Okay, well not literally. But a week or so ago Dennett released his first formal response to Sam Harris' hard determinism argued in The Moral Landscape and Free Will, and it's a pretty thorough demolition. Dennett even calls the latter book a "veritable museum of mistakes." It will be interesting to see how Harris responds and he most certainly will. Maybe we'll even get a debate between the two this year. If you are interested in the free will vs. determinism debate and have the patience (it's around 20 pages), Dennett's essay is well worth the read.

http://www.naturalism.org/Dennett_reflec...e_Will.pdf

If they ever debate, it's going to be as close to philosophical porn as I'd ever hope to see!

If Dawkins steps in and says, "No, you've both got it wrong. . . bitches!" I'm going to absolutely pee with glee.

I'm working my way through it. I rather liked Dennett's praise for Harris making the intellectually honest attempt; whereby, certain positions were staked out that could be engaged in mutually beneficial debate. Dennett's criticism may seem harsh, but everyone should keep in mind that these men consider each other a friend and this could potentially be used as demonstration of a correct way to debate for the purpose of mutual understanding, learning, and resolution of differences where possible.

Overall, I have to say I side with Dennett. "Improving on the folk notion of free will" is as noble of an effort as improving on the "folk notion of evolutionary theory," and if one can admit the otherwise undeniable observation that there are "ranges" of "freedom" within the animal kingdom, compatibalism is a viable point of view. Sam Harris most certainly is trying to have his cake and eat it too, on the one hand denying any differences between my "choice" to type this reply and my heart's determinants to beat, yet maintaining that we can "change" others or hold them (or ourselves) morally responsible.

Here's a response to Dennett's response, re-tweeted by Sam Harris: http://www.danielmiessler.com/blog/denne...g-freewill

Consider this from the Meissler piece:
"'Harris: However, the ‘free will’ that compatibilists defend is not the free will that most people feel they have. (p16)

"Dennett: First of all, he doesn’t know this. This is a guess, and suitably expressed questionnaires might well prove him wrong.

Seriously? Do you really think that, in a country where only half of the population believes in evolution, any significant percentage of people are going to have an advanced belief in free will?"

Imagine if Miessler had wrote a critique of Dawkins; he might write: "However, the ‘evolution’ that scientists defend is not the evolution that most people feel they know." Therefore, presumably, we should do away with the term "evolution" instead of trying to write a nuanced rapport that explains how evolution should be understood. It is totally superfluous reasoning. Otherwise, however, this counter-rebuttal makes some valid points as well...

Says the history major on his way home from his job pealing and slicing potatoes.

I'm with Min on this, not dissing philosophy, but I prefer to waste my time on concrete shit. Masturbation is more than rubbing a penis or a clitoris.

(February 2, 2014 at 3:56 pm)LastPoet Wrote: I'm with Min on this, not dissing philosophy, but I prefer to waste my time on concrete shit. Masturbation is more than rubbing a penis or a clitoris.

I think it's important to have a well-articulated philosophical framework by which to interpret the observations I make, or rather, when I "waste my time on concrete shit." Without philosophy, there is no science.

(February 2, 2014 at 12:11 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Okay, well not literally. But a week or so ago Dennett released his first formal response to Sam Harris' hard determinism argued in The Moral Landscape and Free Will, and it's a pretty thorough demolition. Dennett even calls the latter book a "veritable museum of mistakes." It will be interesting to see how Harris responds and he most certainly will. Maybe we'll even get a debate between the two this year. If you are interested in the free will vs. determinism debate and have the patience (it's around 20 pages), Dennett's essay is well worth the read.

http://www.naturalism.org/Dennett_reflec...e_Will.pdf

From Dennett's response it is pretty clear to me that the cosmological brat is an intellectual lightweight outside his own specialty. That he could go off so half cocked on a topic he has given only superficial reflection is a tribute to his narcissism which obviously is second to none. Harris annoys me.