On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 6:19 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:32 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 8:52 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 8:38 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:08 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 2:42 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >>>>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTjsEnxCvXL_TRVJ9Q%2BP8YcGZD9jNxS9i8qjD0314Rm7A%40mail.gmail.com.
