[Link] Is the Orthogonality Thesis Defensible? (Qualia Computing)

Full title: Is the Orthogonality Thesis Defensible if We Assume Both Valence Realism and Open Individualism?

https://​​qualiacomputing.com/​​2019/​​11/​​09/​​is-the-orthogonality-thesis-defensible-if-we-assume-both-valence-realism-and-open-individualism/​​ (a)

An excerpt:


The cleanest typology for metaphysics I can offer is: some theories focus on computations as the thing that’s ‘real’, the thing that ethically matters – we should pay attention to what the *bits* are doing. Others focus on physical states – we should pay attention to what the *atoms* are doing. I’m on team atoms, as I note here: Against Functionalism.
My suggested takeaway: an open individualist who assumes computationalism is true (team bits) will have a hard time coordinating with an open individualist who assumes physicalism is true (team atoms) — they’re essentially running incompatible versions of OI and will compete for resources.
As a first approximation, instead of three theories of personal identity – Closed Individualism, Empty Individualism, Open Individualism – we’d have six. CI-bits, CI-atoms, EI-bits, EI-atoms, OI-bits, OI-atoms.
Whether the future is positive will be substantially determined by how widely and deeply we can build positive-sum moral trades between these six frames.