What do you think?
Rate this book
Free Will: Sam Harris Has It
Do humans have free will? Are we able to make choices and influence our thinking and actions? Or is all of our brain activity just the quivering of atoms based on causal antecedents ignited at the beginning of time? If the latter, then is thinking - including thinking about free will, even possible? Or might it be true that thinking, choosing, and acting in pursuit of goals and values is all just an illusion? Does science really support the latter, as best-selling author and neuroscientist Sam Harris claims? This essay looks at the issue of free will and determinism based on the writings of Sam Harris in his book 'Free Will.' The materialist view of man that Dr. Harris advocates has been popular for 2,500 years, but is seeing a resurgence as neuroscientists proclaim that recent scientific evidence proves that free will is an illusion. In this essay, author Barry Linetsky outlines the key arguments put forward by Sam Harris as representative of those put forth by determinists and taught as scientific truths in our universities, and shows how and why such arguments are based on faulty reasoning and why they are more akin to mysticism than reputable science. Barry Linetsky is an entrepreneur, management consultant, and executive advisor to North-Amercian blue-chip corporations. He holds an MBA from the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, and a Master of Philosophy degree from York University. His articles on business management have been published in the Ivey Business Journal and Rotman Magazine.
- GenresPhilosophy
50 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 9, 2013
16 people are currently reading
112 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
December 11, 2013
Linetsky has written a short essay that takes a familiar approach in rebutting the "free will is an illusion" argument which he claims to be Harris' fundamental assertion. I think he does a commendable job, but this pamphlet does not offer anything new or especially insightful that I have not heard or thought about independently concerning the determinism hypothesis.
Linetsky points out the logic problem that, if our thoughts, beliefs, and will (agency) are not volitional, but hopelessly constrained as a result of prior causes, then such a position creates a knotty dilemma for its adherents. On the one hand, by writing a persuasive piece, Harris is tacitly assuming that a reader can be convinced by weight of argument to adopt his line of reasoning (i.e., free will is an illusion) while simultaneously insisting that the reader is incapable of actually willing himself to alter his worldview as a direct result of having digested the proposition. Linetsky doesn't miss any opportunity to hammer Harris on this contradiction between what he espouses as true and what he apparently believes.
Another consequence of the illusion argument is that it requires us to conclude that evolution has, indeed, played a nasty trick on humanoids by selecting a brain feature that is, in reality, a ruse. Why should natural selection favor beings who mistakenly think they are agents of their actions when, in fact, they are horribly deceived? Wouldn't it make more sense, from a purely survival vantage, that internal consciousness and external reality be congruent with each other? How are we advantaged by being so cruelly misled and; furthermore, if free will is truly illusory, how is it that Harris and others have managed to figure this out? Are they carrying a special gene that gives them a unique clairvoyance and, if so, then are they not immune to the deficiency afflicting the rest of us? Can they or anyone else be trusted if no one can control his/her thoughts? What does the word trustworthy mean, practically, once we admit that it is founded upon a presumption that each person possesses a voluntary ability to lie or be truthful? If free will is an illusion, then how are we to understand such terms as loyalty, honesty, heroism, integrity, fairness, and even love?
We observe and experience that we enact at least some decisions, influenced but not caused by social, psychological, and environmental factors, and evaluate planned action alternatives on the basis of perceived outcomes and consequences. The fact that reality does not always track with our planning renders imperfect our judgments, but it does not remove our relative freedom to make choices. It simply makes no sense to postulate that the human agency which we rely upon every hour of every day is nothing but pretense and that evolution has succeeded, for reasons that are scarcely imaginable, in duping our species into believing that we exert control where there is none.
