Brent Meeker writes:
[quoting Saibal Mitra]
>>There exists an observer moment representing you at N seconds, at N + 4
>>seconds and at all possible other states. They all ''just exist'' in the
>>plenitude, as Stathis wrote. The OM representing you at N + 4 has the
>>memory of being the OM at N.
>
>This I find confusing. How is there memory associated with an obserever
>moment? Is it equivocation on "memory"? As an experience, remembering
>something takes much longer than what I would call "a moment". It may
>involve a sequence images, words, and emotions. Of course in a materialist
>model of the world the memories are coded in the physical configuration of
>your brain, even when not being experienced; but an analysis that takes
>OM's as fundamental can't refer to that kind of memories.
It is true that human cognition, memories etc. are not instantaneous. There
are two ways to keep the OM concept useful despite this. One is to extend
each "moment" so that it encompasses, for example, the minimum period of
awareness (probably a substantial fraction of a second), or any interval of
arbitrary length, such as the waking hours of a day. This still allows one
to think about questions involving continuity of personal identity where
multiple copies or near-copies of a given mind are running simultaneously,
the interval of the OMs under consideration being tailored to the particular
situation. The other way is to bite the bullet and allow instantaneous
part-cognitions. A memory is then only associated with an OM during the act
of remembering, and each instantaneous OM covers only an instant of that
act, in the same way a frame in a film covers only an instant of the action
depicted by the series of frames.
Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ
Security.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Received on Sun Nov 27 2005 - 21:10:59 PST