I can’t quite reconcile the Deutschian idea that because of the universality of computation all minds fundamentally have the capabilities with the fact that that genes remain so predictive in explaining people’s tendencies and abilities. Some people really seem to be born a lot dumber or more antisocial than others and they don’t seem corrigible on those traits despite clearly being able to take on board lots of other new ideas and attributes in general. Seems like brain architecture might vary meaningfully among people in a way that dramatically alters susceptibility to various memes.

I can’t think of how to actually test if subjectivity is a property of neutral elements and not something that arises from matter or is prior to matter (neutral monism), or if brains do not purely obey the known laws of physics. You might run into ethical problems trying to test these things because you’d need to engineer some truly off the charts experiences to see measurable brain changes driven against known physics by the well-being gradient.

I don’t know if the difference between the minds of humans and the minds of all known non-human animals is qualitative, or quantitative but massive.

I’m not sure if culturally “enforced” sexual monogamy is inherently toxic. Most people take for granted that they should severely constrain the sexuality of their partner but I find this troubling.

I’m not sure how to think about when different levels of abstraction seem of have properties that are in contradiction with each other. Mostly in the context of determinism at atomic scales but creativity at mindbrain scales.

Responsibility is under-theorized.