johneffay on the reductionism dispute

A fairly balanced approach at REBARBAZON.

However, I’m still not sure why a completed neuroscience would do any more for metaphysics than any other, currently more advanced science does. Physics has done wonderful things, but I wouldn’t base my philosophy on the recent findings of physics. The only reason to base one’s philosophy on a (hypothetically) completed neuroscience is if you believed that human reality had some sort of special status in the cosmos. And I don’t believe that. Correlationists do, and that’s why they are the ones who really have to answer to cognitive science. (Badiou was even dodging these questions in his own Collapse interview. And I was glad johneffay agreed with me that Churchland’s was pretty light. He’s so much more interesting than that at times.)

Also, johneffay is wrong to say that I haven’t taken a step in the direction of a theory of causation. It’s all over my work. And I’m not willing to agree that it’s less far along than the neurological elimination of philosophy. That said, the fairness of johneffay (who is by no means a philosophical ally of mine) is refreshing.