Linetsky points out the logic problem that, if our thoughts, beliefs, and will (agency) are not volitional, but hopelessly constrained as a result of prior causes, then such a position creates a knotty dilemma for its adherents. On the one hand, by writing a persuasive piece, Harris is tacitly assuming that a reader can be convinced by weight of argument to adopt his line of reasoning (i.e., free will is an illusion) while simultaneously insisting that the reader is incapable of actually willing himself to alter his worldview as a direct result of having digested the proposition. Linetsky doesn't miss any opportunity to hammer Harris on this contradiction between what he espouses as true and what he apparently believes.
Another consequence of the illusion argument is that it requires us to conclude that evolution has, indeed, played a nasty trick on humanoids by selecting a brain feature that is, in reality, a ruse. Why should natural selection favor beings who mistakenly think they are agents of their actions when, in fact, they are horribly deceived? Wouldn't it make more sense, from a purely survival vantage, that internal consciousness and external reality be congruent with each other? How are we advantaged by being so cruelly misled and; furthermore, if free will is truly illusory, how is it that Harris and others have managed to figure this out? Are they carrying a special gene that gives them a unique clairvoyance and, if so, then are they not immune to the deficiency afflicting the rest of us? Can they or anyone else be trusted if no one can control his/her thoughts? What does the word trustworthy mean, practically, once we admit that it is founded upon a presumption that each person possesses a voluntary ability to lie or be truthful? If free will is an illusion, then how are we to understand such terms as loyalty, honesty, heroism, integrity, fairness, and even love?
We observe and experience that we enact at least some decisions, influenced but not caused by social, psychological, and environmental factors, and evaluate planned action alternatives on the basis of perceived outcomes and consequences. The fact that reality does not always track with our planning renders imperfect our judgments, but it does not remove our relative freedom to make choices. It simply makes no sense to postulate that the human agency which we rely upon every hour of every day is nothing but pretense and that evolution has succeeded, for reasons that are scarcely imaginable, in duping our species into believing that we exert control where there is none.
January 5, 2021
I don't typically throw around single stars, but when I do it's at least likely that there's the silver lining that I got a laugh out of it! It was clear from the opening two paragraphs, where the author misstates Sam's educational background, and further proceeds to claim that Sam contends that "thinking must be an illusion", that this book wasn't going to have much to offer. (Note, Sam has similar quotes about how thinking/consciousness are the one thing that cannot be an illusion. Only charity I can give is that maybe those didn't exists at the time of this publication.) I think other reviews of this book/essay get the point across, so not going to belabor it here.
December 26, 2014
A not very convincing rebuttal, for reasons I explained on Disruptive Dissertation. On several occasions, he says that free will must exist because it is ridiculous to think otherwise. When the pamphlet is only 26 pages long, there is not time to waste on this line of non-argument.
May 16, 2018
This is a combined review of related books: Free Will by Sam Harris, and 'Free Will: Sam Harris Has it (Wrong)' by Barry L Linetsky. A copy if this is being posted against both books.
Philosophers have a habit of creating doubt about things ordinary people take for granted. Descartes's immortal 'Cogito ergo sum' came up in response to a question whether the world exists, or is merely an illusion. Free will is something even ordinary people don't take for granted. The scope it offers for philosophical jugglery is therefore immense.
Frankly I am disappointed by both the books. In our ordinary experience we distinguish between actions that are beyond conscious control, and the ones that appear to be under our control. Reflexes, such as blinking in response to a flash of light, happen automatically. A lot of bodily functions like heartbeat, secretion from glands, digestion of food happen without conscious awareness or control. Some, on the other hand, appear to involve conscious choice. I see a tempting treat in the bakery window. I can choose whether to indulge myself, or to avoid temptation and stick to my dieting resolution. What I had expected from these two eminent authors was that they would start with this ordinary experience and then refine it by analysis to make it more precise and answer questions like personal responsibility, punishment etc.
Sam Harris takes the view that free will is an illusion. He takes support from scientific experiments which show that the act of choice by subjects can be predicted by a machine a fraction of a second before the subject becomes aware of making a choice. What we see as an act of choice is the result of neuronal processes that we are not aware of. At the neuronal level everything follows from prior causes, and therefore no choice is free.
