Freedom Evolves

Dennett throws logic out the window 2010-06-30

Reviewer: G. Kuban

Dennett has really blown in this time. His attempt to save Fee Will from the implications of determinism (or a combination of mechanism and quantum theory) is shallow and based on a faulty semantic argument about supposedly avoidable or "evitable" events. He seems to miss the important point (among others) that we can perceive things to be avoidable that in retrospect were really determined (or at best random), even though his own previous works made careful distinctions between appearances/illusion and reality/evidence. Indeed, his pun-based syllogism about avoidable events is almost as bad as the old Abbot and Costello routine, where (if I recall correctly) Abbot tells C that he can prove he is not here. A: Am I in New York? C: "No." A: Am I in Boston? C: "No." A: "Then I must be somewhere else, right?" C: "Right." A: "Well, if I am somewhere else, then obviously I cannot be here." Seriously, if you carefully read Dennett's arguments, is lapse in logic is virtualy that bad. Indeed, his earlier book Consciousness Explained destroys his current argument. There he argued that there is no "ghost in the machine" --no mind or soul that makes decisions separate from our brain and other physical events and factors. But that means that every thought is caused by previous physical events, which in turn are caused by previous ones, and so on. Said another way, without an 'agent' or soul independent of the brain, no true free will can exist--only the appearance or illusion of it. And as he himself admits, introducing quantum randomness does not rescue Free Will; at best it just introduces an element of randomness. So logically all our thoughts and decisions must be either determined or random. It astounds me that someone who has made significant and convincing arguments about consciousness and other subjects cannot grasp this, or see how illogical and inconsistent he is being this time. I suspect political or personal factors may have made it hard for him, just as it seems to be for many others (even many scientists and philosophers) to abandon the notion of free will, due to its far reaching implications. I too would prefer that true free will exists, and can be made compatible with logic, science, and evidence, but if so, it will require arguments different and more sound than those Dennett makes.

Important information 2010-04-28

Reviewer: Israel Drazin

The scientist Daniel C. Dennett is an unbeliever who investigates and explains human affairs in a scientific manner. In Freedom Evolves, he addresses the ancient question whether people really have the freedom the make decisions in a world that has so much control over their bodies and minds. He answers yes, and shows how the ability to think evolved and, while doing so, shows also how moral concepts developed.
Should religious people listen to atheists? The simple answer is "yes," everyone can make a contribution to help others and society. The first British chief rabbi of pre-Israel Palestine put it this way: Jewish law only allowed the high priest and no other to enter the most holy place in the ancient Temple. Yet workman, even those who did not believe in God, could enter at any time to make repairs. So, too, he said, atheists have much to teach and repair us.

Good, but not great 2010-03-20

Reviewer: Bri

Freedom Evolves is the third book I've read by Daniel Dennett, but also my least favorite. Chapter two could have been been more in-depth, and I was hoping subsequent chapters would explain in more detail his position that inevitability is different than determinism. It isn't that his explanations were inadequate, they just seemed incomplete. I think readers would have benefited if chapter two were divided, or expanded, to make the main claim of the book more lucid.

Every chapter is crammed with information, and can often be a lot to digest. Readers with little to no exposure to philosophical or evolutionary thinking will find this book challenging. Nevertheless, I often basked in Dennett's enthusiasm for evolutionary theory, as presented in chapter five. Moreover, his discussions on the prisoner's dilemma, memetics, and evolutionary stable strategies were pure gold.

Freedom Evolves requires some background knowledge in logic, without which one will need a lot of persistence. I found the chapters well-researched, and one of the best parts of the book was its plethora of resources and suggested readings. On the other hand, Dennett is often verbose, and some readers may find it taxing to get through his digressions before finally learning how they connect to the book's overall scheme.

If one understands Dennett's position in chapter two, then the progression of the book is quite good, slowly exposing readers to his ideas. However, if chapter two seems difficult to comprehend, the rest of the book may seem to drag. Thus, anyone considering this book might want to consider reading chapters one and two before purchasing.

Overall, Freedom Evolves is a good book, but may be challenging for the unprepared reader. For those individuals with more sophisticated backgrounds in philosophy and evolution, this book is a good means to understanding one of the many naturalistic arguments for free will.

can freedom go beyond horizon? 2009-04-01

Reviewer: M. Azizoglu

Dennett is using the analogy that free will is like atmosphere and that how it has evolved to support the life on earth is associated with free will (our free will started journey as infant and is still growing up). He is also comtemplating on determinism using sort of simulation logic. so far so good, but some arguments have been employed over and over from his previous books(like game theory..etc), as if Dennett feels obliged to put forth the same computer generated,IT like matters to convince readers. It would rather be more convincing if he used more philosophical arguments.

Well Done Dennett 2008-10-07

Reviewer: Benaiah Edwards

This book does a magnificent job of presenting the idea of freedom in a mathematical format that simply cannot be refuted. Are we determined mechanisms in a determined universe? Dennet says yes. But he argues effectively that this does NOT mean that we are fatally doomed to any particular future. He says that we are as free in our will as we could ask to be, and the reason is that so much is determined! Our nature allows so much to take part in our decisions that it ultimately gives us control; any other way, and we'd be simply be response mechanisms. What a brilliant argument he presents in this masterpiece!