# Why am I writing this essay?
After reading DD and KP, I still found HM's argument confusing. It was hard to confidently argue against it. I could tell that my counterarguments were weak and scattered. I knew there was a coherent arc of criticism that I could find and share with others. In other words, I wanted to provide a clear window to the world.
Thus there are several key things I want to accomplish in this essay:
1. Provide a clear, concrete counterargument outlining *why* HM's argument is wrong
2. Explain *why* it felt hard to argue against—what was HM doing that made it seem plausible at each turn? Why was his argument so disorienting? It was [Logical Possibility Pumping](Logical%20Possibility%20Pumping.md). I fell for the trap of trying to *disprove* him, instead of *argue against* him. Bad arguments can sometimes *resemble* good ones.
# Structural Themes
* The main problem that I believe HM was trying to solve can be stated as: "Look at some physical object. How do you know that a simulation is not currently encoded and running in there?"
* Explain *why* his argument was hard to argue against, why it felt so slippery to get your hands around. Answer: he was [Logical Possibility Pumping](Logical%20Possibility%20Pumping.md)
# Key Principles
1. I want to create a [Cohesive Narrative](Cohesive%20Narrative.md). Your argument should be coherent, but it need not be *comprehensive*. Too much information will *hurt* and not help (readers will glaze over if you try and say too many things at once)
2. Provide a window into the world here
3. Show, don't tell—readers love rich examples!
4. Build tension. This essay is meant to be a grappling process. However, be aware that you can't hold the tension for too long or you will lose the reader
# Structural Components
* Catchy transition headers (see DH)
* Three examples of wittiness
* Word list
* [Favorite Words for Writing](Favorite%20Words%20for%20Writing.md)
2. Morass
3. Smuggling
4. Devilishly difficult
5. Delicious
6. Armor
7. Needling
8. Skulking
9. Squirm
10. Hopelessly
11. Mindless Machine
12. "The Slippery Slope Towards Tautology"
13. Moravec's March towards Mechanism
14. The Materialist’s Dilemma
15. Sleight of hand
16. Dreary, dread, dreams
17. Sinking, slipping (use in intro)
18. Sharpen
19. Load bearing claim
20. Off load
21. Retreat from explanation
22. Sharpen (sharpen up an argument)
23. grappling
24. Collapse under inconsistency
25. Posits a very rich structure about the world
26. vacuous
27. shunting
28. Expunge
29. Harken
Replace "say" with "suppose"
# Analogies / Visual Guides / New Words
* Arguments have Structure
* HM *constructs* his argument (it looks like a tree / directed graph)
* There is *explicit structure* (what he says) and *implicit structure* (the implied consequences). These two structures are *interlocked*—they cannot be arbitrarily severed from one another.
* Each node bears some load, some are more [Load-Bearing](Load-Bearing%20Structure.md) than others
* Build the tree upwards—it makes it more clear to highlight which nodes have load.
* Load can be shifted around the structure
* [Content](Content.md) and Consequences
* We are seeking theories with *high content*. This naturally leads to simple theories.
* We want high content theories because they provide the most surface area for criticism, which is how we make progress.
* HM's construction removes explanatory content (chops off consequences—see [Content](Content.md))
I need to avoid mixing too many analogies or introducing too many new words. So far I have:
* Moravec's Machine
* Chains / Links
* Descent from explanation, Retreat from explanation
* Unraveling (thread / fabric)
* [Logical Possibility Pumping](Logical%20Possibility%20Pumping.md)
* The Dangers of Logic without Explanation or the dangers of logical possibility without explanation
* [Constraints Create Consequences](Constraints%20Create%20Consequences.md)
* Consequence Chopping, Carving off Consequences, removing empirical content, Severing consequences
* Constraints, Content and Consequences
* Load bearing claim (these may have more consequences?)
* Smuggling simulation into the (physical) substrate
* Moravec, the simulation smuggler
# Draft 2 Goals
* Clean up and simplify language where possible:
* internal relationships vs intrinsic rules
* interpretation/translation/decoding/external observers
* Align on analogies and visuals that you will use throughout the essay (see above)
* Do you need to address "what is reality?" — it may be just another thing that you have to touch on