= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kawoomba comments on Outlawing Anthropics: An Updateless Dilemma - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (194)
Which is why we're still highly invested in the question whether (whatever it is that generates our conscious experience) will "stay around" and continue with our pattern in an expected manner.
Let's say we identify with only the mathematical object, not the representation format at all. That doesn't excuse us from anthropic reasoning, or from a personal investment in reasoning about the implementing "hardware". We'd still be highly invested in the question, even as 'mathematical objects'. We probably still care about being continually instantiated.
The shift in perspective you suggest doesn't take away from that (and adds what could be construed as a flavor of dualism).
Hmmm.
I will have to mull on that, but let me leave with a mote of explanation:
The reasoning strategy I used to arrive at this conclusion was similar to the one used in concluding that "every possible human exists in paralell universes, so we need not make more humans, but more humans feeling good."
Doesn't every possible human-feeling-good also exist in parallel universes?
(And if you argue that although they exist you can increase their measure, that applies to the every-possible-human version as well.)
Sure, but I will quote Karkat Vantas on time-travel shenanigans from Andrew Hussie's Homestuck