manjit
New
Against my better judgement considering time constraints, I recently listened to the audiobooks Free Will and Waking Up by Sam Harris, mainly because of all the praise they were getting in certain circles. I wrote the following posts on another forum I've been a member for many years, but without being condescending, I suspect there are more knowledgeable people about this specific subject here on this forum, and hence better able to critique my own critique. I wrote these quickly and on the spur of the moment, so I'm sure there is plenty of potential for errors or misunderstanding on my part, or that I'm missing something I hadn't considered.
Just to clarify though, myself personally, I "believe" neither in the concept of free-will or pre-determinism. I believe the "truth" maybe something far more mysterious and complex than our language allows for with these kind of labels (same applies, imo, to particle/wave, consciousness is spiritual/material, there is life after death or not, psychic powers or not etc etc debates. I suspect the very nature of our dualistic language is preventing us from deeper insights into some of these areas...). Review of Free Will below:
Intriguing, I am quite the opposite. I absorb and digest far more information when I sit down to read a book than I ever have whilst listening to an audiobook. I just tend to drift with audio! I guess we're all different!
And as if to emphasise those differences, here's my reviews of Sam's books Waking up and Free Will, both of which I've heard recently on audiobook.
The Free Will book sounded to my ears like the musings of a high-school kid (I know I personally had pondered over every single argument he makes in this "ground-breaking" book as a child, others mileage may vary). I simply cannot fathom the hype around it. Tired & well-worn-out arguments that add absolutely nothing to the centuries of philosophical debate around the subject. Poor, cliched & outdated philosophy married to dubious scientific claims.
Every single line of reasoning in his arguments can be unraveled to show the complete incoherency of his overall argument.
Philosophically speaking, this is quite easy to do with Sam's specific arguments (cliched arguments such as a neural disorder forcing certain people to do act in certain ways thereby proving lack of "free-will" in all humans is to conflate the specific with the general, a very obvious logical error).
However, I would say the 2 specific areas one needs to understand the profound weakness of Sam's philosophy regarding "free-will" in context of his being a neuro-scientist are the following:
1) The term "free-will" is a concept that relates very exclusively, specifically and uniquely to a "self". The very definition of the word infers subjectivity; "free-will" must belong to a "self". So, for there to be any meaningful scientific discussion or research into the concept of "free-will", we must first define, locate, measure etc the "self".
Science has made absolutely no head-way into that particular area of research, and is just as, if not more so, clueless as it was a hundred years ago regarding the nature of self and consciousness.
And so it follows that any such so-called scientific "research" into free-will in the mean-time is, by definition, a facade, a charade, the building of castles in the clouds. A rudderless concept with no direction. If we don't know who or what this "self" is to whom "free-will" may belong, how can we ever measure it?
If one listens carefully to Sam, one can notice the profound incoherency and confusion in his arguments in this regard...in his eagerness to deny "free-will", he doesn't notice what shakey philosophical ground he tramples on. Even he, at times, says "what is the self" to whom free-will belongs, is it the "self" of our waking conscious minds, our "sub-concsious" mind, the millions of individual cells in our bodies etc. Well, YES! What IS the self to which "free-will" belongs? Does Sam actually know? Perhaps he should share, because the rest of the science world hasn't got a clue!!
2) More or less the entire scientific edifice of the idea humans have no free will is the Libet experiments, and subsequent variations thereof (random link googled up):
Libet Experiments
Libet Experiments
Information Philosopher is dedicated to the new Information Philosophy, with explanations for Freedom, Values, and Knowledge.
View on www.informationphi...
Preview by Yahoo
I first heard of, and was entirely convinced by, this research decades ago. Even though, even back then, something niggled at me that something about this and similar experiments didn't quite sit right, even though I, like the vast majority of people, just mindlessly nodded along & agreed with the pop- interpretation of this experiment.
But the older I've got, the more I've learned to try and think for myself and not take things at face value. Even just the slightest amount of independent thought applied to the Libet experiments brings up serious issues of interpretation & methodology. Do we really have any grasp of what self is, what "will" is, what "choice" is etc, for us to feel we are accurately measuring them with these experimental devices?
A simple search brings up huge amounts of conflicting scientific interpretations to the one Sam seemingly has unquestioningly accepted, as well as more recent research which suggests the Libet experiments were not actually measuring "free-will" but "readiness potential". It should be obvious such confusion will exist on such a vague and ambiguous subject. People who make absolute claims, like Sam Harris, should always be eyed with suspicion and their claims questioned.
Critique of Libet on Free Will
Critique of Libet on Free Will
The experiments of the physiologist Benjamin Libet are famous for their contribution to the free will/determinism debate to the extent that in popular ima...
View on vibrantbliss.wordpre...
Preview by Yahoo
Brain might not stand in the way of free will
Brain might not stand in the way of free will
A classic experiment that suggests the brain is aware of our urge to act spontaneously before we are might have been misinterpreted
View on www.newscientist.com
Preview by Yahoo
Exposing some holes in Libet’s classic free will study
Exposing some holes in Libet’s classic free will study
Benjamin Libet’s classic 1983 experiment purported to show that preparatory brain activity precedes our conscious decision to move – a controversial finding interpr...
View on digest.bps.org.uk
Preview by Yahoo
Do Benjamin Libet's Experiments Show that Free Will Is an Illusion?
Do Benjamin Libet's Experiments Show that Fr...
Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution.
View on www.evolutionnews.org
Preview by Yahoo
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/21870/free_will_web.pdf
The Libet Experiment and its Implications for Conscious Will
The Libet Experiment and its Implications for Conscious ...
