if you’re a materialist dunking on Sam Altman for saying that a person boils down to a pattern of neural activity, what exactly do you think he’s getting wrong? or do you just think he’s gauche for stating something obvious?https://twitter.com/sama/status/1390059328741146625 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @LucreSnooker
It's a woefully incomplete argument. the onus is on the physicalist to articulate the grounding relationship between physical facts (which they claim are fundamental) and nonphysical facts (which obtain in virtue of the physical facts, somehow). Higher-order properties have (1/x)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drewg__ @LucreSnooker
...to be "connected" somehow to the physical world but he doesn't even make a glancing attempt to say what this connection is, or what facts exist at which relative level of fundamentality. For example, is he committing himself to the view that the sentence (2/x)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @drewg__
you're setting a rather high standard for a non-dunk-worthy tweet! but i appreciate the reply. i don't personally agree with a lot of what you're saying but okay, i would put you in the camp of "the tweet is false/overlooking something important"
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I don't think he's wrong necessarily I just think twitter is a uniquely bad forum to debate metaphysics lol 
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.