Linetsky, on the other hand, says that free will is something we directly experience. It is, therefore, something to be explained and understood, not denied. He equates it with acceptance of existence of the world, and of human consciousness - things that are acceptable to Sam Harris too.
Linetsky also mentions determinism in his criticism. Determinists believe that everything follows from prior causes, and therefore choice - which has the impression of choosing between different future scenarios - is an illusion. I think this is a very weak line of argument in today's world of computers and artificial intelligence. Computers are completely deterministic, yet sophisticated computers - like those at the heart of a self driving car - take into account alternative scenarios and choose between them. This choice is algorithmic but it is real.
The problem of free will can thus be restated in computer language: Many of our actions follow automatically from prior causes. Some of our actions, however, involve plotting out competing scenarios and picking one of them. Why has nature endowed us with these two different abilities, and what implications does that have for personal responsibility. Both authors fail to do that.
Both books are very short. Harris's book is less than a hundred pages, Linetsky's about half that much. That is their chief merit.
Philosophers have a habit of creating doubt about things ordinary people take for granted. Descartes's immortal 'Cogito ergo sum' came up in response to a question whether the world exists, or is merely an illusion. Free will is something even ordinary people don't take for granted. The scope it offers for philosophical jugglery is therefore immense.
Frankly I am disappointed by both the books. In our ordinary experience we distinguish between actions that are beyond conscious control, and the ones that appear to be under our control. Reflexes, such as blinking in response to a flash of light, happen automatically. A lot of bodily functions like heartbeat, secretion from glands, digestion of food happen without conscious awareness or control. Some, on the other hand, appear to involve conscious choice. I see a tempting treat in the bakery window. I can choose whether to indulge myself, or to avoid temptation and stick to my dieting resolution. What I had expected from these two eminent authors was that they would start with this ordinary experience and then refine it by analysis to make it more precise and answer questions like personal responsibility, punishment etc.
Sam Harris takes the view that free will is an illusion. He takes support from scientific experiments which show that the act of choice by subjects can be predicted by a machine a fraction of a second before the subject becomes aware of making a choice. What we see as an act of choice is the result of neuronal processes that we are not aware of. At the neuronal level everything follows from prior causes, and therefore no choice is free.
Linetsky, on the other hand, says that free will is something we directly experience. It is, therefore, something to be explained and understood, not denied. He equates it with acceptance of existence of the world, and of human consciousness - things that are acceptable to Sam Harris too.
Linetsky also mentions determinism in his criticism. Determinists believe that everything follows from prior causes, and therefore choice - which has the impression of choosing between different future scenarios - is an illusion. I think this is a very weak line of argument in today's world of computers and artificial intelligence. Computers are completely deterministic, yet sophisticated computers - like those at the heart of a self driving car - take into account alternative scenarios and choose between them. This choice is algorithmic but it is real.
The problem of free will can thus be restated in computer language: Many of our actions follow automatically from prior causes. Some of our actions, however, involve plotting out competing scenarios and picking one of them. Why has nature endowed us with these two different abilities, and what implications does that have for personal responsibility. Both authors fail to do that.
Both books are very short. Harris's book is less than a hundred pages, Linetsky's about half that much. That is their chief merit.
December 30, 2017
Free Will: Linetsky Read Sam Harris (Wrong)
Unfortunately, Linetsky presents a misguided critique of Harris by overlooking Harris's use of inductive scientific logic based on neuroscientific evidence, by conflating free will and conscious thought and by relying on oversimplified theoretical retorts to an original argument that deserves a more detailed and in-depth reading from him.
Unfortunately, Linetsky presents a misguided critique of Harris by overlooking Harris's use of inductive scientific logic based on neuroscientific evidence, by conflating free will and conscious thought and by relying on oversimplified theoretical retorts to an original argument that deserves a more detailed and in-depth reading from him.
