But instead of experiencing it from the perspective of your current body (e.g. in my case that of Dadadarren’s), now you do it from that of Elon’s. The subjective experience felt and consciousness accessible is now from the Billionaire’s physical point of view instead of your current case, viz. you are Elon.
I don’t think this dualism is justified. There IS NO distinct “me”, separate from the embodiment in the brain that is physically separated from Elon’s embodied experiences. My subjective experience is inseparable from the perspective of my current body. Elon’s experience (presumably) is also simply part of his physical state. In other words, I am Elon, when Elon’s body is the subject of the sentence.
I fully agree that intuitions about identity and continuity are not trained on upload and copy situations. Those things are just out-of-domain for our beliefs about how it works.
If one regard physics as a detached description of the world— like a non-interacting yet apt depiction of the objective reality, (assuming that exists and is attainable) then yes there is no distinct “me”. And any explanation of subject experience ought to be explained by physical processes, such that everyone’s “MEness” must be ultimately reduced to the physical body.
However my entire position stems from a different logical starting point. It starts with “me”. It is an undeniable and fundamental fact that I am this particular thing, which I later referred to it as a human being called Dadadarren. (Again I assume the same goes for everyone) Everything I know about the world is through that thing’s interaction with its environment, which leads to accessible subjective experience. Even physics is learned in such a way, as well as the conception that other things could have perspective different from mine own. I am not interacting with the world as someone of something else, from those thing’s perspective, is just a simple realization after that.
This way physics would not be taken as the detached fundamental description of objective reality. The description has to originate from a given thing’s perspective, working based on its interaction from the environment. That given perspective could be mine, could be Elon’s, could be a thermometer’s or an electron’s. We strive for concepts and formulas that works from a wide range of perspectives. That’s what physical objectivity should mean.
So it follows that physics cannot explain why I am Dadadarren and not Elon: because perspective is a prior. This makes way more sense to me personally: the physical knowledge about the two human beings doesn’t even touch on why I am Dadadarren and not Elon. (and that was the purpose of the thought experiment) At least better than the alternative: that they is no ME, or that I am Elon just as I am me, in some convoluted sense such as open individualism.
So from where I stand, it is physicalism that requires justification.
an undeniable and fundamental fact that I am this particular thing, which I later referred to it as a human being called Dadadarren
I don’t dispute that you have an undeniable and fundamental fact that you experience things which you summaraize as Dadadarren. I do question what you mean by “this particular thing”. I don’t know that our model of physics is true or complete (in fact, I suspect it’s not), but I don’t see any reason to believe that conscious experiences (me-ness) are somehow separate from underlying physical processes.
I don’t think this dualism is justified. There IS NO distinct “me”, separate from the embodiment in the brain that is physically separated from Elon’s embodied experiences. My subjective experience is inseparable from the perspective of my current body. Elon’s experience (presumably) is also simply part of his physical state. In other words, I am Elon, when Elon’s body is the subject of the sentence.
I fully agree that intuitions about identity and continuity are not trained on upload and copy situations. Those things are just out-of-domain for our beliefs about how it works.
If one regard physics as a detached description of the world— like a non-interacting yet apt depiction of the objective reality, (assuming that exists and is attainable) then yes there is no distinct “me”. And any explanation of subject experience ought to be explained by physical processes, such that everyone’s “MEness” must be ultimately reduced to the physical body.
However my entire position stems from a different logical starting point. It starts with “me”. It is an undeniable and fundamental fact that I am this particular thing, which I later referred to it as a human being called Dadadarren. (Again I assume the same goes for everyone) Everything I know about the world is through that thing’s interaction with its environment, which leads to accessible subjective experience. Even physics is learned in such a way, as well as the conception that other things could have perspective different from mine own. I am not interacting with the world as someone of something else, from those thing’s perspective, is just a simple realization after that.
This way physics would not be taken as the detached fundamental description of objective reality. The description has to originate from a given thing’s perspective, working based on its interaction from the environment. That given perspective could be mine, could be Elon’s, could be a thermometer’s or an electron’s. We strive for concepts and formulas that works from a wide range of perspectives. That’s what physical objectivity should mean.
So it follows that physics cannot explain why I am Dadadarren and not Elon: because perspective is a prior. This makes way more sense to me personally: the physical knowledge about the two human beings doesn’t even touch on why I am Dadadarren and not Elon. (and that was the purpose of the thought experiment) At least better than the alternative: that they is no ME, or that I am Elon just as I am me, in some convoluted sense such as open individualism.
So from where I stand, it is physicalism that requires justification.
Oh, I wonder if our crux is
I don’t dispute that you have an undeniable and fundamental fact that you experience things which you summaraize as Dadadarren. I do question what you mean by “this particular thing”. I don’t know that our model of physics is true or complete (in fact, I suspect it’s not), but I don’t see any reason to believe that conscious experiences (me-ness) are somehow separate from underlying physical processes.