1.1- Disagree, but I may not understand the claim (what’s ‘epistemic truth’?).
1.2- Agree.
1.3- Agree.
2.1- Agree that consciousness is the result of computing processes in the brain, disagree that a machine implementing the same computations would necessarily be conscious. (i.e. agree with physicalism, don’t agree with functionalism).
2.2- I don’t understand the claim. But I think I disagree.
3.1- Agnostic.
3.2- Disagree.
3.3- Disagree, especially with the claim that this is the only meaningful interpretation of ‘should’.
4.1- Agnostic.
5.1- Agnostic.
5.2- I don’t understand this at all.
5.3- I don’t understand your use of the word ‘real’.
1.1- Disagree, but I may not understand the claim (what’s ‘epistemic truth’?). 1.2- Agree. 1.3- Agree. 2.1- Agree that consciousness is the result of computing processes in the brain, disagree that a machine implementing the same computations would necessarily be conscious. (i.e. agree with physicalism, don’t agree with functionalism). 2.2- I don’t understand the claim. But I think I disagree. 3.1- Agnostic. 3.2- Disagree. 3.3- Disagree, especially with the claim that this is the only meaningful interpretation of ‘should’. 4.1- Agnostic. 5.1- Agnostic. 5.2- I don’t understand this at all. 5.3- I don’t understand your use of the word ‘real’.
By “epistemic truth” I mean truth regarding the physical universe. Maybe that is a poor choice of words. Physical truth?
So do you mean ‘the only grounds for knowledge about the physical universe is the scientific method/Occam’s razor’?
Yep. Although under a UDT / multiverse interpretation it becomes “knowledge about the region of the multiverse in which I am located”.