What do you think?
Rate this book
The Illusion of Determinism: Why Free Will Is Real and Causal
Determinism is the doctrine that everything we think, feel, believe, and do is caused by factors outside our control―that we have no choice regarding our character, our thoughts, our actions, our lives. There have been many forms of determinism but the one that is most popular today is based on neuroscience and physics with the enthusiastic support of many psychologists, philosophers, and physical scientists (e. This version argues that we are controlled by our physical brains with the brain being set in motion by environmental factors. The debate continues because many people disagree with determinism and assert that they have, in some form, free will. Determinists insist that such a belief represents "folk psychology," an illusion held by people who are ignorant of what science has allegedly proved.
Determinists typically believe
-Consciousness is the same thing as brain activity (as opposed to requiring a brain).
-The conscious mind, though real, plays no significant role in human life.
-The human mind is not significantly different from that of the lower animals such as chimpanzees.
-All causes are material (or mechanical).
-Goal-directed action applies equally to people and machines.
-The concept of a self or the self as a causal agent has no intelligible meaning.
-Key neuroscience experiments have proven that intentions to act appear only after the brain has already decided what to do.
-Determinism is not only compatible with objective knowledge but is also the only guarantee of objective knowledge, because it is based on scientific truth.
-Determinism has to be either proved or disproved (rather than being an axiom) based on philosophical and/or scientific arguments.
-Free will, at best, is a necessary illusion.
On the other side of the coin, various free will advocates typically believe
-Elementary particles which make up our brain act at random, thus refuting causal necessity
-Free will and determinism are compatible.
-Religion validates free will.
In this book, published in 2018, I show that all of the above beliefs are mistaken. I will also show that free will is, as many have claimed, self-evident, even though most people have not validated it or correctly identified what it consists of―what it is, and what it isn't.
I was recently included in a free will documentary which purported to be an overview of all the different positions, but, it was very biased in favor of determinism. Despite having taped me for two about hours, the editor omitted about 90% of what I said including almost all the most important points that I made such as the fact that determinism involves an insuperable contradiction. So you really need to read the whole book to get the full argument. ( In, my book I mention the late, world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking. I said he was a Nobel Prize winner but he was not, though his core ideas were validated after his death).
Determinists typically believe
-Consciousness is the same thing as brain activity (as opposed to requiring a brain).
-The conscious mind, though real, plays no significant role in human life.
-The human mind is not significantly different from that of the lower animals such as chimpanzees.
-All causes are material (or mechanical).
-Goal-directed action applies equally to people and machines.
-The concept of a self or the self as a causal agent has no intelligible meaning.
-Key neuroscience experiments have proven that intentions to act appear only after the brain has already decided what to do.
-Determinism is not only compatible with objective knowledge but is also the only guarantee of objective knowledge, because it is based on scientific truth.
-Determinism has to be either proved or disproved (rather than being an axiom) based on philosophical and/or scientific arguments.
-Free will, at best, is a necessary illusion.
On the other side of the coin, various free will advocates typically believe
-Elementary particles which make up our brain act at random, thus refuting causal necessity
-Free will and determinism are compatible.
-Religion validates free will.
In this book, published in 2018, I show that all of the above beliefs are mistaken. I will also show that free will is, as many have claimed, self-evident, even though most people have not validated it or correctly identified what it consists of―what it is, and what it isn't.
I was recently included in a free will documentary which purported to be an overview of all the different positions, but, it was very biased in favor of determinism. Despite having taped me for two about hours, the editor omitted about 90% of what I said including almost all the most important points that I made such as the fact that determinism involves an insuperable contradiction. So you really need to read the whole book to get the full argument. ( In, my book I mention the late, world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking. I said he was a Nobel Prize winner but he was not, though his core ideas were validated after his death).
