The book by Robert Sapolsky sounds like a good read but not a particularly innovative one. The 3 sections seem to me to divide into:
1. A discussion of compatibilist vs non compatibilist from the viewpoint of a non compatibilist. This always seems fairly pointless to me. The difference is semantic and seems tk be more about what makes you feel good.
2. Looking at whether complexity can give rise to something like 'freedom'. The reviewer doesn't give the definition of freedom and it feels to me as if they are taking the compatibilist position. Given I think that's just semantic, the disagreement seems minimal, and the discussion pointless since no matter the science discussed it's built on a presumption of determined and/or randomness
3. What we would do if we stopped believing in free will. This just approaches the idea as if we had free will of some sort. It's an intellectual mess, and not that interesting.
https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2024/01/15/book-review-determined-life-without-free-will/
