And while I do not find philosophical zombies or non-physicalism plausible, Eliezer indeed badly misrepresents that debate in a way that even a first year philosophy student with passing knowledge of the subject would find egregious.
This is not my impression. (I am not an expert, though I studied philosophy, and specifically philosophy of mind, as an undergrad.) From what I know and have read of the debate, Eliezer’s depiction seems accurate.
What misrepresentation do you see, specifically?
And you didn’t pick up on it here, but the way that Eliezer represents ethics is terrible. Naive utilitarianism is not just not the default assumption in ethics, it is widely considered deeply problematic for good reasons, and telling people they are irrational for doubting it is really problematic.
This is not my impression. (I am not an expert, though I studied philosophy, and specifically philosophy of mind, as an undergrad.) From what I know and have read of the debate, Eliezer’s depiction seems accurate.
What misrepresentation do you see, specifically?
I totally agree here, FWIW.