I think this comment is entirely right until the very end. I don't think I really attack him as a person--I don't say he's evil or malicious or anything in the vicinity, I just say he's often wrong. Seems hard to argue that without arguing against his points.
I never claimed Eliezer says consciousness is nonphysical--I said exactly the opposite.
If you look at philosophers with Ph.Ds who study decision theory for a living, and have a huge incentive to produce original work, none of them endorse FDT.
Yeah, I was just kidding!
About three quarters of academic decision theorists two box on Newcombe's problem. So this standard seems nuts. Only 20% one box. https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4886?aos=1399
My goal was to get people to defer to Eliezer. I explicitly say he's an interesting thinker who is worth reading.
I dispute that . . .
I didn't say Eliezer was a liar and a fraud. I said he was often overconfident and eggregiously wrong, and explicitly described him as an interesting thinker who was worth reading.
The examples just show that sometimes you lose by being rational.
Unrelated, but I really liked your recent post on Eliezer's bizarre claim that character attacks last is an epistemic standard.