Decided: A Science of Life With out Free Will
$0.99
Worth: $0.99
(as of Nov 24, 2024 23:21:52 UTC – Particulars)
The moment New York Occasions bestseller
“Glorious…Excellent for its breadth of analysis, the liveliness of the writing, and the depth of humanity it conveys.”–Wall Road Journal
One in every of our nice behavioral scientists, the bestselling writer of Behave, plumbs the depths of the science and philosophy of decision-making to mount a devastating case towards free will, an argument with profound penalties
Robert Sapolsky’s Behave, his now traditional account of why people do good and why they do dangerous, pointed towards an unsettling conclusion: We might not grasp the exact marriage of nature and nurture that creates the physics and chemistry on the base of human conduct, however that doesn’t imply it doesn’t exist. Now, in Decided, Sapolsky takes his argument all the best way, mounting a superb (and in his inimitable manner, pleasant) full-frontal assault on the nice fantasy that there’s some separate self telling our biology what to do.
Decided presents a wonderful synthesis of what we learn about how consciousness works—the tight weave between purpose and emotion and between stimulus and response within the second and over a life. One after the other, Sapolsky tackles all the most important arguments at no cost will and takes them out, reducing a path by way of the thickets of chaos and complexity science and quantum physics, in addition to touching floor on a few of the wilder shores of philosophy. He exhibits us that the historical past of medication is in no small half the historical past of studying that fewer and fewer issues are any individual’s “fault”; for instance, for hundreds of years we thought seizures have been an indication of demonic possession. But, as he acknowledges, it’s very laborious, and at instances not possible, to uncouple from our zeal to guage others and to guage ourselves. Sapolsky applies the brand new understanding of life past free will to a few of our most important questions round punishment, morality, and residing effectively collectively.By the tip, Sapolsky argues that whereas residing our each day lives recognizing that we’ve got no free will goes to be monumentally troublesome, doing so is just not going to end in anarchy, pointlessness, and existential malaise. As an alternative, it is going to make for a way more humane world.
*This audiobook features a downloadable PDF containing Tables, Charts, Diagrams, and Footnotes from the e book.
PLEASE NOTE: While you buy this title, the accompanying PDF can be obtainable in your Audible Library together with the audio.
Prospects say
Prospects discover the e book attention-grabbing, partaking, and spectacular. Opinions are combined on whether or not the e book is thought-provoking, with some discovering it compelling and well-researched, whereas others say it is unnecessarily detailed. Readers additionally disagree on the pacing, with some discovering it well-written and readable, whereas others describe it as incoherent and irritating.
AI-generated from the textual content of buyer opinions
123321 –
A must-read for those who want to get closer to truth, wherever it leads
One of the most radical, thought-provoking, moving, poignant, and viscerally haunting books about the human condition I’ve ever read.I don’t know if Sapolsky is correct that humans have no free will whatsoever–it’s his philosophical interpretation of scientific facts and he admits philosophy is not his strong suit–but he makes a damn strong and formidable case not only for no free will but for the abolition of the criminal justice system, discarding the very notions of blame and praise, etc. and what might replace that.I think this book will make anyone a more compassionate and less judgemental person just having had to wrestle with Sapolsky’s arguments and all the scientific facts gathered (and he says most of the studies he cites are from the past 5 years, and he cites a lot).For some, it will probably induce an existential crisis and challenge core beliefs that many people take for granted. Sapolsky himself approaches this with humor trying not to be too depressing and heavy, but also seriousness, he admits where he thinks he could be wrong and he struggles to wrestle with all he’s learned and come to believe about the nature of the universe and our place in it in his many years as a scientist and professor (and before), and the book gets very emotional near the end with Sapolsky talking about his family members killed in the Holocaust, struggling with his own feelings of hate, experiences working with defense attorneys and their clients, etc.The book is chock-full of science but at its core it’s a professor, seeing himself as nothing more or less than another cog in a vast machine, but with a heart that cries out for humans to be more understanding of one another and society to be more just, even if that seems impossible. He himself is aware of the paradox in that and ponders it. And he’s both cynical and very hopeful and optimistic. We used to burn witches, now we don’t. We used to think people with schizophrenia and epilepsy were possessed by demons, now we don’t. Each time subtracting responsibility and focusing on addressing root causes of behavior made society kinder. It’s very political, and I suspect for a long time it’s going to be hard to think about politics again without thinking about this book.That all said, my only major critique is that I feel like looking at the objective facts of “all we are and do is heavily influenced by all that came before and we are built of components that work like machines” and concluding “there’s no room for humans to have any control or agency whatsoever” is a philosophical jump that’s unwarranted. Sapolsky makes a good and sincere case for why he thinks it is warranted, but I think he’s not taking seriously enough what the role of consciousness might be. It seems to me if we have any agency or control consciousness would absolutely be key to that. Ironically, I feel like reading this book gave me more agency, in that knowing all the science and arguments within about constraints on human behavior enables me to make better choices (not to judge someone, to be more patient with them, to be more understanding, for example).I’m “agnostic” on this topic (and about to read Kevin Mitchell’s book arguing the opposite), but it seems to me that humans may still have some small level of control. Like, maybe “free will” is more akin to us being on a raft hastily made by people who had no idea it was supposed to last a lifetime… And we may only have one arm, but we also have a little paddle to change our trajectory ever so slightly and pew pew gun to shoot any monsters that may pop out and menace us along the way. Food for thought!But this book is a clear 5-stars. Any disagreement shouldn’t take away from that. Worth reading and owning.
