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 been light-spotted and expect very similar moment in its immediate neigborhoods. 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? Bruno
