Fine. Hard Problem. Maybe panpsychism. I’m not claiming anybody understands how consciousness works. I only object to the “absolutely no idea that this is the case, neither does anyone else.” Given the case I linked to above, we have more than sufficient Bayesian evidence (on balance) to believe that a person can be conscious without a cerebellum, and if that’s what you’re objecting to, I don’t believe you’re still arguing in good faith. If we were talking about the cortex instead, then I’d be with you, but we’re not. You are not allowed to claim everyone has literally zero knowledge given the state of the evidence. That’s just Bayes. You were surprised by the evidence. You should update, not double down.
Fine. Hard Problem. Maybe panpsychism. I’m not claiming anybody understands how consciousness works. I only object to the “absolutely no idea that this is the case, neither does anyone else.” Given the case I linked to above, we have more than sufficient Bayesian evidence (on balance) to believe that a person can be conscious without a cerebellum, and if that’s what you’re objecting to, I don’t believe you’re still arguing in good faith. If we were talking about the cortex instead, then I’d be with you, but we’re not. You are not allowed to claim everyone has literally zero knowledge given the state of the evidence. That’s just Bayes. You were surprised by the evidence. You should update, not double down.