Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ReaperX24 t1_j8id42h wrote

Reply to comment by Devinology in “The principle of protecting our own thinking from eavesdroppers is fundamental to autonomy.” – Daniel Dennett debates the sort of free will it’s worth wanting with neuroscientists Patrick Haggard and philosopher Helen Steward by IAI_Admin

> He doesn't understand that his conception of free will is a layman's conception, and that philosophers have long ditched that.

Hate to say it, but you need to actually look into his stuff before spewing such nonsense. One of his main complaints is that compatibilists arbitrarily redefine free will. He feels that this counterproductive.

Philosophers don't [always] philosophise just for the sake of philosophising. In the case of free will, the practical outcome of the conversation is of paramount importance.

2

Devinology t1_j8qshsr wrote

I've read a bunch of his material, including one of his books on this very topic. I'm well versed in the topic.

Your description is just a different way of saying what I've said. Harris is assuming a particular definition of free will that is simply false. It's a very naive conception that doesn't have anything to do with free will. I don't mean that in a rude way, it's a definition that most people who haven't studied and contemplated this stuff much at all might have. The difference with Harris is that he actually thinks he knows better when in fact he doesn't understand the philosophy involved at all. Nobody is redefining it, they're just better understanding what it actually is. What Harris is doing is counterproductive because he's just effectively repeating that "free will means having control over reality" over and over without making any good arguments for why that's a good way to conceive of free will. He's not reconciling the phenomenology and intuition with the science.

2

ReaperX24 t1_j8qv8zr wrote

I could attempt to marshal a reply, but I know that we'll just continue to talk over each other, when we are in fact 99.98% in agreement. Neither of us will concede that last 0.02%, so we might as well save our energy and move on.

However, I do owe you an apology for my less than polite tone, so might as well attach it here. That was unnecessary.

1