--- Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> Jacques Mallah wrote:
> > Other obsever-moments exist, but there's no reason
> > to insist that the ones that seem psychologically
> > to be in our past or future are really "the same
> > person".
> Identity is based on recognition. If we recognise
> these other observer-moments as belonging to us,
> then surely the simplest explanation is that we
> really did observe them.
Our impression that we experienced them is
psychological. The simplest explanation for a
psychological tendency is never new physics!
> I grant that it is
> logically possible for us _not_ to have experienced
> them - perhaps they were experienced by others, and
> implanted in our brains by aliens.
You seem quite confused. By definition, even the
"past" observer-moments are NOT in our brains. The
only thing in our brains NOW, that we can sense, are
by definition aspects of the current observer moment.
Some of these aspects are such that we conjecture the
existance of past observer moments, and we tend to
want to call "the observer" of "those moments" "me".
This tendency can mislead us because it is not well
defined or necessary.
From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
> Saying 'we really did observe them' is a lot less
> simple than saying 'they exist'. Jacques and I
> agree, I think, that Occam is against you here.
Yes.
=====
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jackmallah.domain.name.hidden)
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Received on Sat May 06 2000 - 10:25:30 PDT