this claim is not really relevant for the doomsday argument, you only need the random sampling of the index of someone, you use you, because you are random choice. it doesn’t matter that you can’t be another you.
this claim can be interesting regarding SIA, but even there i don’t think it holds, but it will be more interesting and nuance.
Seem interesting, and i want to follow, but the only way i will do that it if there will be RSS feed.
Can you add RSS feed to the archive? i think it should be simple.
1. In regard to mental imagery and other lack of qualia phenomena, it seems to me that the lack of qualia can be in the other directions in all cases. For example, people who say that they can form mental images, may not have qualia for real life imagery, so both experiences are more of the same to them.
How you can distinguish between those two possibilities?
2. People without qualia (if exist) will have their “real” interpretation of stuff like “vivid sensation of my own presence”, and i think that most definitions will failed to find them.
And to be more specific to your definition—non-qualia person will still have awareness for his presence and a self. And still will have more awareness for what he think and his body when meditate.
Really interesting, I like the use of Aumann’s Agreement Theorem, but not sure yet about the claims against indexing.
I have some problems with the SIA vs SSA discussion:
As I see it, SIA and SSA are not alternative for each other, they are both true, and cancel each other, so the doomsday argument is true argument (when ignoring other information like SIA) and also the claim for more life is true (when ignoring SSA) - but together the claims are false. My ranking is evidence for doomsday, but my existence is evidence for more life, when putting them together (in Bayes theorem) they just cancel. No paradoxes.
Maybe the incompetence level change.
Yes there are incompetence in the Navy SEAL, but for some one not in the Navy SEAL the incompetence will look like high quality job.
If you are John von Neumann then everyone else seem a little incompetent.
I am nor sure that me willing to accept to be paid X to stay in the hostel, is similar to me willing to pay X/n for someone else to say there.
Say it is only me and another person, hotel cost 100$, hostel cost 50$, i am willing to stay in the hostel for 100$.
If i am staying in the hostel, i will get 100$ and pay 50$, meaning i will have +50$ - which i am happy with since i ask for the 100$
If i am staying in the hotel, i might pay the other person up to 100$, meaning i will spent up to 200$ - which i may be very annoy by, since now the hotel may not be worth the cost.
There a very realistic scenario here, in which there no balance between people cost of accepting to stay in the hostel, and the cost they willing to spend on the vacation/hotel.