I didn't attack his character, I said he was wrong about lots of things. 

//If you add to the physical laws code that says "behave like with Casper", you have re-implemented Casper with one additional layer of indirection. It is then not fair to say this other world does not contain Casper in an equivalent way.//

No, you haven't reimplemented Casper, you've just copied his physical effects.  There is no Casper, and Casper's consciousness doesn't exist.  

Your description of the FDT stuff isn't what I argued.  

//I've just skimmed this part, but it seems to me that you provide arguments and evidence about consciousness as wakefulness or similar, while Yudkowsky is talking about the more restricted and elusive concept of self-awareness. //

Both Yudkowsky and I are talking about having experiences, as he's been explicit about in various places.  

//Your situation is symmetric: if you find yourself repeatedly being very confident about someone not knowing what they are saying, while this person is a highly regarded intellectual, maybe you are overconfident and wrong! I consider this a difficult dilemma to be in. Yudkowsky wrote a book about this problem, Inadequate Equilibria, so it's one step ahead of you on the meta.//

I don't talk about the huge range of topics Yudkowsky does.  I don't have super confident views on any topic that is controvsial among the experts--but Yudkowsky's views aren't, they mostly just rest on basic errors.

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.