Hi Caledonian. Hi Stephen. If I remember correctly, this is where the program that is the three of us having college bull sessions goes HALT and we never get any further, is it not? Once again, Eliezer says clearly what Caledonian was thinking and articulated through metaphor in one-on-one conversations (namely “Well, then it wouldn’t be conscious. IMHO.” ) but is predictably not understood by same, while I am far from sure.
Eliezer: You don’t know how much I wanted to see you type essentially the line “Ordinarily, when we’re talking to a person, we tend to think that whatever is inside the skull, must be “where the consciousness is”. It’s only by playing Follow-The-Improbability that we can realize that the real source of the conversation we’re having, is that-which-is-responsible-for the improbability of the conversation—however distant in time or space, as the Sun moves a wind-up toy.”. Honestly, to me that summarizes the essence of not falling into the actual extremely common philosophical heresy of scientism, a heresy which I consider Chappell and Chalmers, for instance, to belong to (rather than positivism, which Chappell calls ‘scientism’ and which Caledonian doesn’t actually believe in based on my personal communications with him despite his ‘belief in belief’ in it).
Hi Caledonian. Hi Stephen. If I remember correctly, this is where the program that is the three of us having college bull sessions goes HALT and we never get any further, is it not? Once again, Eliezer says clearly what Caledonian was thinking and articulated through metaphor in one-on-one conversations (namely “Well, then it wouldn’t be conscious. IMHO.” ) but is predictably not understood by same, while I am far from sure. Eliezer: You don’t know how much I wanted to see you type essentially the line “Ordinarily, when we’re talking to a person, we tend to think that whatever is inside the skull, must be “where the consciousness is”. It’s only by playing Follow-The-Improbability that we can realize that the real source of the conversation we’re having, is that-which-is-responsible-for the improbability of the conversation—however distant in time or space, as the Sun moves a wind-up toy.”. Honestly, to me that summarizes the essence of not falling into the actual extremely common philosophical heresy of scientism, a heresy which I consider Chappell and Chalmers, for instance, to belong to (rather than positivism, which Chappell calls ‘scientism’ and which Caledonian doesn’t actually believe in based on my personal communications with him despite his ‘belief in belief’ in it).