The thing I’m most unsure about here is the giving so much attention to the reference class {alive or intelligent}’s relationship with anthropic measure, to the extent of treating that relationship as an anomaly that needs to be explained. If you have one data point about the class of red things, “Golg is Red”, and you know nothing about redness aside from that, does it really make sense to start making guesses about what is making Golg Red? Golg has the worst breath, should we then guess that Golg’s bad breath is what makes Golg Red? How confident should we be?
It seems notable that the thing we know to have anthropic measure is human. The reasons we associate humanness, intelligence or aliveness with that anthropic measure, though, do not seem entirely legit. It seems conspicuous that the thing we consider to have anthropic measure happens to also be the only thing that can loudly claim to have it.
The thing I’m most unsure about here is the giving so much attention to the reference class {alive or intelligent}’s relationship with anthropic measure, to the extent of treating that relationship as an anomaly that needs to be explained. If you have one data point about the class of red things, “Golg is Red”, and you know nothing about redness aside from that, does it really make sense to start making guesses about what is making Golg Red? Golg has the worst breath, should we then guess that Golg’s bad breath is what makes Golg Red? How confident should we be?
It seems notable that the thing we know to have anthropic measure is human. The reasons we associate humanness, intelligence or aliveness with that anthropic measure, though, do not seem entirely legit. It seems conspicuous that the thing we consider to have anthropic measure happens to also be the only thing that can loudly claim to have it.