Mayo –
Will blow your mind and be good for you and us
Sapolsky does it again. A very thorough distillation of the science and philosophy of free will. Takes very complex ideas and puts them in an interesting and digestible format. I think if everyone on earth were to read and understand this book, our current society and our future as a species would benefit immeasurably.
J. D. JANSEN –
Turtles all the way down
Robert Sapolskyâs âDetermined: A Science of Life Without Free Willâ attempts to show that behavior is completely determined and that there is no free will. His major purpose in writing this book is to advocate for a lack of credit or blame for our actions. So if you graduated from a well-respected university with a doctorate in neuroscience or ended up shooting strangers at a church, both are the result of your genetics, fetal environment, past experiences and what happened âone second, one minute, one hour, etc. agoâ.The writing style is relatively engaging. Dr Sapolsky tends to be very humorous even though he is dealing with difficult topics. He also has a David Foster Wallace-like penchant for footnotes, some of which are important and some irrelevant or annoying (in one footnote he quotes an incorrect Bible verse and then makes an inaccurate snarky comment about theology). Even though I may disagree with his conclusions, the book is engaging reading, and I believe it is an important topic, as the consequences for society if there is truly no free will are important.Throughout the book Dr Sapolsky wants to have it both ways. At the beginning of the book he offers a scenario of a college graduate versus the janitor cleaning up at the graduation, and surmises how each person got to that point. But he knows statistically, there is probably a graduate who had a life just as rough as the janitor but still managed to be a college graduate. And there is also a college graduate, who despite every advantage in life will end up running a massive cryptocurrency fraud. Late in the book he tells the story of a prisoner who has a brother that is CEO of a company, which Dr Sapolsky related to the brother being skilled at basketball which lead to a scholarship, which lead to business opportunities. We are meant to believe that no where along the way did either of them have any meaningful input into the outcome. Regarding schizophrenia he rejects the âoverbearing motherâ explanation, but then states that only 50% is genetic. So the other 50% is environmental, including the environment created by the parents.Also, I think he does not go far enough in how to design a society without free will. I understand his purpose is to advocate for more humane forms of criminal justice ( more like taking a car with faulty brakes off the road, rather than the current system of making the consequences of crime really unpleasant). In a chapter about how change happens, he states that âwe donât change our minds, Our minds⦠are changed by the circumstances around usâ Most people would agree with the second statement, so shouldnât we be designing societies where people are less inclined to commit crimes in the first place? Doesnât part of that involve âcorrectionsâ for undesirable behaviors? And in a free society who decides what behaviors are undesirable? Outside of criminal justice, what do parenthood, education, government and economics look like in a world without free will?
Daniel Marc Reicher –
A neuroscientist may convince you that whatever you think is determined by your biological mechanism and has nothing to do with you thinking that you have free choice.
Axel –
You cannot change, is what Sapolsky says. You ARE changed by input. And certainly, once you let this theory sink in, it provokes some fresh thoughts, about society, about morals, about yourself. Also a perfect present for intelligent friends.
Wolf –
Este autor escribe genial, estés de acuerdo o no es fabuloso, riguroso y muy prudente en sus afirmaciones, respaldando sus deducciones y opiniones es estudios exhaustivos.
PS –
This is a comprehensive and highly readable account of the innumerable causes of decisions and actions. Sapolsky’s many digressions are always interesting. A highly informative, thought-provoking, and enjoyable read. Definitely recommended.Two critical comments:I think Sapolsky misunderstands the philosophical position known as compatibilism, which claims that determinism and free will are compatible: If a person’s actions are caused by their desires and beliefs (which are themselves caused), that is sufficient to say that they acted freely, and are responsible for their action. ‘Free’ will is free from coercion, not free from causation. Compatibilism may be mistaken, but Sapolsky’s insistence that desires and beliefs are themselves determined, which compatibilism acknowledges, does not refute it.Sapolsky argues that free will, in the sense of freedom from causation, does not exist, and so blame and retributive punishment are unjustifiable. But humans have evolved to enjoy punishment of others, so he is pessimistic that most people could ever give up ideas of fee will, blame, and punishment. However, the rewarding feelings that people get from punishment of others presuppose the idea of blame. Once blame was subtracted from conditions such as epilepsy (Sapolsky’s example), people no longer had rewarding feelings about harming epileptics. So, if people were convinced to relinquish ideas of free will and blame generally, they would no longer find harming dangerous people to be rewarding. So, perhaps Sapolsky is too pessimistic about the possibility of acceptance of the quarantine response to dangerous people.
Barbara Ilardo –
La lettura è impegnativa, non mentirò. Leggo poche pagine la sera prima di crollare, forse sbaglio io.Seguo le lezioni e conferenze di Sapolsky online da anni, mi piace molto il suo stile narrativo e posso confermare che scrive esattamente come parla.