Please get some academic rigour in this reading list. This is just a narrow sample of views from people not subject to peer review, who know nothing of ecology, animal behaviour, physiology, psychology, neuroscience... A bunch of well meaning but ignorant philosophers venturing into an area well out of their competence. Philosophy helps us ask questions, it doesn't answer them. There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start. Dunning-Kruger exemplified. Go do a PhD in a university, get your ideas kicked to bits by people who know things from the fields I've mentioned, THEN come back with something valuable. W.A.S. is an area worthy of attention and study, but if you have a conclusion in that area then you don't now what you are talking about. The seriousness with which these "findings" are treated by the EA community reduces my confidence in the EA project generally.
Please get some academic rigour in this reading list. This is just a narrow sample of views from people not subject to peer review, who know nothing of ecology, animal behaviour, physiology, psychology, neuroscience... A bunch of well meaning but ignorant philosophers venturing into an area well out of their competence. Philosophy helps us ask questions, it doesn't answer them. There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start. Dunning-Kruger exemplified. Go do a PhD in a university, get your ideas kicked to bits by people who know things from the fields I've mentioned, THEN come back with something valuable. W.A.S. is an area worthy of attention and study, but if you have a conclusion in that area then you don't now what you are talking about. The seriousness with which these "findings" are treated by the EA community reduces my confidence in the EA project generally.