I suppose my main thrust is:
I do not see the benefit of you guy’s perspective.
There is a narrow one in certain criminal cases, for sure.
I would not boost neurolaw into the driver’s seat just yet or anytime soon; such a primitive field of study is far from ready for that much power over society. However, in a proper place, it could be useful. But like fingerprints and DNA before, foolproof it is not because all things require interpreters and our cockiness gets in the way time and time again.
As I believe is the case here.
Shiny thing seems to have all the answer therefore it has all the answers.
But again: what is the pragmatic value of your guy’s perspective vs compatibilist?
I can think of many benefits to compatibilist.
There’s as many benefits to that as there are benefits from having goals and moving towards them. Making plans. Being creative and constructive.
As a compatabalist. traits are important; gosh so much relies on traits. DNA, boundaries of various kinds, even that some things are somewhat out of our hands – it’s all useful knowledge to have.
And yet, there is a limit to that knowledge.
Let us suppose we as a planet adopt your stance. What then?
What happens to creativity and construction, engineering, dreams of bright tomorrows?
How do you raise children to believe and how to see themselves as members of the planet?
How do you instill a notion of autonomy amidst a backdrop of unlikely-to-change things in such a way that they’re interdependent?
Well, you would not because it is a cake that’s already baked. What does that do for a society?