Conversation

Rob Bensinger 🔍
@robbensinger
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
I've read this essay before, and it continues to be really good. When you say "the sciencey physicalists are mostly wrong", I can think of two interpretations: 1. 'Physicalism is false (as are various other standard scientific beliefs).'
1
4
Rob Bensinger 🔍
@robbensinger
Replying to
@robbensinger
and
@Aella_Girl
2. 'The sciencey people are correct about sciencey stuff, but they're missing a huge amount of information that's way more important, and is usually only talked about in woo frames.' I think 1 is false, whereas 2 sounds plausible to me.
1
6
Rob Bensinger 🔍
@robbensinger
Replying to
@robbensinger
and
@Aella_Girl
Sensory experience is genuine information, even if it's hard to put it into words. (E.g., Bayesianism applies to visual perception just as well as it applies to English-language declarative beliefs.) In the same way, introspective information is real information.
1
4
Rob Bensinger 🔍
@robbensinger
Replying to
@robbensinger
and
@Aella_Girl
Maybe some of your memories or descriptions of your introspections are wrong. (E.g., maybe your trips sometimes triggered an "epiphany feeling" without a corresponding actual-epiphany, even a purely-sensory or hard-to-verbalize one? Or a small epiphany registered as a large one.)
1
2
Rob Bensinger 🔍
@robbensinger
Replying to
@robbensinger
and
@Aella_Girl
As ordinary factual beliefs, I think these are all false: “we must all be part of the same mind”, "all internally consistent realities must necessarily exist", "timespace [is not] a traditional, measurable thing that I existed inside of", etc. (Happy to discuss, if you disagree.)
2
3