I enjoyed reading (most of) the Sequences, but I’m stunned by this level of agreement. I doubt even Eliezer agrees with them completely. My father always told me that if I agreed with him on everything, at least one of us was an idiot. It’s not that I have a sense of “ick” at your public profession of faith, but it makes me feel that you were too easily persuaded. Unless, of course, you already agreed with the sequences before reading them.
Like Jayson_Virissimo, I lean towards the Sequences. Parts I reject include MWI and consequentialism. In some cases they have caused me to update away from them. For instance, before reading them, I leaned towards materialism, but they helped persuade me to become a substance dualist, despite the author’s intention.
For instance, before reading them, I leaned towards materialism, but they helped persuade me to become a substance dualist, despite the author’s intention.
EY convinced me that consciousness is causally active within the physical universe, and I have yet to find any good argument against the notion—just equivocations about the word “meaning.” At the same time, I do accept the argument that no amount of third-person description sums to first-person experience. Hence, substance dualism.
I am aware that this is not a full response, but I don’t want to sidetrack the thread with an off-topic conversation.
I enjoyed reading (most of) the Sequences, but I’m stunned by this level of agreement. I doubt even Eliezer agrees with them completely. My father always told me that if I agreed with him on everything, at least one of us was an idiot. It’s not that I have a sense of “ick” at your public profession of faith, but it makes me feel that you were too easily persuaded. Unless, of course, you already agreed with the sequences before reading them.
Like Jayson_Virissimo, I lean towards the Sequences. Parts I reject include MWI and consequentialism. In some cases they have caused me to update away from them. For instance, before reading them, I leaned towards materialism, but they helped persuade me to become a substance dualist, despite the author’s intention.
Could you explain why?
EY convinced me that consciousness is causally active within the physical universe, and I have yet to find any good argument against the notion—just equivocations about the word “meaning.” At the same time, I do accept the argument that no amount of third-person description sums to first-person experience. Hence, substance dualism.
I am aware that this is not a full response, but I don’t want to sidetrack the thread with an off-topic conversation.