That is some really heavy-handed cherrypicking to justify an opinion. The entire concept is nonsense, summed up in one sentence: This book … is both about th

That is some really heavy-handed cherrypicking to justify an opinion. The entire concept is nonsense, summed up in one sentence: This book … is both about the science of why there is no free will and the science of how we might best live once we accept that First of all, if you have no free will, then it doesn't matter how you live, or want to live, or try to live, because you aren't in control. Right off the bat we can stop reading. But more than that, this suggests that you can decide how you live, despite not having free will. So what's the point of free will? Practically speaking there must be no point, so there's no point to this book. Second, the definition of "free will" is always subjective, because the concept is imaginary. There is no such thing as "will". It's a word used to describe the resulting actions which can be derived from a biological being's desire to act. It's not an action in itself, nor a physical thing; it's metaphysical. It's nonsense humans made up, like morality, ethics, right and wrong, God, etc. And the "freeness" of this imaginary concept is, again, subjective, based on what constitutes "freedom" to you. So what you consider to be "free will" is different than what I consider it. And even if we came to the same conclusion, it still doesn't matter, because you can't eat metaphysics. Third, like the second, is that how we might "best live" is again subjective and based on not just ethics, but practical considerations. How you "best live" is gonna be different from someone halfway around the world. Even if you have free will, your form of "living" is subjective. Science really has nothing to do with this discussion other than to provide the tailoring for this Emperor's new clothes. If you want to talk about living well, or free will, just make anything up you want. It will have the same validity.