The Illusion of Determinism: Why Free Will Is Real and Causal (1)

I highly recommend this book as an excellent reference for anyone who is interested in basic questions such as the following:(a) What is the relation between the automatic aspects of man's consciousness and the non-automatic aspects (if any)?(b) Does man's consciousness have any non-automatic aspects? If so, are they random (hence, a type of automatic function) or "consciously controlled" (by one's own consciousness) somehow?(c) What is the relation between mind and brain? Does man's brain fully determine everything that man's mind does? If the brain is essential for the mind but doesn't fully control the mind, then what exactly are the limits of what the brain can do in man's consciousness, and exactly how does the brain make the mind possible?(d) If man's mind has no consciously self-controlled aspects, then what is the meaning of questions such as these? How could they be conceived and answered? How does man acquire knowledge on the conceptual level if he has no conscious self-control? How is objective science possible? Are scientists somehow super-human, like some special subspecies of humans in general? What could make them so? Which idea corresponds more closely to reality in all respects: the idea that objective scientists alone have the power of conscious self-control over their minds -- or the idea that everyone does?Chapters 2 and 8 provide a wealth of insights on the first two questions. The automatic areas of man's consciousness include sense perception; lightning-like emotional reactions to perceptual stimuli based on learned values subconsciously held; and other forms of rapid recall of previously learned ideas and practices retained subconsciously. The most fundamental, primary area of non-automatic, psychologically free choice is the conscious mental effort to use one's conceptual capacity (or not), and to use it purposefully or not, to identify and integrate (in conceptual terms) the material provided by man's senses. Chapter 8 (p. 89) explains: "Free will is based on the possession of the conceptual faculty, the uniquely human form of consciousness. <i>The fundamental choice is whether or not to use it, to raise one's level of focus to the conceptual level, the level of rational thought, or to let oneself remain at the automatic, sensory-perceptual level.</i>" Chapter 8 also explains how man knows this to be true, i.e., that it is an accurate description of a real phenomenon. The subconscious level does not operate entirely independently of the conscious level; the subconscious is responsive to questions and goals chosen consciously, potentially reinforcing and/or contrasting with conscious choices. Remaining out of "focus" generally means letting one's mind wander aimlessly, without purpose (or actively seeking to "summon the fog" in order to evade unwanted content without having to face it and resolve it at a deeper level).Chapters 1 and 6 deal with mind versus brain. How they relate to each other is an issue at the frontier of modern scientific study, which the book readily acknowledges; but the book also emphasizes very strongly that too many observers today wander far beyond the bounds of what their experimental data does or does not actually show when they propose that consciousness (especially conscious self-control) is an illusion -- an "epiphenomenal" effect of brain activity, having no causal efficacy apart from, and because of, antecedent brain activity. The book classifies such a view as a form of determinism, which the book defines as follows in the Introduction (p. 7): "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." The book repeatedly points out that views of this kind place their proponents in an untenable position. If it applies to the proponents as well as everyone else, then the proponents are contradicting themselves in the claim that they know determinism to be true; they can't know that if they, too, are "determined" to believe whatever they believe with no power to choose to examine their beliefs critically and attempt to validate them rationally. On the other hand, if they claim that they alone have free will and can question and validate their knowledge, then they are committing the logical fallacy of self-exclusion, which again places them in an anti-rational position. Chapter 7 discusses this fatal flaw in determinism at length.The book as a whole surveys the whole range of deterministic ideas about human consciousness, and also presents a thoroughly worked out and integrated alternative view based on the writings of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand and the philosophy of Objectivism which she originated, along with some independently developed insights by psychologist Albert Bandura. Both authors are explicitly acknowledged in the book's Preface.In answer to many readers who might wonder if a broad abstract debate about determinism versus free will is only a non-practical intellectual game of some kind for the amusement of academics, the Introduction emphasizes the thesis that the implications of accepting determinism over free will are momentous: "1. Without free will there could be no such thing as objective (actual) knowledge [and] 2. Without free will there could be no such thing as morality or a moral society." Regarding societies, in particular, the book points out numerous ways in which determinism fuels dictatorships of all kinds. Noteworthy passages on free will versus dictatorships include the section of Chapter 7 on "Determinism, Morality and Justice" (pp. 82-84), and pp. 87 and 100-101 in Chapter 8.

