How can I express this so that you'll agree? I don't think I
   can: David Eagleman, who I respect highly and is absolutely
   amazing at what he does, suffers from a fatal flaw when he steps
   outside of his territory. Think: How would a neuroscientist view
   the world? Is there room for free will in a neuroscience point
   of view? Their purpose is to deconstruct internal systems and
   answer all of it. If they don't have all of the answers now,
   they presume they will someday. From this lens, there is no room
   for free will. He *can't* see free will from his perspective,
   especially as deeply invested as he is in it. To do so would
   admit "there's something we just don't know about". No room for
   that in his field. I don't know how better to explain that. ==
   From a pure neuroscience point of view, there can be no free
   will. Dennet is rather clear on his separation of his
   neuroscience and his philosophy. Dennet identifies as a
   neuroscientist AND a philosopher. Eagleman came up with
   possibilianism - which is nice and all - but I don't think he
   particular identifies himself - or is identified as a
   philosopher per se. He's primarily a neuroscientist and a writer
   (and speaker and sits on many boards... and makes TV shows...
   and does a whole lot of fascinating stuff). In short, in the
   philosophy dept, he's kinda weak. He's strong in a lot of other
   places. He more of a pure neuroscientist. Dennet, also a
   neuroscientist but ALSO philosopher. This doesn't mean that
   Dennet is 'more right' than Eagleman in their respective
   philosophies. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that, embedded
   more strongly in his point of view (in my opinion) as
   neuroscientist, it's not surprising that he ended up with a
   no-free-will stance. == I'll say this though: You're on the
   winning team. Whether right or wrong, you're riding the stronger
   wave here and it will become the dominant one. What happens
   after that? I honestly don't know. == It's a little scary to me
   that you can't see the dangers in a "no free will" stance for a
   society. ==