[MD] Free Will

[david buchanan]

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.