The primary point of my comment was to argue that an agent that has a goal in the strong sense would not abandon its goal as a result of philosophical consideration.

Such an agent would also not change its decision theory as a result of philosophical consideration, which potentially limits its power.

Philosophy probably has to play some role in clarifying our "pseudo-goals" as actual goals, but so does looking at our "pseudo-goals", however arbitrary they may be.

I wouldn't argue against this as written, but Stuart was claiming that convergence is "very unlikely" which I think is too strong.