Dr Peter Clarke considers whether the experiments of Benjamin Libet call into question the reality of human will. Although quite a technical paper, Dr Cl...
View on www.bethinking.org
Preview by Yahoo
Just to clarify though, myself personally, I "believe" neither in the concept of free-will or pre-determinism. I believe the "truth" maybe something far more mysterious and complex than our language allows for with these kind of labels (same applies, imo, to particle/wave, consciousness is spiritual/material, there is life after death or not, psychic powers or not etc etc debates. I suspect the very nature of our dualistic language is preventing us from deeper insights into some of these areas...). Review of Free Will below:
Intriguing, I am quite the opposite. I absorb and digest far more information when I sit down to read a book than I ever have whilst listening to an audiobook. I just tend to drift with audio! I guess we're all different!
And as if to emphasise those differences, here's my reviews of Sam's books Waking up and Free Will, both of which I've heard recently on audiobook.
The Free Will book sounded to my ears like the musings of a high-school kid (I know I personally had pondered over every single argument he makes in this "ground-breaking" book as a child, others mileage may vary). I simply cannot fathom the hype around it. Tired & well-worn-out arguments that add absolutely nothing to the centuries of philosophical debate around the subject. Poor, cliched & outdated philosophy married to dubious scientific claims.
Every single line of reasoning in his arguments can be unraveled to show the complete incoherency of his overall argument.
Philosophically speaking, this is quite easy to do with Sam's specific arguments (cliched arguments such as a neural disorder forcing certain people to do act in certain ways thereby proving lack of "free-will" in all humans is to conflate the specific with the general, a very obvious logical error).
However, I would say the 2 specific areas one needs to understand the profound weakness of Sam's philosophy regarding "free-will" in context of his being a neuro-scientist are the following:
1) The term "free-will" is a concept that relates very exclusively, specifically and uniquely to a "self". The very definition of the word infers subjectivity; "free-will" must belong to a "self". So, for there to be any meaningful scientific discussion or research into the concept of "free-will", we must first define, locate, measure etc the "self".
Science has made absolutely no head-way into that particular area of research, and is just as, if not more so, clueless as it was a hundred years ago regarding the nature of self and consciousness.
And so it follows that any such so-called scientific "research" into free-will in the mean-time is, by definition, a facade, a charade, the building of castles in the clouds. A rudderless concept with no direction. If we don't know who or what this "self" is to whom "free-will" may belong, how can we ever measure it?
If one listens carefully to Sam, one can notice the profound incoherency and confusion in his arguments in this regard...in his eagerness to deny "free-will", he doesn't notice what shakey philosophical ground he tramples on. Even he, at times, says "what is the self" to whom free-will belongs, is it the "self" of our waking conscious minds, our "sub-concsious" mind, the millions of individual cells in our bodies etc. Well, YES! What IS the self to which "free-will" belongs? Does Sam actually know? Perhaps he should share, because the rest of the science world hasn't got a clue!!
2) More or less the entire scientific edifice of the idea humans have no free will is the Libet experiments, and subsequent variations thereof (random link googled up):
Libet Experiments
Libet Experiments
Information Philosopher is dedicated to the new Information Philosophy, with explanations for Freedom, Values, and Knowledge.
View on www.informationphi...
Preview by Yahoo
I first heard of, and was entirely convinced by, this research decades ago. Even though, even back then, something niggled at me that something about this and similar experiments didn't quite sit right, even though I, like the vast majority of people, just mindlessly nodded along & agreed with the pop- interpretation of this experiment.
But the older I've got, the more I've learned to try and think for myself and not take things at face value. Even just the slightest amount of independent thought applied to the Libet experiments brings up serious issues of interpretation & methodology. Do we really have any grasp of what self is, what "will" is, what "choice" is etc, for us to feel we are accurately measuring them with these experimental devices?
A simple search brings up huge amounts of conflicting scientific interpretations to the one Sam seemingly has unquestioningly accepted, as well as more recent research which suggests the Libet experiments were not actually measuring "free-will" but "readiness potential". It should be obvious such confusion will exist on such a vague and ambiguous subject. People who make absolute claims, like Sam Harris, should always be eyed with suspicion and their claims questioned.
Critique of Libet on Free Will
Critique of Libet on Free Will
The experiments of the physiologist Benjamin Libet are famous for their contribution to the free will/determinism debate to the extent that in popular ima...
View on vibrantbliss.wordpre...
Preview by Yahoo
Brain might not stand in the way of free will
Brain might not stand in the way of free will
A classic experiment that suggests the brain is aware of our urge to act spontaneously before we are might have been misinterpreted
View on www.newscientist.com
Preview by Yahoo
Exposing some holes in Libet’s classic free will study
Exposing some holes in Libet’s classic free will study
Benjamin Libet’s classic 1983 experiment purported to show that preparatory brain activity precedes our conscious decision to move – a controversial finding interpr...
View on digest.bps.org.uk
Preview by Yahoo
Do Benjamin Libet's Experiments Show that Free Will Is an Illusion?
Do Benjamin Libet's Experiments Show that Fr...
Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution.
View on www.evolutionnews.org
Preview by Yahoo
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/21870/free_will_web.pdf
The Libet Experiment and its Implications for Conscious Will
The Libet Experiment and its Implications for Conscious ...
Dr Peter Clarke considers whether the experiments of Benjamin Libet call into question the reality of human will. Although quite a technical paper, Dr Cl...
View on www.bethinking.org
Preview by Yahoo