I'm over halfway through. @danieldennett seems to try to argue objectively when he can then appeals to pragmatism when pressed
-
-
-
He flips between arguing that true moral responsibility obviously exists and that we need to pretend it exists.
-
.
@SamHarrisOrg@danieldennett On the boat analogy, even when we control a boat our core traits and preferences are ultimately unchosen by us -
.
@SamHarrisOrg@danieldennett Every single piece of the mechanism that dictates our decisions is ultimately based on pure luck. -
.
@SamHarrisOrg@danieldennett We're not even partly responsible in the way many intuit.Every bit of our volition is sourced in unchosen luck
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The robot really does control the plane. But does it make sense to non-correctively punish it for its mistakes?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
"Non-correctively". I.e. not for learning or correcting behavior, but simply for its own sake. For "justice".
-
Tweet unavailable
-
You're introducing new premises. Nonetheless, what of meaning would this punishment achieve?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Because of its corrective nature, which contradicts the premise and ignores the point.
@SamHarrisOrg - 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Your valiant effort to communicate clearly, met with obfuscation and appeals to consequences. So frustrating!
@SamHarrisOrg@danieldennett -
This is harder to listen too than the Namazie podcast! Very frustrating.
-
Actually now you mention it, it did have same moralistic tone like an effort to justify revulsion.
@MDoveton@SamHarrisOrg@danieldennett
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm an hour in. I find Dan's position on moral responsibility to be scarcely coherent.
-
A fantastic litmus test I found: the more words they need, the worse their argument. Like Namazie.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.