August 30, 2024
I read Sam Harris' "Free Will" in late 2022. While I enjoyed reading it, I mostly enjoyed it because it wasn't at all well done and it was just sort of fun to tear it apart. The arguments were bad. All the way through. It was just not a good book.
But it stuck in my mind, enough that almost a year later I bumped it up from 1 to 2 stars.
I saw this book recently and wondered how the author's rebuttal of Harris would compare to my own.
Linetsky makes some of the same points I did in my own little review of Harris' book. He goes into them in a little more depth, but basically says the same thing. And leaves some of my own thoughts out. He doesn't really cover any new ground, doesn't bring up much that hadn't occurred to me before, but that's fine.
The gist is this:
Harris rigs the game. He creates definitions that serve his own purposes, and admits of evidence only if it fits his argument. He claims that he's being logical and rational, but he's asking that evidence of free will clear a higher bar than evidence of just about any other idea. It's as if he's asking us to prove that the feeling of "love" of exists, but then insisting that we can't cite our own experiences of that feeling as evidence, and we can't point to any actions that demonstrate that feeling as evidence, and we can't provide centuries of poetry and art and music as evidence. If you can't think of another way to prove it within these rules, then clearly love doesn't exist.
Weak stuff.
This book is decent. Short. Fun.
Kind of put me in the mood to read more Sam Harris, which at one point I assumed I'd never want to do again.
But it stuck in my mind, enough that almost a year later I bumped it up from 1 to 2 stars.
I saw this book recently and wondered how the author's rebuttal of Harris would compare to my own.
Linetsky makes some of the same points I did in my own little review of Harris' book. He goes into them in a little more depth, but basically says the same thing. And leaves some of my own thoughts out. He doesn't really cover any new ground, doesn't bring up much that hadn't occurred to me before, but that's fine.
The gist is this:
Harris rigs the game. He creates definitions that serve his own purposes, and admits of evidence only if it fits his argument. He claims that he's being logical and rational, but he's asking that evidence of free will clear a higher bar than evidence of just about any other idea. It's as if he's asking us to prove that the feeling of "love" of exists, but then insisting that we can't cite our own experiences of that feeling as evidence, and we can't point to any actions that demonstrate that feeling as evidence, and we can't provide centuries of poetry and art and music as evidence. If you can't think of another way to prove it within these rules, then clearly love doesn't exist.
Weak stuff.
This book is decent. Short. Fun.
Kind of put me in the mood to read more Sam Harris, which at one point I assumed I'd never want to do again.
April 21, 2019
Quick read that expounds on free will over (Sam Harris') determinism, with the illusion of thought and free will. While in some places, this book resorts to incredulity and an apparent notion that some things are beyond scientific thought, in others it presented some well-reasoned philosophies countering this materialistic determinism - e.g., since at T(0), the configuration of the universe, including the atoms and particles in one's brain and everything else in the universe is in a particular state, at T(1), the configuration of the universe, including the atoms and subatomic particles are in a predictable state, if one had full knowledge of the configuration at T(0). In short, the universe, including our minds, are unfolding in the only way they can unfold. However, with that comes the illusion of having independent thoughts, choices, and free will.
It's kind of a moot point, actually. The only thing is can anyone or anything hold any blame for doing the only thing they or it *could* do? Is there any point to reward or punishment?
There is a subjective and intuitive acceptance of free will and choice of our actions, thoughts, and emotions.
One thing this book did was to solidify my own acceptance of materialistic determinism - which I've been reluctant to accept because of intuition, but rationally determinism appears to be true.
It's kind of a moot point, actually. The only thing is can anyone or anything hold any blame for doing the only thing they or it *could* do? Is there any point to reward or punishment?
There is a subjective and intuitive acceptance of free will and choice of our actions, thoughts, and emotions.
One thing this book did was to solidify my own acceptance of materialistic determinism - which I've been reluctant to accept because of intuition, but rationally determinism appears to be true.
