At some point in the future a SI could come a long and explain all those observations in terms of atoms etc and your “control” etc would go poof becoming epiphenomenal.
You can explain a rainbow in terms of optics, but that doesn’t make it an epiphenomenon. The haunted mine has been emptied of gnomes, but the rainbow is still there.
For goodness sakes, I just covered all this territory a couple of months ago. Consider rereading the Reductionism sequence.
So you are saying that explaining something is equivalent to constructing a map that bridges an inferential distance, whereas explaining something away is refactoring thought-space to remove an unnecessary gerrymandering?
At some point in the future a SI could come a long and explain all those observations in terms of atoms etc and your “control” etc would go poof becoming epiphenomenal.
I repeat: There is a difference between explaining something, and explaining it away.
You can explain a rainbow in terms of optics, but that doesn’t make it an epiphenomenon. The haunted mine has been emptied of gnomes, but the rainbow is still there.
For goodness sakes, I just covered all this territory a couple of months ago. Consider rereading the Reductionism sequence.
So you are saying that explaining something is equivalent to constructing a map that bridges an inferential distance, whereas explaining something away is refactoring thought-space to remove an unnecessary gerrymandering?