Eliezer continues to post about the certainty of reductionism, while he has completely failed to investigate the evidence that reductionism cannot account for all of the observations.
Reducing things to the simplest description possible—where ‘possible’ refers to the ability to accurately model things—by definition accounts for all veridical observations.
His point is necessarily correct, as well as empirically so.
He also continues to post snide remarks about the reality of psi phenomena. Again, he has completely failed to investigate the best evidence that he is wrong about this.
No, he hasn’t. The best evidence strongly indicates that there are no ‘unusual’ phenomena that require explanation, and that psi does not exist.
The fact that you have deluded yourself into believing otherwise does not constitute a failure on Eliezer’s part.
His point is necessarily correct, as well as empirically so.
No, he hasn’t. The best evidence strongly indicates that there are no ‘unusual’ phenomena that require explanation, and that psi does not exist.The fact that you have deluded yourself into believing otherwise does not constitute a failure on Eliezer’s part.