Brent Meeker writes:
> But the problem I see is that we don't know with certainity the present moment
> either. I have thoughts and perceptions in a stream, these have finite
> durations (on the order of hundreds of milliseconds) that overlap one another.
> When you say we know a present moment you are introspecting a memory of what
> just happened and I think it likely that you are just confabulating that you
> not only read the above line but that you were *aware of reading it* at the
So what do you know? What would you use as a starting point in a
philosophical exploration? Do you assume the world is real? That it
is inconceivable that you are living in a simulation? Do you assume
that your memories are correct?
Or would you go in the other direction and say that it is possible that
you are not conscious, perhaps that you don't even exist?
It seems to me that we have to choose something between assuming that all
our memories are real and the world is exactly as it seems (which is too
much); or assuming that we might not exist (which is too little). The OM
seems to me to fit the bill as far as what is the right thing to assume.
What would you suggest as an alternative?