Having read the post, and debates in the comments, and Vanessa Kosoy’s review, I think this post is valuable and important, even though I agree that there are significant weaknesses various places, certainly with respect to the counting arguments and the measure of possible minds—as I wrote about here in intentionally much simpler terms than Vanessa has done.
The reason I think it is valuable is because weaknesses in one part of their specific counterargument do not obviate the variety of valid and important points in the post, though I’d be far happier if there was something in between “include this” and “omit this” for the 2024-in-review series—because a partial rewrite or a note about the disputed claims would entirely address my concern with including it.
Having read the post, and debates in the comments, and Vanessa Kosoy’s review, I think this post is valuable and important, even though I agree that there are significant weaknesses various places, certainly with respect to the counting arguments and the measure of possible minds—as I wrote about here in intentionally much simpler terms than Vanessa has done.
The reason I think it is valuable is because weaknesses in one part of their specific counterargument do not obviate the variety of valid and important points in the post, though I’d be far happier if there was something in between “include this” and “omit this” for the 2024-in-review series—because a partial rewrite or a note about the disputed claims would entirely address my concern with including it.