East of Eden (* * * * *)
Steinbeck, John
This novel was first published two years before I was born, and I have already crossed seventy. Therefore, it is certainly too late to say anything new about it now. All I can say is that I feel grateful to Steinbeck for writing something this touching and influential.
I am generally not fond of novels full of melodrama, coincidences, and characters that seem larger than life. So, why was I moved by this one? It is probably the same reason I am moved by many of the Russian classics - Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. Not because I can identify with the characters on a surface level, but because I resonate with them on a much deeper level.
There are some writers who can create characters who are not entirely realistic on the surface, but they manage to create a profound inner self that we can identify beyond time and space. Steinbeck achieves this in this multi-generational novel, where each character is complex and complete. They are by no means perfect, but their faults are timeless and universal. One can smell the inner aroma of each character, and it is the aroma of humanity that travels across geography and history. Our contemporary literature is far more skilled at capturing the realistic details, and I like that, but very few can make you feel so proud to be a member of this species, not because we are good, but because we strive to be so when we are not.
A central theme of the book is the glory of free will. Intellectually, I am in the camp that does not believe we are free. However, anyone who does not believe in free will would still admit that we have a strong illusion of having one. That is the biggest mystery about free will. Whether we believe it or not, we can't shake the belief that all our decisions come from some inner entity. Therefore, the characters in this novel that find divinity in our human existence because we choose are no different than me. We are compelled to believe in it, irrespective of what our rational brain might believe.
Apart from being such a compelling narrative, which I am sure most of you will enjoy, I strongly believe, like me, you will come out of this experience a little purer and a better human being.
Free Will (* * * * -)
Harris, Sam
This is a favorite topic of mine, and this book is a brief but clear overview of this complex and confusing question: do we have free will?
Sam Harris first tries to explain what exactly we mean by "free will" and what modern neuroscience has to say about it. Even though all scientific evidence questions its existence and shows that deeper mental processes lead to our conscious actions, which in turn are caused by other mental processes or external factors, it is impossible for us to believe that we do not have complete agency. In other words, we all must believe that there is an inner self and an internal "me" that is making all the decisions. So the big question is, what internal mechanism or evolutionary process creates such a grand illusion?
This book is a good introduction to this issue. It also spends time on a related issue -- if we do not have agency, can we be blamed for anything we do?
If any of these questions intrigue you, then this is a good place to start.
Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain (* * * * -)
Gazzaniga, Michael S.
As you can tell, I am going through a "free will" phase. While Sam Harris' "Free Will" provided a brief, broad introduction, this book delves deeper into how the brain creates the mind. This is essential to form a deeper understanding of the question of free will.
Ultimately, our brain is a decision-making organ, and all of our external actions are driven by it. The brain uses external clues obtained by our sense organs, it reads the state of our body, it is influenced by our past experiences, and processes all these to generate the next action. Therefore, it is impossible to think that all these factors had nothing to do with our final actions, rather some internal "me" is making all the decisions. Also, so far, there is no scientific evidence of a specific seat for this "me" in our brain.
Instead, the author describes how our mind is created by a very large number of competing and independent brain mechanisms. Yet, there is a part of the brain that generates a cohesive story for our conscious mind and hides all of this subconscious chaos. The mind is viewed as an emergent phenomenon. It is this process that provides the most convincing explanation of why we believe we have free will.
Determined: Life Without Free Will (* * * * -)
Sapolsky, Robert M.
This is not my first book that debates this fundamental and essential question, and it will probably not be the last. I have heard the arguments from both sides. Until a few decades ago, it was tough to argue against what we all feel within ourselves: that we make our own choices and decisions and are, therefore, responsible for all the bad things we do and earn praise for all the good.
There is overwhelming evidence that questions this position, which has only been gathering in the last few decades. It comes from experimental neuroscience, genetic research, physics, and other branches of science. The author has gathered all this evidence in a single narrative, sequentially examined all the arguments for the existence of free will, and dismantled them one by one. His arguments are strong and are not based on philosophical wordplay but on experimental results and logical deductions.
Let's take the example of someone pulling the trigger of a gun. The immediate cause of this is the triggering of the finger muscles. Then one must ask what caused that neuronal signal, and you will eventually reach the motor control section of the brain. Neuron by neuron, we will discover antecedent causes that make a neuron fire. It is a long chain of events—no neuron fires by itself. The causes can be the levels of various chemicals flowing through our body and the brain moments before the event. It could be events that happened a few minutes, hours, or days ago. The action of the neurons can be traced back to one's entire life, childhood, and even in fetal conditions. It does not just stop there. Genetic factors can be inherited, or cultural factors can affect the behavior of neurons in our brains. These millions of variables generate each of our behaviors in incredibly complex ways. As with all complex systems, like the weather, it is not predictable or deterministic, like the movement of planets, but it is still the emergent result of physical laws.
