Behold! Here's the first half of the opening chapter to my new book, "Fluke: Chance, Chaos, and Why Everything We Do Matters," which will be published in January 2024. You're the first to read it.
Being a recovering Catholic, I’ve never had “cause and effect “ drilled into me, rather the “invisible” hand of God, which I learned was what adults said when answers were elusive.
I’ve come to understand that there are more questions than answers, and learning to live a fully, vulnerable engaging life requires tremendous battle with the internal voice in the head that prefers, often demands, all things are to be made certain, thus propelling the illusion that we are in complete control of our fates.
Thank you for sharing the intro-already a very compelling read! Looking forward to reading your view!
Fascinating! Normally one would not know how paths not taken could affect the future. My father, a member of the Army Signal Corps stationed in Okinawa in WWII, would, in his view, quite likely have been killed had we not dropped the bombs, and I would not exist. In an instance where the outcome could definitely be known, a friend and his wife were scheduled to be on the flight that flew into the Pentagon on 9/11 but he had the good sense to have a heart attack instead, so they had to cancel their trip. There were so many instances of missed trains, canceled appointments, ill children home from school, that prevented people from being in the WTC that day.
A fascinating read, Brian; I already preordered the book and cannot wait to read it.
However, there is a small error in your “Fluke Preorder Promotion” at the bottom of the form; it says, “Where did you preorder Corruptible.” Of course, I am sure it meant to say "Fluke," but I understood what it meant either way, so no big deal.
Regardless, I can’t wait to read a cause-and-effect book from the perspective of a political scientist with your knowledge.
Love the opening and it will be a birthday present to myself! Oh, and Zorro’s endorsement is the best of the bunch! Hope you bring in animals and pets into the discussion somewhere.
Already pre-ordered, on the basis of I love your posts, and now waiting ever more eagerly. So far it fits perfectly with an argument I have been making more and more, particularly in relation to dogmatic pronouncements on the situation in Gaza/Israel. 'But it is also something I use to discuss free will. If I've already gone on about this on your page, forgive the repetition.
What you are describing is in law called "cause in fact." The example from my torts professor long ago was the man who tosses a match into a field, that catches fire. What caused the fire? We all say "the stupid guy." But in fact there are multiple causes: the weather that made the field dry, the guy who logged the tree that made the paper or wood that made the match, the guy who mined the Sulphur to make the match head, and on and on. Robert Sapolsky apparently argues (his book is on hold) that all these pre-determinant aspects of our lives, even at the genetic or molecular level, means we are "determined" to take our next act: there is no free will.
But in law, there is also something called "proximate cause" which takes a big chunk of a torts class to understand in all its complexity and applications. It boils down to: in deciding legal liability, you look to the "proximate" (usually the latest but not always) cause. It is a societal decision. The match flipper, not the logger, is held responsible for damages.
And thus with free will vs. determinism. We have made a societal decision that we make certain choices that have a moral import, as opposed to those that don't. Social convention decides when it is that someone has acted of their own "free" will with a resulting choice that has a result we decry, legally or morally. Thus the argument that lack of free will means we can't hold someone responsible for an act (he had an abusive childhood, his father's discipline led him to learn to tell convincing lies, it is all right to hit an annoying wife because well, she asked for it)--all this kind of argument doesn't stop society from saying "no, you made a choice, live with the consequences."
In other words, the whole argument about free will and determinism can be looked at as "As a practical matter, DOES the argument matter?"
I’m looking forward to my pre-order arriving!
Being a recovering Catholic, I’ve never had “cause and effect “ drilled into me, rather the “invisible” hand of God, which I learned was what adults said when answers were elusive.
I’ve come to understand that there are more questions than answers, and learning to live a fully, vulnerable engaging life requires tremendous battle with the internal voice in the head that prefers, often demands, all things are to be made certain, thus propelling the illusion that we are in complete control of our fates.
Thank you for sharing the intro-already a very compelling read! Looking forward to reading your view!
Fascinating! Normally one would not know how paths not taken could affect the future. My father, a member of the Army Signal Corps stationed in Okinawa in WWII, would, in his view, quite likely have been killed had we not dropped the bombs, and I would not exist. In an instance where the outcome could definitely be known, a friend and his wife were scheduled to be on the flight that flew into the Pentagon on 9/11 but he had the good sense to have a heart attack instead, so they had to cancel their trip. There were so many instances of missed trains, canceled appointments, ill children home from school, that prevented people from being in the WTC that day.
Excellent! Arrived here as a human through millennia of evolution and serendipity to enter another lottery :)
Great beginning. Thanks Brian (and Zorro - a resemblance to Douglas Fairbanks Sr.?)
Done. Ordered!
I’ve already preordered, too, and I’m so looking forward to having my brain twisted.
A fascinating read, Brian; I already preordered the book and cannot wait to read it.
However, there is a small error in your “Fluke Preorder Promotion” at the bottom of the form; it says, “Where did you preorder Corruptible.” Of course, I am sure it meant to say "Fluke," but I understood what it meant either way, so no big deal.
Regardless, I can’t wait to read a cause-and-effect book from the perspective of a political scientist with your knowledge.
Cheers!!!
Love the opening and it will be a birthday present to myself! Oh, and Zorro’s endorsement is the best of the bunch! Hope you bring in animals and pets into the discussion somewhere.
In Australia, just pre-ordered using our big online bookstore. Can’t wait 😊
Already pre-ordered, on the basis of I love your posts, and now waiting ever more eagerly. So far it fits perfectly with an argument I have been making more and more, particularly in relation to dogmatic pronouncements on the situation in Gaza/Israel. 'But it is also something I use to discuss free will. If I've already gone on about this on your page, forgive the repetition.
What you are describing is in law called "cause in fact." The example from my torts professor long ago was the man who tosses a match into a field, that catches fire. What caused the fire? We all say "the stupid guy." But in fact there are multiple causes: the weather that made the field dry, the guy who logged the tree that made the paper or wood that made the match, the guy who mined the Sulphur to make the match head, and on and on. Robert Sapolsky apparently argues (his book is on hold) that all these pre-determinant aspects of our lives, even at the genetic or molecular level, means we are "determined" to take our next act: there is no free will.
But in law, there is also something called "proximate cause" which takes a big chunk of a torts class to understand in all its complexity and applications. It boils down to: in deciding legal liability, you look to the "proximate" (usually the latest but not always) cause. It is a societal decision. The match flipper, not the logger, is held responsible for damages.
And thus with free will vs. determinism. We have made a societal decision that we make certain choices that have a moral import, as opposed to those that don't. Social convention decides when it is that someone has acted of their own "free" will with a resulting choice that has a result we decry, legally or morally. Thus the argument that lack of free will means we can't hold someone responsible for an act (he had an abusive childhood, his father's discipline led him to learn to tell convincing lies, it is all right to hit an annoying wife because well, she asked for it)--all this kind of argument doesn't stop society from saying "no, you made a choice, live with the consequences."
In other words, the whole argument about free will and determinism can be looked at as "As a practical matter, DOES the argument matter?"