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?


Reply via email to