Johnathan Corgan wrote: > QTI makes a big twist on this by removing from the numerator *and* > denominator those outcomes where consciousness ceases.
Precisely. And this is what should bias one's choices in the case that one is prepared to bet on the validity of QTI. > Not sure what the question is. Do you mean, what would things be like > afterward? Would it be worth it? Yes, because this should also be taken into account before 'betting' (at least in certain near-cul-de-sac circumstances). Any thoughts? David > David Nyman wrote: > > > So long as there seemed > > to be some plausible (even if very small) number of 'escape routes' > > then it might be worth a punt. > > From a 'yes doctor' bet point of view, this introduces the idea of > relative expectation of different future outcomes, an idea hashed out > here many many times. > > Personally I think it's rational to base one's current actions on the > probability of expected outcome*value (maximum utility theory). And I > also think subjective probability should equate to "proportion of > measure." (Others disagree with this way of measuring future expectation.) > > QTI makes a big twist on this by removing from the numerator *and* > denominator those outcomes where consciousness ceases. > > > Your speculation re extremely small > > measure is interesting in this context. Personally, I would expect some > > sort of consciousness to survive in a non-zero branch, but in what > > company? > > Not sure what the question is. Do you mean, what would things be like > afterward? Would it be worth it? > > -Johnathan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
