Blog Coordinator

« Neuroscience vs. Free Will? (Redux) Go.... | Main | Interview about Responsibility from the Margins »

05/15/2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Neil, I'm pretty sure that's not allowed. You are required by Philosophy Code Sec. 8372d to always work on free will and moral responsibility once you do any work on free will and moral responsibility.

Sorry to hear you are moving on, but congratulations on escaping the grip of this subfield! What's up next for you?

Manuel, you are working from the old version of the Philosophy Code. In PC IV (r), second codicil, there are clear exceptions listed to the rule given, including (i) "having solved all the problems", (ii) "having nothing to contribute" and (iii) "having lost one's mind". My lawyer will be presenting an argument in the alternative demonstrating that one or more of those exceptions clearly apply in this case.

I am going to reinvent myself as a philosopher of cognitive science. I will do to cog sci what I did to free will (pass by leaving, barely a ripple). Now if anyone wants them, I have a whole stack of arguments going cheap. Three objections to agent-causal libertarian, anyone? I will start the bidding at 0.01c.

Neil, thanks for the link--Dr. Cirruria's blog is required reading for Flickerers I'd say (great post on implicit bias, e.g.)--and I hope she will become a regular here.

When I first read your post I uttered something aloud that might get me in trouble with current admins who peruse student evals, but apparently would only add to my credentials for being an "outsider" presidential candidate.

And BTW reading Hard Luck taught this old dog some new tricks (as did your APA-star book Manuel). Problem is, I want you to keep throwing sticks so I can retrieve them (of my own free will of course).

And undercutting your opined rate of two cents by half? I raise you a shave-and-a-haircut two bits.

I doubt I will get a better offer Al. The arguments are yours.

Here's a taster? Agent-causal libertarianism? WTF?

Neil, Though you will be sorely missed, you are entitled to go in any direction you wish: having written HARD LUCK, you have already made an enormous contribution to the FW/MR discussion. However, you should be warned: once you have the bug, it's hard to get loose; in those inimitable words, "Just when I thought I was out, you pulled me back in."

Sorry to see you move on but good luck with your new projects. And I suspect your work will leave a substantial mark on the free will/moral responsibility literature for a long time. Thanks for everything you've done to help grow the conversation in this neck of the woods. Ave atque vale! (And please come and visit as often as you can tolerate to do so!)

Bruce, the same quote had crossed my mind. If something occurs to me, I might wade back in. I just won't go looking for it specifically, and I will try to resist the urge to respond to people discussing my views (luckily people are considerate in this regard and keep temptation to a minimum). Thanks to the speed with which journals move, you will see my name popping up in the future in the moral responsibility context - so, Manuel, you haven't seen the last of me yet.

Neil Levy, you've had an enormous impact on the free will debate, probably more than you even know. THANK YOU for all the great work you've done on it over the years. I've also enjoyed a lot of your articles that appear over at THE CONVERSATION site. You and several others here (such as another great one--Eddy Nahmias) have done the kind of philosophy that has brought these issues into the public arena in a way that they can be appreciated and understood by the ordinary layman (like me. As I said, you've done a LOT more than you probably realize, and you've made a real contribution. Again, thank you so much for all your work over the years.

I'd also like to take this time to post a link to one of Neil's articles from 5 years ago. I'm posting it for a couple of reasons: First, this article was one of the first places I became exposed to Neil Levy. Second, I've always felt that this was one of his BEST articles in terms of its ability to explain and convey the free will debate in a way to make it accessible to ordinary folks like me. In my opinion, this piece could have easily been well-received in a major publication like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Scientific American or other publication. It's the kind of piece that also allows non-philosophers (like me) to take in and understand these issues and concepts. Bravo, Neil! You're the best!


FREE WILL'S WIN

http://voice.unimelb.edu.au/volume-7/number-1/free-will%E2%80%99s-win

Thanks Jeff. More than I deserve (no desert jokes this time!)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Books about Agency


3QD Prize 2014: Marcus Arvan