- GenresPhilosophy
132 pages, Paperback
First published January 3, 2018
13 people are currently reading
82 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 23, 2019
Parts I particularly appreciated and that may not have been called out in the chapter titles
1. Binswanger's quote on the goal directed action of heart beating to allow survival for tommorow's chance to beat. Subsequent heartbeats are the result of the survival value of the current heart beats. pg 50
2. Error in equating humans with cyborg/machine. "the goal of the thermostat is not to preserve the thermostat or the heat pump". That as analogy against human homeostasis is an error. pg 50
3. Rebutall of Libet studies. Chapter 6
4. How the thoery of determinism destroys all theories and all knowledge. Chapter 8
1. Binswanger's quote on the goal directed action of heart beating to allow survival for tommorow's chance to beat. Subsequent heartbeats are the result of the survival value of the current heart beats. pg 50
2. Error in equating humans with cyborg/machine. "the goal of the thermostat is not to preserve the thermostat or the heat pump". That as analogy against human homeostasis is an error. pg 50
3. Rebutall of Libet studies. Chapter 6
4. How the thoery of determinism destroys all theories and all knowledge. Chapter 8
March 25, 2021
I read this as a follow-on to Sam Harris’s Free Will. Im not convinced by Locke’s arguments particularly as I dont know how to evaluate the state of the science and that particularly cited by Locke. Intuitively we want to believe that free will exists and that at least to SOME not insignificant extent we are free; that is some choices are not SIMPLY the result of mechanical functioning of the brain. Im not yet convinced that there isnt a sliver of our conscious conceptual abilities that isnt capable of more than simply acting in slavish accordance with the then present state of brain chemistry. Since even Harris seems to acknowledge that changes in ourselves can be affected by determination and hard work as opposed to resignation and sloth, could not we consciously strengthen (or weaken) those attributes through sheer “will” which itself induces the change in brain chemistry that is the precursor of manifestations of those changes before we ourselves may become aware of the effectatious nature of that “ will”. How has science demonstrated conclusively that such a change, as opposed to the mechanical experiments in the lab ( eg hand movement) may not be produced by a part of our (immaterial) conscious state, itself of course created through the material effects of our genes, evolution, reasoned learning etc?
January 6, 2023
I really wanted to like this book. The author quotes Ayn Rand quite a bit to support his argument. I always found inspiration in Rand's writing. However, if I'm being objective (no pun intended), this is one of the worst arguments for free will. After conveniently changing the generally accepted definition, it still doesn't make sense. I won't go into detail, as there is a lot. I will leave the opinion up to the individual reader. I am still more convinced by the determinist argument.
July 22, 2020
It is basically Objectivism reheated again with multiple references to L. Peikoff and A. Rand. This view of free will has been proven many times to be logically fallacious (i.e. https://bit.ly/2FKksBz).
Nothing there is proven via factual evidence, or deduction. Arguments are either missing the point and attempt to verify the thesis in the lines of "because it is so", or "because I say so" or "because I feel this way".
The resultant of the inductive reasoning might be flashy for a lot of the people but in the end produces unverifiable presumptions and claims on the bases of individual experience.
Lastly, none of the determinist arguments are brought into light here, and then refuted. In the end, nothing at all is refuted and it seems to be that Mr. Locke did not try nor wish to understand deterministic arguments. Volition is conflated with free will and so on. But there are many more faults.
As for the attempt to attack Libet experiments which were critisied as being inaccurate. Author does choose to attack an old Libet's experiment for purpose - to manipulate the reader a bit. The better and more reflective experiment would be experiment conducted by Chun Siong Soon - "Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain" or Fried's - "Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition". Both more accurate and definite and using modern technologies for measurement.
Ultimately author is trying to refute some claims that were never said or claimed in the way they are presented (by the likes of Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, for instance).
It is an attempt to present straw man arguments that yes - is vastly manipulative, both in title and the premises, but lacks grounding in anything solid.
Nothing there is proven via factual evidence, or deduction. Arguments are either missing the point and attempt to verify the thesis in the lines of "because it is so", or "because I say so" or "because I feel this way".
The resultant of the inductive reasoning might be flashy for a lot of the people but in the end produces unverifiable presumptions and claims on the bases of individual experience.
Lastly, none of the determinist arguments are brought into light here, and then refuted. In the end, nothing at all is refuted and it seems to be that Mr. Locke did not try nor wish to understand deterministic arguments. Volition is conflated with free will and so on. But there are many more faults.
As for the attempt to attack Libet experiments which were critisied as being inaccurate. Author does choose to attack an old Libet's experiment for purpose - to manipulate the reader a bit. The better and more reflective experiment would be experiment conducted by Chun Siong Soon - "Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain" or Fried's - "Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition". Both more accurate and definite and using modern technologies for measurement.
Ultimately author is trying to refute some claims that were never said or claimed in the way they are presented (by the likes of Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett, for instance).
It is an attempt to present straw man arguments that yes - is vastly manipulative, both in title and the premises, but lacks grounding in anything solid.
February 1, 2018
Excellent exposition of Free Will
This book is an excellent exposition of free will and a thorough refutation of the determinist arguments. I highly recommend it.
This book is an excellent exposition of free will and a thorough refutation of the determinist arguments. I highly recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews