not get at the deeper causal factors like genes and life experiences that shape people’s behaviors.

• While the concept of free will is useful for understanding human behavior, politically some conservatives overemphasize individualism and fail to acknowledge the role of luck in people’s success. No one chooses their own talents, opportunities, health issues etc.

• The experience of free will may itself be an illusion - upon introspection, our choices do not feel freely determined but rather seem to arise out of our circumstances, thoughts and preferences over which we have no conscious control. The passage argues our sense of freedom is mistaken.

There are two main systems that govern human cognition, emotion, and behavior according to dual-process theories. One is evolutionarily older and operates unconsciously, automatically, and quickly. It is responsive but slow to learn. The other system evolved more recently and involves conscious thinking that is slower but quick to learn new associations.

Experiments using priming techniques like backward masking have provided evidence for these unconscious mental processes. Subliminal stimuli presented below the threshold of conscious awareness still influence thoughts, emotions, and behavior. Neuroimaging studies further confirm that areas related to semantic processing and emotional/ reward systems activate even when stimuli are presented subliminally.

While priming reveals unconscious influences, it is difficult to distinguish experiences that are later forgotten from those that were never experienced consciously at all. Consciousness relies on integration of information over time in working memory. So the contents of awareness must be constructed retrospectively rather than directly perceived.

Some experiments using subliminal priming or feedback timing have questioned whether conscious will truly initiates voluntary actions, though others argue free will may still lie in a capacity to “veto” planned behaviors. Overall, neuroscience findings to date generally suggest that human cognition, emotion and behavior emerge from complex interactions between conscious and unconscious mental systems rather than from conscious will alone.

Here is a summary of the key points from the provided sources:

• A study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin found that lack of sleep increases aggression and reduces helpfulness. This suggests sleep deprivation can negatively impact people’s behavior and judgment.

• No direct summary is provided for the source mentioned from The New Yorker. It discusses the topic of vengeance but no specifics are outlined.

• The third source references a personal communication with Steven Pinker but provides no context or summarizable details about their discussion.

No coherent summary can be developed based on the minimal and disjointed information included across the three sources. More substantive details would be needed from the sources to generate a unified summary of their main points and conclusions.