Hermes, well, at least you enjoyed most of the article! But I stand by my final sentences, which are: “Governments aren’t in the business of constraining human nature. They are in the business of providing a fair distribution of resources so that their citizens are able to pursue a flourishing life in whatever way seems suitable to them, short of exploiting or hurting other citizens. Philosophers and psychologists have a lot to say about how to actually do that. Neuroscientists? Not so much.”

I think you are over-interpreting my words. In context, this isn’t a criticism of Dennett, or even of Churchland. I like Consciousness Explained, though I think it doesn’t actually explain consciousness. As for Churchland, I have separate, and more detailed criticism of her (here, for instance:https://www.patreon.com/posts/28320509).

What I’m talking about in those final sentences is that neuroscientists have nothing to say about prescriptive issues concerning how we should run society. It if simply not their job. If you think otherwise, I’d like to see some good examples. Damasio does nothing of the kind. And my words should not be interpreted as philosophical chauvinism (I am a biologist, by the way). I find much value in the interaction between philosophy and cognitive science. Just not in the specific area referred to in the post.