On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 6:19 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:32 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 8:52 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 8:38 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:08 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:42 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The third option, (the common sense idea), which says "Certain >>>>>>> experiences belong to you, and others don't" doesn't work, and can >>>>>>> further >>>>>>> be disproved probabalistically. Zuboff demonstrates this in the work I >>>>>>> cited. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> He might argue it -- I don't know the work. But that does not mean he >>>>>> is right. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you are interested, it's available as a free download here: >>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233329805_One_Self_The_Logic_of_Experience >>>>> >>>> >>>> Even reading just the abstract of this paper tells me that it is utter >>>> codswallop. He clearly does not understand stochastic processes and >>>> statistics. >>>> >>>> >>> Zuboff is considered an expert in probabilistic processes (he invented >>> the sleeping beauty problem >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem>, for instance). >>> >>> Could you point out his error that led you to believe it is "utter >>> codswallop"? >>> >> >> From the abstract: >> "One powerful argument for this is statistical: on the ordinary view of >> personhood it is an incredible coincidence for you (though not for others) >> that out of 200,000,000 sperm cells the very one required on each occasion >> for your future existence was first to the egg in each of the begettings of >> yourself and all your ancestors. The only view that does not make your >> existence incredible, and that is not therefore (from your perspective) an >> incredible view, is that any conscious being would necessarily have been >> you anyway. It is a consequence that self-interest should extend to all >> conscious organisms." >> >> That is not how it works. And that is actually a dualistic view -- "You" >> exist apart from the fertilization of your mother's egg. Incredible........ >> >> > I read it in quite the opposite way. As he later clarifies, he is > approaching it from the angle that one's consciousness is dependent on some > atomic or genetic make up. > I do not have a problem with that idea. > If that is true, and further, if it is the case that "you" would have no > first person experience had one of your possible brothers or sisters been > born in your stead, then it is incredible that you are alive at all. > That is still dualist. "You" are the result of a particular sperm-ovum fusion. Other sperm and abstract possibilities play no role, physical or theoretical. If you think about it, that is analogous to the misconceived "Sleeping Beauty" problem. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTjsEnxCvXL_TRVJ9Q%2BP8YcGZD9jNxS9i8qjD0314Rm7A%40mail.gmail.com.
