4 ms·

I think you're making a good point, but anthropic reasoning is hard so I'm still mulling it over. What you're saying is that panpsychism implies a lower probab

I think you're making a good point, but anthropic reasoning is hard so I'm still mulling it over. What you're saying is that panpsychism implies a lower probability of you ending up as you, because you may have ended up as a conscious bacteria instead. I'm going to tentatively disagree with that because the counterfactual of you ending up as a bacteria instead of a human is impossible, and therefore it doesn't factor into the probability estimates. Whether a bacteria can be conscious is besides the point. I may be committing some kind of Monty Hall fallacy, but don't currently think so. The Veil of Ignorance is false if we're talking about physical reality.

kkoncevicius 6y ago
The argument I am pondering over here is very similar to the one about human population, you might have heard about it, it goes something like this: "human population is now likely highest it will ever be and will be drastically reduced in the future, because if we were to be born as any human randomly we would likely be born during a period where there are highest number of people alive". Sadly I don't remember the name of it, but this argument about consciousness is in the same fashion. Except the odds are a _lot_ more surprising when compared with the population argument.
- hntrader 6y ago
  It's the Doomsday Argument and I can see how you're applying the same logic. Doesn't this logic also imply that solipsism is true? 1 observer is less than 7 billion observers and therefore more likely under the logic of the Doomsday argument.
  - kkoncevicius 6y ago
    Thank you for naming it, now I can see if there are criticism of the doomsday argument that also apply. And I do see how this can lead to solipsism. In particular when combined with "Self-Indication Assumption: The possibility of not existing at all" [1] . Solipsism would be a theory that explains both - the doomsday original argument and this criticism. But I haven't thought much about that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument#Self-Indication_Assumption:_The_possibility_of_not_existing_at_all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument#Self-Indicat...

kkoncevicius 6y ago

The argument I am pondering over here is very similar to the one about human population, you might have heard about it, it goes something like this: "human population is now likely highest it will ever be and will be drastically reduced in the future, because if we were to be born as any human randomly we would likely be born during a period where there are highest number of people alive". Sadly I don't remember the name of it, but this argument about consciousness is in the same fashion. Except the odds are a _lot_ more surprising when compared with the population argument.

hntrader 6y ago
It's the Doomsday Argument and I can see how you're applying the same logic. Doesn't this logic also imply that solipsism is true? 1 observer is less than 7 billion observers and therefore more likely under the logic of the Doomsday argument.
- kkoncevicius 6y ago
  Thank you for naming it, now I can see if there are criticism of the doomsday argument that also apply. And I do see how this can lead to solipsism. In particular when combined with "Self-Indication Assumption: The possibility of not existing at all" [1] . Solipsism would be a theory that explains both - the doomsday original argument and this criticism. But I haven't thought much about that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument#Self-Indication_Assumption:_The_possibility_of_not_existing_at_all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument#Self-Indicat...