How can I express this so that you'll agree? I don't think I
can: David Eagleman, who I respect highly and is absolutely
amazing at what he does, suffers from a fatal flaw when he steps
outside of his territory. Think: How would a neuroscientist view
the world? Is there room for free will in a neuroscience point
of view? Their purpose is to deconstruct internal systems and
answer all of it. If they don't have all of the answers now,
they presume they will someday. From this lens, there is no room
for free will. He *can't* see free will from his perspective,
especially as deeply invested as he is in it. To do so would
admit "there's something we just don't know about". No room for
that in his field. I don't know how better to explain that. ==
From a pure neuroscience point of view, there can be no free
will. Dennet is rather clear on his separation of his
neuroscience and his philosophy. Dennet identifies as a
neuroscientist AND a philosopher. Eagleman came up with
possibilianism - which is nice and all - but I don't think he
particular identifies himself - or is identified as a
philosopher per se. He's primarily a neuroscientist and a writer
(and speaker and sits on many boards... and makes TV shows...
and does a whole lot of fascinating stuff). In short, in the
philosophy dept, he's kinda weak. He's strong in a lot of other
places. He more of a pure neuroscientist. Dennet, also a
neuroscientist but ALSO philosopher. This doesn't mean that
Dennet is 'more right' than Eagleman in their respective
philosophies. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that, embedded
more strongly in his point of view (in my opinion) as
neuroscientist, it's not surprising that he ended up with a
no-free-will stance. == I'll say this though: You're on the
winning team. Whether right or wrong, you're riding the stronger
wave here and it will become the dominant one. What happens
after that? I honestly don't know. == It's a little scary to me
that you can't see the dangers in a "no free will" stance for a
society. ==
