Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
> On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden
> <mailto:meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* < meekerdb.domain.name.hidden
> <mailto:meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
> > <mailto:meekerdb.domain.name.hidden
> <mailto:meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Each observer moment lives only transiently and is not in
> telepathic
> > > communication with any other OMs, whether related to it or
> not. The
> > > effect (or illusion) of continuity of consciousness is
> adequately
> > > explained by each OM remembering past experiences. These past
> > > experiences need not have happened at all, let alone
> happened in the
> > > remembered order and in the remembered body.
> >
> > It seems you are simultaneously asserting that an OM is an
> isolated,
> > experience of one thing and contrarily that it includes
> memories of
> > past experiences. That makes it a compound. If an OM can
> be such
> > a compound then it can include memory of which OM was
> immediately
> > before it and OMs will form a chain (as suggested by Bertrand
> > Russell) and define mental "time". Under comp this chain may
> branch
> > (and merge) but it would not include isolated OMs that didn't
> > include memory of a predecessor.
> >
> >
> > The memories of past experiences are called real memories if they
> arose
> > in the usual causally linked fashion, in the same brain. However, in
> > theory they could be false memories. There is no way to tell, from
> > within a particular moment of experience, whether remembered moments
> > occurred in the remembered order or even occurred at all in the
> real world.
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
>
> I understand that. But if OMs are isolated, unitary experiences,
> then there is no way to explain 'consistent continuation' as in
> Bruno's comp. OMs that don't happen to be remembering some other OM
> are disconnected and are equally consistent and inconsistent with
> any other OM. They aren't able to create even the illusion of
> continuity.
>
>
> Sure: continuity is created by memory.
But I don't see how.
>If there are OMs which don't
> remember being you then they are not going to be part of your stream of
> consciousness.
There's the rub. Almost all my OMs *do not* include consciously remembering being me (or anyone). And if you suppose there is an *unconscious* memory component of an OM then there's a problem with what it means to have an unconscious part of consciousness.
Brent Meeker
>they might be part of someone else's stream of
> consciousness, or just stand in isolation, with no future or past. I
> imagine this is what it would be like in the end stages of dementia.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Mar 18 2007 - 23:01:19 PDT