SED

I like to discuss philosophy, football, politics, chess and music.

[SED @sed13949]

@JoshuaLWatson I'm very confused. Let's say I weren't a classical theist... then a very obvious, very popular way to be a Libertarian would be to believe in simple foreknowledge.

[SED @sed13949]

@JoshuaLWatson No

[SED @sed13949]

@Philip_Goff Yeah I could be under that illusion /sarcasm

[SED @sed13949]

@agent_cto @dwarkesh_sp @3blue1brown No, it doesn't show that at all.

[SED @sed13949]

@waldenpod I mean it makes sense: The leading physicalist view - functionalism - entails that AI can be conscious

[SED @sed13949]

@waldenpod Interesting discovery: In the year 20 000 BC 0 people died

[SED @sed13949]

@Jumbo420618 @mariyamx_ As a sub on 40k/week...

[SED @sed13949]

@Altered0x @NOT_MOTD "Of course"? Do you think European stadiums use things like THAT just because they aren't a WC venue?

[SED @sed13949]

@UzchessCup Nepo is one of the least likeable people in the chess world.

[SED @sed13949]

@JPKivisto @LatFilosof It is, but I'm not talking about the utilitarianism part

[SED @sed13949]

@slimepriestess Do you think that you wrote this tweet?

[SED @sed13949]

@pops095 @L1G0R3 @JoshuaLWatson @McKinleyAn That's fine, it was an interesting back and forth.

[SED @sed13949]

@pops095 @L1G0R3 @JoshuaLWatson @McKinleyAn No? I am not saying physicalism isn't defensible because physicalists are biased. I am saying you cannot appeal to biased physicalists to defend the rationality of physicalism... these are two very different things

[SED @sed13949]

@pops095 @L1G0R3 @JoshuaLWatson @McKinleyAn I guess it depends what one means by "rationally defensible". In some sense I am sure that there are rational physicalists (namely, if one has the "right" priors), but in another sense I think being a physicalist despite being familiar with the arguments is irrational

[SED @sed13949]

@pops095 @L1G0R3 @JoshuaLWatson @McKinleyAn Oh I'm sure that many theists desperately want dualism to be true. van Inwagen is a physicalist theist, but I find that completely bizarre. But I only need to defend that physicalists are so biased that they aren't trustworthy, not that dualists aren't biased...

[SED @sed13949]

@pops095 @L1G0R3 @JoshuaLWatson @McKinleyAn Right, but I wouldn't defend theism by appealing to the fact that a highly estimated philosopher like Craig takes it to be true. If anything I would defend theism by appealing to the quality of his *arguments*

[SED @sed13949]

@pops095 @L1G0R3 @JoshuaLWatson @McKinleyAn e.g. because it supports immortality, at least much more than physicalism. But anyway, that's irrelevant: The question was why someone would hope for physicalism to be true and there are loads of reasons, some of which physicalists themselves mention, e.g. elegance

[SED @sed13949]

@pops095 @L1G0R3 @JoshuaLWatson @McKinleyAn Right, but I am saying that physicalists often want physicalism to be true in the other sense. They find it aesthetically pleasing, they have a disdain for what they take to be spooky properties, they think dualism would support theism, etc.