There was an online discussion about free will, and then on the same day I saw this book at the library and picked it up. Synchronicity? No, Mistake!
There is this phenomena where, for some reason, the published writing about free will is in terribly bad. Pick up a random book or essay on the topic and odds are it will be ass. I think the reason for this is that people who get the correct answer on this subjet only need to write a few sentences, while people that aren't able to grapple with the idea need to write endless epicycles in order to try and make their ideas not so obviously wrong. The end result is sort of an extreme Sturgeon's Law, where the only people writing about the topic are the people who don't really engage with it, and just continually slip back into dualism in their attempts to think about the topic. That is what happens with this book: the author continually, implicitly assumes that there is some thing that is making decisions besides the brain. Anyway, obviously, DNF, I just thought the more general phenomena was interesting.