i've been 'currently reading' this book for over a year now. i'll pick it up get very into it and then put it down for months.

Daniel Dennett is a brilliant explainer. He takes a blend of science and philosophy and makes it accessible to the casual (well, non-scientist) reader. He certainly does that in this book, though I can't claim to understand big chunks of his logic, for which I blame myself. (Since it's a book about personal freedom, autonomy, blame and responsibility, I could hardly hold him accountable for the concepts I didn't grasp!)

It isn't as entertaining or broadly appealing as "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," but "Freedom Evolves" is nevertheless a rewarding book. There is a lot to chew on here, on almost every page. It took me ages to read this--a page here and there, with weeks between--but the effort pays off.

If you are persuaded that we live in a deterministic universe, where free will is an illusion, this book very likely will change your opinion.

Or maybe not. Maybe it wasn't meant to be… ;)

A great review of the possibilities for free will from a purely physicalist perspective.

In regard to the (delayed?) thesis of this book, I remain unconvinced, yet also in a position where I’m not exactly sure of what it is I’m supposed to be convinced. The problem is that I felt rather out of my depth, so I’m not sure whether this is on my part of not having read some collection of prerequisite material that would have helped in my reading, or on the part of Dennett to not properly lay out his ideas to someone with (probably) enough education to understand them.

While I certainly see the appeal to Dennett’s move to push away from the traditional dichotomy between determinism and libertarianism and instead focus on how an idea and practice of freedom is something that occurred evolutionarily, I can’t help but feel as if Dennett has somewhat bracketed the discussion of the prior issues, leaving some (to me) important questions unanswered and issues unresolved. What it leaves me with is the idea that our conception of freedom is created through processes of natural selection via our capacity for learning and our access to language. However, I’m left with the uncomfortable feeling that even if our brains are designed to ‘weigh the options’ and, by focusing on some (evolutionary/self-furthering) end goal, ‘decide’ *for ourselves* what is best, we still, upon making a decision, have only done so based upon some sort of naturalistic (and often flawed, though this may be due to our environment, so it’s actually perfect given what we’ve given it) algorithm we have in our brains. So have we actually done anything? I guess this goes back to Dennett’s push to see “us” as the same as what our brain is doing - to him, it is no different - but I feel as if a discussion of linguistics and the internal monologue of our brains as a source of interaction with the non-verbal parts could have benefited his conclusions.

I’m left feeling unsatisfied and as if I missed at least one thing on every page. Would a CliffNotes site or a reading guide have helped? I guess you could say I haven’t decided.

Just because we don't know all the variables doesn't mean a dynamic system is magic. It's as good as the God of the Gaps argument.

This was a very dense book for me even as an audiobook. But I really enjoy the writing style of the author and his attempts to make the topic understandable and at times even entertaining. I held on long enough to be rewarded by Chapter 8 and following which contained my main reason for reading Dennett's book. The one missing start is for people like me, who could benefit from more of a formal introduction and summary for each chapter to stay engaged and follow along.

Deeply satisfying.
I like the way dennett builds up his arguments, if you pause and think, you can almost arrive at some uncanny conclusions yourself.
And the book is pretty open ended.

U knjizi Evolucija Slobode, filozof Danijel Denet jednim darvinističkim pristupom pokazuje kako determinizam uopšte nije onakav kakvim ga obično smatramo. Većina ljudi o ovoj temi razmišlja apsolutistički: ako je determinizam stvaran onda nemamo slobodnu volju i obrnuto, ako imamo slobodnu volju onda ništa nije predvidivo. Denet ovde pokazuje da je moguće i po malo od oba. Determinizam ne znači neizbežnost i ne znači potpuno određenu sudbinu. Čak se ispostavlja da determinisan svet često povećava našu slobodu jer možemo predvideti gde će nas udariti grom, na primer, i spasava nas haosa koji se dešava bez našeg uplitanja, bez naših slobodnih želja.
Sloboda je evoluirala zajedno s nama i tek je kod nas, uz razvoj kulture i jezika dostigla ono što danas smatramo slobodnom voljom a u budućnosti možemo očekivati i neke njene više nivoe.
Dopala mi se knjiga. Mene je ubedio u priličnoj meri.

"Trading in a supernatural soul for a natural soul—is this a fair bargain?" Dennett, seeking to fend off "caricatures of Darwinian thinking" that plague his philosophical camp, argues in this incendiary, brilliant, even dangerous book that it is. Picking up where he left off in Darwin's Dangerous Idea ( a Pulitzer and National Book Award finalist), he zeroes in on free will, a sticking point to the opposing camp. Dennett calls his perspective "naturalism," a synthesis of philosophy and the natural sciences; his critics have called it determinism, reductionism, bioprophecy, Lamarckianism. Drawing on evolutionary biology, neuroscience, economic game theory, philosophy and Richard Dawkins's meme, the author argues that there is indeed such a thing as free will, but it "is not a preexisting feature of our existence, like the law of gravity." Dennett seeks to counter scientific caricature with precision, empiricism and philosophical outcomes derived from rigorous logic. This book comprises a kind of toolbox of intellectual exercises favoring cultural evolution, the idea that culture, morality and freedom are as much a result of evolution by natural selection as our physical and genetic attributes. Yet genetic determinism, he argues, does not imply inevitability, as his critics may claim, nor does it cancel out the soul. Rather, he says, it bolsters the ideals of morality and choice, and illustrates why those ideals must be nurtured and guarded. Dennett clearly relishes pushing other scientists' buttons. Though natural selection itself is still a subject of controversy, the author, director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts, most certainly is in the vanguard of the philosophy of science.

A good book, a poignant book even, but not an altogether coherent book. Anyone familiar with Dennett will understand what he's getting at here, but it would be foolhardy to presume familiarity on the reader's behalf. That said, I'm at something of a loss to understand the strange circularity of this work though I suspect that Dennett may have found himself torn between two distinct manners of proving his provocative conjecture - either in the guise of a layman or in his natural role as a wiseman - and ended up choosing the awkward middle path between. This book is functionally sound (dare I say brilliant) but is felled by poor form.

Still a recommended read, though.

An absolute delight. I really loved the way the whole argument for the intentional stance was embodied in each chapter while giving the reader mounts of arguments and evidence about how the drivers of our cultural evolution has panned out.

There is something about the way Dennett argues that always gets me. It's beautiful, on point, and most of the time simply masterful. I think many of the bad reviews on this one are based on the assumption that his defense for the stance was a definitive answer. I also believe many people favors another kind of "argumentative strategy" when reading books on the subject or the likes. Dennett does not give a grandiose conclusion nor makes absolute claims throughout the book, instead it is full of provocative insights build upon what I think is a really well documented background. His whole conclusión Is even written in such a way that I believe one should feel inclined to at least look at the further reading proposed. Great experience overall.

Loved the reference to Dimonds guns, germs and steel. Lol

Dennett's virtue is that he looks at human behavior from an evolutionary perspective. His downside is his preoccupation with human choice as conscious, rational activity, ignoring the power that comes from millions of years of our animal past that guides choice. He looks at (freedom of) choice as "I want to do X" but not at the more relevant question, "why does one want to do X." The relevance of this type of re-formulation is that Dennett sees the future lying in our hands as rational animals, "reasoning together." That's one-half of our future. The other half is not trusting that reason alone is sufficient to preserve the social order. Dennett's title evokes promise but in the end he says little about freedom's evolution and why it occurred. He leaps from animals to man, saying we have it (freedom) and animals do not. Most know that. Dennett's other downside is that he goes over well-known ground, repeating what he and so many others have said before. It would be nice to see him new lines of thought.