Reasons to believe the sun is not already most useful in its current form?  You're going to end up using some of the hydrogen for fusion anyway. 

How significant/influential is Musk's opinion on LessWrong? I had the impression it was on the lower end.

Is the (allegedly false) assertion here that economically powerful entities can't profit by exploiting people? Or that they can't exist without them? 

Issue 1

The reason is that attempting to formalize a high-level property is not as big of a mistake as trying to informally describe a low-level property. (This is true even for our leading example: a mathematical equation for the appeal of Mozart will very likely be unhelpful, whereas an informal description of planetary motions could plausibly still be useful.)

I'm very confused. The example shows the exact opposite of the thesis. 

Issue 2

From above the previous paragraph:

Attempting to describe consciousness with a mathematical object assumes that consciousness is a low-level phenomenon. What happens if this assumption is incorrect? I think the answer is that the approach becomes largely useless

-in other words: "what if camp 1 is wrong?". Here, author conlcudes "camp 1 not productive".

Is the reverse also true? Interestingly, the answer is no. If Camp #2 is correct, then research programs assuming a Camp #1 perspective are probably not optimal, but they aren't useless, either.

-in other words: "what if camp 2 is right?"; or in other other words: "what if camp 1 is wrong?"  But author concludes "camp 1 somewhat productive".

Author supports thesis (in issue 2) with argument (from issue 1). Issue 2 alone could be explained by mixup of "camp 1" and "camp 2", issue 1 can't. 

If I tell you "opinion: A is true and also A is false", but give a good argument for "A is true", you'd know what I meant. 

This is not what happened here: author presents opinion that swaps definitions (issue 2), but their supporting argument is of the form "A and not-A" (issue 1). In light of issue 1, we can't safely interpret issue 2 by assuming the author mixed up terminology, and reading it by swapping them back. 

I'm really, really curious about what the author believes!!!

Meta: I think some people have trouble distinguishing a discussion of the pressures that shape people's views from sort of peeking into an individuals mind and seeing the hypothetical thought process that made someone profess those particular views. 

Like, in your discussion of antiracist factions, you could read that as a describing people cynically [glancing side to side figuring out the most socially advantageous position to take], but I don't think that was what the author intended, and I didn't interpret it this way. I read it as people being themselves, but that their beliefs grew in a particular climate that encouraged some behaviours and not others.

If it isn't already in your lexicon, it seems really difficult to convey. Jordan Peterson, for example, is someone apparently unable to make (perceive?) that distinction. I'd be interested to hear whether the author sees this distinction (I may not have conveyed it effectively, but I might have been able to point to an already familiar idea?).

this is an introduction to a much larger body of thought.

Oh! In light of that, my criticism is diminished. I'll edit my comment to reflect this. 

I really want to believe that the hopes you express are well founded. But, I also want to believe what's true. LW taught me to be (cutious/skeptical) when this happens, that's why I was critical. I hope that my comment was useful as feedback, if not as critique.

Edit: the author has clarified that their post is meant as an introduction to a larger work, so it would make sense for them to introduce their view alongside others' without justifying why just yet. 

This was interesting. I enjoyed reading it. However,

Let us accept some version of Alexander’s eschaton: the final level of the Reality Game is beaten by compelling or convincing a “god” (either a machine god or an actual divine being) to transform the cosmos into an everlasting paradisal garden. How will we win—through work (coercion or argument) or through līlā, through rational intelligence or creative mêtis?

This paragraph confuses me. First you're saying: 

"ok, let's think about Alexander's 'gardener' solution to the problem", 

then you ask the question:

"how do we solve the problem on our own?" (meaning without the 'gardener')

These belong to different branches of discussion (from one view.../on the other hand...), but the second part is presented as though it's salient to the first. It scans as if the author forgot what he was thinking partway through, and picked up on a different thread. 

Am I being excessively pedantic? well, 

this stuck out to me, because usually when different views are presented in a text (from one view.../on the other hand...), the author must decide in favour of one (or none) of the those presented, and explain why. This, the author has not done. Which is strange, given the apparent effort (and I believe, evident skill) this essay represents. 

The above paragraph marks the part where the author is finally offering their own opinion, having explored those of others. Except it begins in just the place where we expected them to explain why they disagree with Alexander. Which should be the most interesting part, because this is Lesswrong, the place with 

1. unusually strong norms around how people should form their beliefs, and
2. unusually high frequency of people who disagree with the Author's conclusion vehemently. 

Why? why do you think this, and not that?