Jesse Mazer wrote:
>I don't really think there's some "other metaphysical realm" where we get
>dropped from, but I do think that, as an analogy, the spotlight one is not
>actually so bad. After all, if you think that you just *are* your current
>observer-moment, how can you possibly become any other one? The
>observer-moment itself doesn't transform--it's just sitting there timelessly
>in Platonia among all other possible observer-moments. So, it's better to
>think of "continuity of consciousness" as a spotlight moving between
>different observer-moments, with the probability of going from one to
>another defined by the conditional probability distribution.
I think each observer moment as the quality of "believing" it has just
light-spotted and expect very similar moment in its immediate
No need for external time nor external spotlight imo. Perhaps I am taking
your analogy too seriously.
>If we abandon the idea of an
>absolute probability distribution, we have no hope of explaining why I am
>this particular type of observer-moment experiencing this particular type of
>universe, and we can only explain why my future experience will have a
>certain amount in common with my current experience (assuming that's what
>the conditional probability distribution actually predicts).
But that is what each observer-moment can ask an explanation for. The
duplication WM experience illustrates that such question are senseless.
It is like "why am I in W" or "Why am I in M". With comp we can predict
that those questions will be asked, but there are no answers. We get
sort of necessary contingent propositions. No?