The resaoning concerning human behavior always involves emotions, involves what concerns us; computers have no concerns. — Janus
The term "incompatible" is too strong here. Two radically different explanations of the same thing can coexist and represent two sides of the same coin, so to speak. — Olivier5
By "incompatible" I only meant that the different descriptions or explanations cannot necessarily be translated into each other's terms. So, we can't understand moral agency in terms of QM, or even neurology, for example. — Janus
It is a tendency to think of some explanations as more "fundamental' than others, and so, if, as per this example, moral agency cannot be understood in terms of QM or neurology, then it might be eliminated or considered an illusion or epiphenomenon.
From a monist standpoint, these different explanations must be coherent, at least in theory: they describe one unique world. It's like the story of the blind men and the elephant. One feels the foot and say "it's a tree", another gets at the trunk and concludes "it's a snake", etc. — Olivier5
I tend to think more in terms of ontological pluralism, so I don't think in terms of one world, or one reality — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.