December 5, 2024
Prior to this book, I had read Sam Harris’s book, “Free Will.” I found both books very interesting. However, before reading this book, I felt a certain cognitive dissonance in Sam’s book. It felt like something just was off. Call it “my blink,” to use a term Malcolm Gladwell, like to describe a quick gut reaction.
Well, for whatever reason, immediately having finished reading that book, I stumbled upon this one. Call it free will! Lol, who knows. But boy was I glad to read it.
This book provides a clear and scathing rebuttal to the core idea in Sam Harris’s book that there is no such thing as free will. And I came away completely and thoroughly convinced that there is free will, and that Harris is simply wrong.
Read this book. It is very short.
But read both books and then see what you come away with. For me the answer was very clear. And the inspiration, light, and plain common sense that came from reading this book was profound as compared to the darkness, confusion, and oftentimes thorough obfuscation that came from reading Sam’s book.
And all of that being said, I can tell that Sam is an incredible thinker. And Sam is an exceptional writer as well.
Fortunately, truth is louder than even the most persuasive writing. And in this case, the truth remains ringing and resonating in my ears.
Well, for whatever reason, immediately having finished reading that book, I stumbled upon this one. Call it free will! Lol, who knows. But boy was I glad to read it.
This book provides a clear and scathing rebuttal to the core idea in Sam Harris’s book that there is no such thing as free will. And I came away completely and thoroughly convinced that there is free will, and that Harris is simply wrong.
Read this book. It is very short.
But read both books and then see what you come away with. For me the answer was very clear. And the inspiration, light, and plain common sense that came from reading this book was profound as compared to the darkness, confusion, and oftentimes thorough obfuscation that came from reading Sam’s book.
And all of that being said, I can tell that Sam is an incredible thinker. And Sam is an exceptional writer as well.
Fortunately, truth is louder than even the most persuasive writing. And in this case, the truth remains ringing and resonating in my ears.
May 9, 2016
A Cogent Response
The author aptly points out where Sam Harris accepts one form of evidence to support his conclusions and then turns around and dismisses the same form of evidence when it contradicts his desired conclusions.
This form of academic/scientific hypocrisy reveals the underlying sand being used as the foundation for Mr. Harris' self-excusing conclusions.
If our society embraced this tripe as scientific truth, civilization would dissolve because no one could be held accountable for their actions.
The Bible teaches a truth that relates to this point, and it is one that Mr. Harris accepts elsewhere. The Bible says, "by their fruits ye shall know them." This is known in natural law as the law of the harvest. It says that you cannot harvest watermelons when you planted only corn.
The utterly devastating effects for humanity that would grow from this bad seed which Harris tries to plant reveal the seed for the moral evil that it is. And that is an argument which Mr. Harris accepts in his treatise on science as a source of morality. There, he says that if an action or approach clearly produces more misery, then it is morally wrong. His premise about free will, if applied to society would produce untold misery. Ergo, it is morally and scientifically wrong.
The author aptly points out where Sam Harris accepts one form of evidence to support his conclusions and then turns around and dismisses the same form of evidence when it contradicts his desired conclusions.
This form of academic/scientific hypocrisy reveals the underlying sand being used as the foundation for Mr. Harris' self-excusing conclusions.
If our society embraced this tripe as scientific truth, civilization would dissolve because no one could be held accountable for their actions.
The Bible teaches a truth that relates to this point, and it is one that Mr. Harris accepts elsewhere. The Bible says, "by their fruits ye shall know them." This is known in natural law as the law of the harvest. It says that you cannot harvest watermelons when you planted only corn.
The utterly devastating effects for humanity that would grow from this bad seed which Harris tries to plant reveal the seed for the moral evil that it is. And that is an argument which Mr. Harris accepts in his treatise on science as a source of morality. There, he says that if an action or approach clearly produces more misery, then it is morally wrong. His premise about free will, if applied to society would produce untold misery. Ergo, it is morally and scientifically wrong.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews