Sam Harris Free Will Analysis

In the book Free Will by Sam Harris he explains what he believes free will is actually compared to what others state it is. He states that free will is just an illusion and no one had any control of the kind of life they would be born into which means no one could control the person they would turn out to be due to preceding factors. Eddy Nahmias goes on to explain that Harris theory about free will is completely wrong and that people do not need the impossible to achieve free will. The theory behind free will can be theorized different ways.

In Sam Harris’s book Free Will he argues his theory of what he believes free will is in that free will is impossible to achieve and our minds decide what are actions are going to be before we even know what we are going to do. In the book he states “This morning, it was coffee(two). Why not tea? I am in on position to know. I wanted coffee more than I wanted tea today, and I was free to have what I wanted. Did I consciously choose coffee over tea? No. The choice was made

for me by the events in my brain.” This quote means that even though he wanted coffee over tea this morning his subconscious made the decision before he came to realization. He later states that if scientists with a perfect neuroimaging device were to monitor the brain of a patient in the lab doing regular activities, the scientist would be to know what the patient was going to do before they knew themselves. According to the statements made by Sam Harris free will is an impossible and no one has control over themselves and instead the brain chooses what actions the person will act upon.
In the critical review made against Harris’s book by Eddy Nahmias, he goes on to state that Harris’s theory of free will being impossible is false and Harris does not provide any evidence of it being true other than “the popular conception of free will.” Nahmias goes on to explain that Harris ignores the arguments of philosophy and compatibilism which does not support Harris’s belief of free will is. Nahmias then defends the statement Harris made about his New York Times article saying that “these phenomena have nothing to do with free will.” by explaining how he has done experimental work on free will and not worked just from an armchair and justifies that if a brain scanner was used to predict the actions of people, the vast majority did not take such actions based on the brain waves. He states that on some aspects he does agree with Harris in that what people think about free will is an important concept. Nahmias believes that Harris’s statements are mostly false and that free will does not exist and no one has control over the actions that he or she performs.
In the article from Eddy Nahmias, Nahmias goes on to critique Harris’s book Free Will and stating many of the points that Harris makes are unsupportive and do not make any sense. Harris’s definition of free will is that it is impossible, illusion, and that a person’s actions are pre-determined by the brain before the event takes place and they have no control over what they do. He explains how a man murdered a woman for no reason but it is not his fault due to him not having free will over the situation. Nahmias explains that free will is possible and has been supported by evidence done by research. Nahmias does a good job of disproving the arguments Harris states in his book. His statements against Harris are backed by evidence supporting it while Harris does not provide much proof that his theory is true other than stating what he believes is the truth. Nahmias states that instead of looking at free will not existing at all, look at it as though there are levels to it.
In the book Free Will by Sam Harris he describes that free will is “just an illusion” and impossible to achieve in that a person’s actions are determined before a they are aware of what they are going to do.

He states that if you want something like food and you have to decide between two different items your brain chooses the item before you know which one you want. Harris also explains on how criminals should be looked at differently due to they do not have free will and instead are just performing actions due to prior events. Nahmias explains in his article everything that is wrong with Harris’s book in that free will is possible and is backed up by evidence that has been performed in experiments. He explains that Harris’s explain of free will just can not be said and has to be backed by supporting evidence. Nahmias also explains that science is in the early stages of free will and as more research is done to better understand the theory of free

will.