Second point: the motto is something like “anything which is dependent on you must have you inside its computation”. Something which depends on you because it is causally downstream of you contains you in its computation in the sense that you have to be calculated in the course of calculating it because you’re in its past. The claim is that this observation generalizes.
This seems like a motte and bailey. There’s a weak sense of “must have you inside its computation” which you’ve defined here and a strong sense as in “should be treated as containing as consciousness”.
Well, in any case, the claim I’m raising for consideration is that these two may turn out to be the same. The argument for the claim is the simplicity of merging the decision theory phenomenon with the anthropic phenomenon.
Second point: the motto is something like “anything which is dependent on you must have you inside its computation”. Something which depends on you because it is causally downstream of you contains you in its computation in the sense that you have to be calculated in the course of calculating it because you’re in its past. The claim is that this observation generalizes.
This seems like a motte and bailey. There’s a weak sense of “must have you inside its computation” which you’ve defined here and a strong sense as in “should be treated as containing as consciousness”.
Well, in any case, the claim I’m raising for consideration is that these two may turn out to be the same. The argument for the claim is the simplicity of merging the decision theory phenomenon with the anthropic phenomenon.