Richard: What exactly is the ‘P’ that you think you’re taking as a premise, here?
Also, in “Arguing with Eliezer”, you write:
I find this commitment less absurd than denying the manifest reality of first-personal conscious experience (as reductive materialists like Dennett and Eliezer do), or engaging in the metaphysical contortions that non-reductive materialists must (see my ‘dualist explanations’ post).
If, as you claim, you understood my argument fully and rejected it due to arguments I fail to understand, then why are you writing what I must object to as a major misrepresentation of my views as I see them?
Namely: From my viewpoint, I’m certainly not denying your first-person conscious experience—just saying that it doesn’t work the way you think it does.
Poke: Criticizing the critics.
Richard: What exactly is the ‘P’ that you think you’re taking as a premise, here?
Also, in “Arguing with Eliezer”, you write:
I find this commitment less absurd than denying the manifest reality of first-personal conscious experience (as reductive materialists like Dennett and Eliezer do), or engaging in the metaphysical contortions that non-reductive materialists must (see my ‘dualist explanations’ post).
If, as you claim, you understood my argument fully and rejected it due to arguments I fail to understand, then why are you writing what I must object to as a major misrepresentation of my views as I see them?
Namely: From my viewpoint, I’m certainly not denying your first-person conscious experience—just saying that it doesn’t work the way you think it does.