naive versions of free will
You don't like them. I don't like them. Professional philosophers don't like them. So how do they plug into an argument about philosophers getting FW wrong? The philosophers who are libertarians are defending much more sophitisticated theories.
Context matters here- you may want to reread the conversation above. I gave classical libertarianism as an example of the sort of thing where we both agree that science raises issues with it. I wrote:
On the contrary, philosophers are highly relevant. I've already mentioned Putnam and Quine. The best philosophy is done not by scientists, but by philosophers who pay attention to science. One doesn't need to be a neurologist to know that classical libertarianism fails for example, and one doesn't need to be a GR subject matter expert to know that it raises serious issues for many versions of A-time. This shouldn't be surprising- the best work in almost any field is informed by work in other fields. Philosophy is not an exception.
You then asked what I meant by classical libertarianism, and that is what lead to the mention of naive free will versions.
Slight tangent: It is worth noting (going back to the original subject) that there's a serious problem that can arise when one constructs more sophisticated versions of naive ideas. Frequently the sophisticated version is so far removed from the basic intuition that the connection is tenuous. Worse, people then try after establishing some sort of argument for the "sophisticated" version to then reason with the full set of connotations of the naive versions. One sees this not just with free will- for example, look at people who try to define God as a "uncaused cause" or as a "universal moral will" or something similar. It is worth asking whether at a certain point what one is calling free will is accomplishing much by labeling it as such. (In Kane's case, I think it is, partially because it is one of the less sophisticated (if you will) versions of free will out there, but that's also part of why it fails.)
prior discussion,
Been there and they contain nothing that isn't in this discussion.
Are you a sophisticated bot? I ask because the part you are responding to read:
prior discussion
No different in content to the percent discussion
As a guess, I suspect you mean "recent" rather than percent (are you typing with some sort of autocorrect? None of the letters in "recent" are near "p" on a standard QWERTY keyboard). In any event, simply asserting that rather than actually discussing the linked prior discussion is not helpful. I note that you incidentally completely dropped my point to Unger's work- so let's be clear here, we're talking about a professional analytic philosopher who essentially sees the same problems in question.
So, I don't see how simply repeating your assertion advances the conversation.
Unger
People are always criticising philosophy, and always defending it. Not dispositive.
I'm curious- have you read any of what Unger has to say on this topic?
further investigation is not warranted
You have not established that this is the case about FW.
Great! We've now made progress: We've now apparently agreed that there is some point where it is no longer useful to spend time looking at a question. So let me ask, what sort of evidence would convince you that that was the case for free will?
psychological reasons
I am equally entitled to point out that less wrongs disdain for FW, moral realism, etc, could be interpreted as pattern matching them to religion, and as extending, irrationally, to rejecting naturalized versions.
I'm not sure what you mean by "entitled" but I'd certainly accept that as a valid reason that LW should worry about its consensus attitudes (although as far as I can tell moral realism in some form or another isn't that uncommon here). But yes, pattern matching here is a valid concern.
I have published some extracts which you appear not to have read.
It has recently born confirmed.
Great, that sounds potentially quite interesting. Can you point me to them?
We've now apparently agreed that there is some point where it is no longer useful to spend time looking at a question.
I have never argued from the premise that all questions should be kept open forever.
It might be interesting to note at this point that the idea of detatchable , Cartesian souls actually has been abandoned in philosophy.
Why Talk to Philosophers? Part I. by philosopher of science Wayne Myrvold.
See also Sean Carroll's own blog entry, Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy.
Sean classifies the disparaging comments physicists make about philosophy as follows: "Roughly speaking, physicists tend to have three different kinds of lazy critiques of philosophy: one that is totally dopey, one that is frustratingly annoying, and one that is deeply depressing". Specifically:
He counters each argument presented.
Personally, I am underwhelmed, since he does not address the point of view that philosophy is great at asking interesting questions but lousy at answering them. Typically, an interesting answer to a philosophical question requires first recasting it in a falsifiable form, so that is becomes a natural science question, be it physics, cognitive sciences, AI research or something else. This is locally known as hacking away at the edges. Philosophical questions don't have philosophical answers.