I wish to emphasize that according to a traditional realist's
beliefs, observer moments are objective and real, and hence
do exist, so that there is nothing objectionable about speculations
concerning them.

Suppose that a mouse during some small time delta t is in
a particular state (or set of states, if you wish to be picky).
In the objective tradition we do not next inquire about what
it seems like to the mouse, or what the mouse (read human)
could report or recall about the moment, or whether this moment
is "the same to the mouse" as some other moment. Instead, we
suppose that at very *least* the entire brain state is what
gives rise to the observer moment as a purely physical or
ideal process.

(In all likelihood, much less than the whole brain is required,
but so far 21st century science can only speculate on what the
proper subset of functioning is, or what the proper *calculation*
is that's going on in those neurons which would be appropriate to 
use as the "observer moment".) 

Since there is *some* objective process taking place, it must be
the case that this same, identical process is taking place at
other times and places. At this point I would usually branch off
and discuss the total benefit accruing to the mouse-person, but
it's really a different topic.

The final word: OMs can be viewed as objective processes, and
efforts to find the simplest explanation considering Everything
seem quite appropriate.


Reply via email to