I really enjoyed the high level of intelligence in the writing.Locke does a good job of detailing how Determinism cannot be rationally affirmed.And also that if Determinism is true - then humans have no ability to know the truth-value of any proposition - since all human perception is determined by antecedent factors outside of the person's control.However, as Peter Van Inwagen would expect - when we get to the part of using logic to establish the truth-value of Libertarian Freedom - it becomes obvious the content of that presentation takes the form of repeated claims without empirical evidence.Personally this leaves me to once again agree with Van Inwagen that Libertarian Freedom also has its set of problems.But since the function of a rational choice between true vs false is essentially a Libertarian function ruled out by Determinism. And since our everyday cognitive experience is that we do have Alternative Possibilities that are real - and the ability to Do-Otherwise is experienced as real - one is left with two options.One remains dedicated to determinism - as for example Stephen Hawking - and proclaim one has to live *AS-IF* determinism is false. Or one resolves that Libertarian Freedom is the most viable and most cognitively intuitive reality.

This is an excellent, and clearly written, book on the philosophical concept of determinism. In philosophy (and in religion) there are ongoing debates over free will vs. determinism. Do we REALLY make choices or is everything pre-determined by our genetics and the physical environment we live in? This book refutes the case for determinism and clearly shows that what seems like a deterministic universe is really an illusion. Using philosophical arguments derived out of Objectivism, the discussion follows reason and logic to reach the conclusion that we do, indeed have free will.

I'm relatively new to the study of philosophy, but can recognize good arguments, and clear, concise logic when I see it. This book gives a fresh perspective on consciousness, and solid reasoning for choice and free will. The determinists seem to be telling us we are consigned to live and think without choice, creativity, or the ability to change one's life for the better. Nature, in other words, has conspired to have total control over our minds whether we know it or not. If you find yourself going down the wrong path in life, better get used to it....there's nothing you can do to change it. I don't buy that, and neither should you. Buy the book instead.

The author seems irritated at the idea of the necessity to defend what free will is and that it’s real. That having been said, this is mostly a worthwhile read. I just finished reading a book defending determinism and then read this one. I am no more convinced that free will is real than I previously was (I do believe it’s real) and I don’t necessarily believe this book helped me gain clarity on how to defend it (because my beliefs - and how I arrived at them - already aligned with the author’s, so there was nothing new - to me - in this writing), but I do think it would be worth reading for those who are questioning what they believe about it or who are themselves determinists and wish to better understand the view held by their opponents.

This is an entertaining and thought provoking short book on the classic argument of free will vs determinsim. Dr Locke provides compelling evidence to show that yes we do have free will. He starts by clarifying the concepts of free will and determinism and showing what free will consists of. His discussions on consciousness and emotions are illuminating, as well as the chapter on Self. These terms are all thrown around in various contexts but without firm definitions, and Dr Locke remedies this.Well worth the read and a great addition to an ongoing debate!

Author didn't even try to follow or understand most of the hard arguments presented by determinists. Content of the book is very basic, simplistic and doesn't take any interesting turns. If you are in the subject this is very basic even for a high school person."What causes you to think, to use reason? The answer is: you are the cause."Wow. But it gets worse than that. Most of the arguments and proofs are just like this; presented in a way that it's literally combinations of phrases like "because you are you", or "because you experience it", "because you choose it" and so on.For instance, author does choose to attack an old Libet's experiment which is not hard to debunk and was widely criticised as being inaccurate and had many flaws. The better and more reflective experiment would be experiment from 2008 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 quite definite and using modern technologies for measurement.All in all, There is nothing interesting here, author finally (accidentally) comes to a similar conclusion than that of Daniel Dennet which is a compatibilist - something the author wished to refute so diligently. I think it is due to author's misconception on how determinists really frame act of volition and will - there is no disagreement on decision making made by determinists.Avoid. Waste of time based on Ayn Rand's fallacious objectivism. It always goes like this: It is Objectively true because I said so as an individual! And other sings of grandiose. Low score given because of author's infallible belief in being scientifically right despite not having any solid proofs, just some weak hypotheses but backed by confidence not verifiable by science.

A great introduction to some of the ideas that show free will to be true and why any attempt to prove determinism results in failure.

Persausive and I learned a lot. Worth reading if you're at all interested in this kind of stuff. Good read.

Edwin Locke has written an excellent and to-the-point primer on why a causal explanation for what is commonly known as free will stands on rock solid ground. The illusion isn't free will, as so many determinists wrongly claim, he argues. The illusion is determinism. Dr. Locke makes the positive case for the primacy of free will on scientific and philosophic grounds, and shows how and where determinists go wrong in their fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of consciousness and denial that free will is axiomatic. High marks to Dr. Locke for writing a book that is clear, easy to read, and easy to follow. By sticking only to the essentials, he is able to keep the page count to about 120 pages. This is an excellent book for those new to the subject and those who want a refresher on a topic that continues to be controversial. It is also an excellent example of philosophical writing for real people.Barry Linetsky, author of Free Will, and The Business of Walt Disney and the Nine Principles of His Success.

Great book. Well written, easy to follow, logical arguments against determinism and for free will. The author shows how and to what extent we have volition and do indeed determine the course of our lives.