* Build Tension: Steelman HM's position so thoroughly that a reader is now *desperate* for me to relieve the tension! * I want the reader to have their own [Problem](Problem.md) that they want to solve! * Use [My Understanding of Moravecs Position](My%20Understanding%20of%20Moravecs%20Position.md) in combination with actual quotes * Show, don't tell: use actual quotes! Moravec's article was "convincing enough" to you when you first read it that you felt the need to do all this research. Use his own article as the base of the steelman * Keep parsing down Moravecs argument to get to the core of what you disagree with. Someone can read his full article if they want. Only include what is *necessary* to make your point. Anything else should be trimmed. * Definitions * Structural Principle: any term that requires definition should be introduced before it’s used. * Keep contradictions invisible for now * If he effectively defines something early in the essay, by convention use *that* definition. Then, in your counter arguments, point out his flaws. * Pick the strongest, most defensible version of his argument. Save the contradictions for later. * Present his argument as if it’s internally consistent (even if it isn’t) * Point out how certain criticisms won't work ### Outline 1. **He is a physical fundamentalist.** 1. Start by showing that Moravec as a reductionist and a physical fundamentalist. This helps set up your central critique: he’s not actually seeking explanations. 2. **Given that, he is not able to refute Solipsism. Everything we experience could be part of some fabricated simulation.** 2. This is subtly his entry point into simulation. You need to touch on this otherwise its jarring for the reader to suddenly be thrown into simulation. 3. **Simulations are defined by their internal relationships. They do not depend on external observers.** 1. Define simulation properly. The crux of a simulation is that it follows *intrinsic rules*—an internally consistent system with a defined set of operations. At this point, Moravec starts dragging in consciousness, interpretation, and translation, but you should hold off on consciousness for now. His entire argument for consciousness hinges on his treatment of simulation, so the reader needs to understand that first. 2. Show how you interact with a simulation as an external observer 4. **Consciousness can be simulated.** 5. **Simulations need to be encoded in physical processes. Something is an encoding if it can be decoded.** 1. This is the weak link. Ideally you would *hide* this in the steel man, but in such a way that if the reader reexamined it once you have provide the "key" it will be entirely clear 6. **Setup is complete, roll out the consequences of his reasoning** 7. **We should accept all mathematically possible decodings.** 8. **Anything can be viewed as a simulation of any possible world.** 9. **Rocks can be interpreted as a simulation of a conscious mind**