After making the case that there is no free will, he then focuses on why we still believe it does. In fact, at a personal level, even the author cannot accept that he should not pay for the evil deeds and get rewarded for all the good things.
Finally, he explores the possibility of a society where we no longer believe in free will and the immediate consequences of that in our criminal justice system and societal reward mechanisms. There is no question that some people will still need to be isolated from the rest of society, but the question is, should it be with a sense of retribution or just safety? We remove a car with a faulty brake from the road, but we don't question the car's moral character. Even if everyone is convinced of the absence of free will, can we really change our deep feelings? Could we ever give up the belief that we should be credited for whatever successes we have achieved?
The author also questions the term "free" in free will. Freedom from what? To quote the author -- "We don't want to be free from our experience of life, we need that for our decisions. We don't want to be free from our temperament because that also guides our decisions. We actually don't want to be free from causation, we use that for predictions. A receiver trying to catch a football does not want to be free from all the automatic adjustments that his body is making to maintain his speed and trajectory as he dodges tackles. We don't want to be free from our successfully evolved decision-making device." While we pride ourselves on having free will, we actually don't want anyone else to possess it. We want our taxi driver to take us exactly where we want to go, and not where their "free will" might want.
The author also delves into the question of free will and responsibility as they pertain to law and punishment. This discussion makes it clear that, no matter what science may say about the illusion of free will, as a society, we are far from truly accepting it.
Departure[s] (* * * * -)
Barnes, Julian
After an astounding writing career, this is Julian Barnes' self-proclaimed last novel. Is it really his last? I hope not. This book hovers somewhere between a novel, memoir, and essays. It tells the story of Stephen and Jean and their two relationships, separated by twenty years. However, the glue that keeps the book together is the author's stream of thought and commentary about getting old and facing mortality.
A few years ago, I read his meditations on mortality in 'Nothing to be Frigtened of', and for the first time I felt comfortable with my own aging. Actually, 'comfortable' is not the correct word, as it is impossible to accept one's non-existence. Our subjective universe exists because we exist. But he allowed me to truly accept the fact that the universe does not care. The universe does what it does, purposeless, amoral, and meaningless. Yet, we feel burdened by the compulsion to find meaning. That is the greatest human tragedy.
In this book, the same thoughts are presented in more intimate settings. They feel more real, as the author is dealing with his wife's death and his own cancer. The author wins out in the end because he does not let age and disease control his sense of humor. He does not allow the illusion of self-importance to dominate his thoughts. He does not do it as a heroic figure, but matter-of-factly.
If you are beyond your youth and your middle age, this is an essential read to properly orient your mind. It is a perfect example of how to talk about death without morbidity. It is a book that may teach you how to take yourself less seriously. But it is also a book about love.
Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting (* * * - -)
Dennett, Daniel C.
Those who follow my reading preferences should by now have figured out that I have a bias towards certain types of thinkers. Daniel Dennett is certainly in that small group of people. So far, everything I have read by him has influenced my thinking, and most often I have had to agree with his well-reasoned arguments. This book is the first departure from that pattern.
Written in 1984, more than forty years ago, this was his attempt to argue against the evolving view of most scientists, who started to question the existence of free will. Like most philosophers of that time, he was not ready to give up the notion that we have an inner mechanism that gives us the conscious agency to make our own decisions and, as a consequence, that we are responsible for our good deeds and bad.
Unlike many of his peers, he was not willing to assume any non-material spirit that makes us our free will. His approach was far more rational and scientific. Yet he simply could not let go of the notion, mainly because he felt that accepting a deterministic view of the world would result in terrible nihilism, in which people believing in it would stop doing anything because what is to happen will happen, irrespective of what we want. That, to me, is a strange way to discover truth. The consequences should not affect what is true.
He went wrong on two things. One, he confused "determined" with "predictable". There are innumerable examples of complex behavior in which each step of the process is fully determined, yet long-term predictions are impossible. That is, in such systems, one cannot find a formula in which plugging in a time value yields a future state. One must calculate each next step to determine a future state of the system. Now we know most things in the world behave like that -- weather, economy, biology, and our brain. Every action we take is caused by some neurons firing. However, these neurons fired because other neurons had fired earlier. There is always a prior cause. Nothing happens without a prior cause. These systems are determined, but far from being totally predictable.
Two, he came close to the biggest mystery about free will, but did not take the next step: not whether we have it, but that, no matter what we believe intellectually, we cannot not believe it exists. That is, we all believe we are the masters of our minds. So, the big question is, why did evolution create such a belief system? Even scientists whose life's work is to disprove free will cannot honestly say they don't feel they are the masters of their decisions. There are many thoughts about it, but the common thread is that unless we believe in ultimate agency, the whole system would collapse. We will have no desire to do the right thing or avoid doing wrong. Therefore, as a societal mechanism, a belief in free will is essential.
Now I started reading another book he wrote on the subject, twenty years later. I am eager to know how his thinking evolved.
RSS Feed