I mean, I don’t put much weight behind the opinions of riders of the intellectual short bus. Opinions don’t matter. Arguments do. And in argument, moralistic, rationalistic, and pseudoscientific don’t matter. Either a critic can make a testimonial (ratio-operational-scientific) argument or one can’t. Most likely a critic can’t make even a trivial one. That’s before we even get to whether he can make one that’s meaningful.
We are creatures of habits, and our arguments consist largely of a string of habits. And our impression or pretense of understanding is a false reward to keep us thinking and acting under an illusion of competence despite the evidence to the contrary.
There are many dehmanizing truths in intellectual history and the degree to which few humans possess material (marginally different) agency is terrifyingly small.
We are well trained apes and while sentience and consciousness exist in almost all of us, agency is still a rarity.