Ian said to Steve:
I'm a big fan of Sam Harris too, but his recent stuff he was touting round the
speaking circuit based on his latest book was ill informed on the brain-science
aspects, where he is no expert. His reductionism was too "greedy" to coin a
Dennett term.
Steve replied:
Harris actually has a phD in neuroscience, so he actually is an "expert" when
it comes to brain science. What position(s) does he hold that he regards as
greedy reductionism?
dmb says:
Right. Harris is a neuroscientist. It wouldn't be wrong to call him an expert.
In the case I mentioned, Churchland's criticism of Harris's crude reductionism
was given in the context of a discussion of her own book on the connections
between neurology, evolution and morality. I mean, she is working in the same
ball park as Harris AND is she is often criticized as being a reductionist.
(You might recall that she and her husband both took a lot of heat for a
speculative position known as "eliminative materialism".)
Ian also said:
But again, I still can't see what you and dmb are actually disagreeing about
when it comes to free-will.
dmb says:
It's actually a very trivial dispute but it seems to be destroying the
conversation all the same.
It's actually a dispute about whether or not the term "free will" means
something so specific that we cannot rightly use the term while talking about
the MOQ's conception of one's freedom. I don't even use the term all the much
but Steve is quite insistent about enforcing this ban all the same. I think
this insistence is a pointless distraction based on nothing but Steve's chip.
You know, the one he keeps on his shoulder. He is enforcing this ban against
the advice of the Stanford encyclopedia, which says...
"It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will since in
the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably no single
concept of it. For the most part, what philosophers working on this issue have
been hunting for, maybe not exclusively, but centrally, is a feature of agency
that is necessary for persons to be morally responsible for their conduct."
In fact, Steve insists on defying both of these points. He insists on a very
strict definition, one that carries metaphysical baggage that's incompatible
with the MOQ and, against the second sentence, he insists that human agency is
NOT necessary for persons to be morally responsible. As you may have noticed,
Steve is unmoved by this sound and simple evidence against his assertions.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
