Jonathan Colvin writes:
> There's a question begging to be asked, which is (predictably I suppose, for
> a qualia-denyer such as myself), what makes you think there is such a thing
> as an "essence of an experience"? I'd suggest there is no such "thing" as an
> observer-moment. I'm happy with using the concept as a tag of sorts when
> discussing observer selection issues, but I think reifying it is likely a
> mistake, and goes considerably beyond Strong AI into a full Cartesian
> dualism. Is it generally accepted here on this list that a
> substrate-independent thing called an "observer moment" exists?
Here's how I attempted to define observer moment a few years ago:
Observer - A subsystem of the multiverse with qualities sufficiently
similar to those which are common among human beings that we consider
it meaningful that we might have been or might be that subsystem.
These qualities include consciousness, perception of a flow of time,
and continuity of identity.
Observer-moment - An instant of perception by an observer. An observer's
sense of the flow of time allows its experience to be divided into
units so small that no perceptible change in consciousness is possible
in those intervals. Each such unit of time for a particular observer
is an observer-moment.
So if you don't believe in observer-moments, do you also not believe
in observers? Or is it the -moment that causes problems?