But if control is inherently asymmetric, it can’t be a relationship that is “the same” or symmetric.
That might not be your definition of control. I can explain control in terms of asymmetry and counterfactuals. I haven’t seen an alternative explanation.
By control, I mean that I can control for example where my hand goes. That’s asymmetric between me and my hand, but it’s very similar to the relationship between you and your hand; and it’s even more similar to the relationship between my duplicate and their hand.
Of course you know that sometimes the right way to understand the situation is to say that you control your hand. Right? That’s what we’re talking about here.
Ok. You’re controlling your hand, not vice versa. But what about the relationship between you and your duplicate....who is the controller and who is controlled?
But if control is inherently asymmetric, it can’t be a relationship that is “the same” or symmetric.
That might not be your definition of control. I can explain control in terms of asymmetry and counterfactuals. I haven’t seen an alternative explanation.
(I don’t understand what you’re saying.)
Edited.
By control, I mean that I can control for example where my hand goes. That’s asymmetric between me and my hand, but it’s very similar to the relationship between you and your hand; and it’s even more similar to the relationship between my duplicate and their hand.
The obvious answer to this is that under these circumstances, you don’t control your hand or anything else either.
Of course you know that sometimes the right way to understand the situation is to say that you control your hand. Right? That’s what we’re talking about here.
Ok. You’re controlling your hand, not vice versa. But what about the relationship between you and your duplicate....who is the controller and who is controlled?
The parts of you and your duplicate that do the controlling, are the same thing.
No , they are exact duplicates but numerically distinct.