Eliezer’s article is actually quite long, and not the only article he’s written on the subject on this site—it seems uncharitable to decide that “Huh?” is somehow the most crucial part of it. Also, whether or not there is widespread consensus that science can in principle say nothing about subjective phenomenology, there is certainly no such consensus amongst reductionists—it simply wouldn’t be very reductionist, would it?
The “Huh?” part was then elaborated, but the elaboration itself added nothing to the basic “Huh?” argument: he simply appealed to the idea that this is self-evidently preposterous. He did also pursue other arguments (as you say: there were many more words), but the rest involved extrapolations and extensions, all of which were either strawmen or irrelevant.
If you disagree, you should really find the supporting arguments of his that you believe I overlooked. I see none.
Eliezer’s article is actually quite long, and not the only article he’s written on the subject on this site—it seems uncharitable to decide that “Huh?” is somehow the most crucial part of it. Also, whether or not there is widespread consensus that science can in principle say nothing about subjective phenomenology, there is certainly no such consensus amongst reductionists—it simply wouldn’t be very reductionist, would it?
The “Huh?” part was then elaborated, but the elaboration itself added nothing to the basic “Huh?” argument: he simply appealed to the idea that this is self-evidently preposterous. He did also pursue other arguments (as you say: there were many more words), but the rest involved extrapolations and extensions, all of which were either strawmen or irrelevant.
If you disagree, you should really find the supporting arguments of his that you believe I overlooked. I see none.