Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On 3/19/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > Each observer moment lives only transiently and is not in telepathic
> > communication with any other OMs, whether related to it or not. The
> > effect (or illusion) of continuity of consciousness is adequately
> > explained by each OM remembering past experiences. These past
> > experiences need not have happened at all, let alone happened in the
> > remembered order and in the remembered body.
> It seems you are simultaneously asserting that an OM is an isolated,
> experience of one thing and contrarily that it includes memories of
> past experiences. That makes it a compound. If an OM can be such
> a compound then it can include memory of which OM was immediately
> before it and OMs will form a chain (as suggested by Bertrand
> Russell) and define mental "time". Under comp this chain may branch
> (and merge) but it would not include isolated OMs that didn't
> include memory of a predecessor.
> The memories of past experiences are called real memories if they arose
> in the usual causally linked fashion, in the same brain. However, in
> theory they could be false memories. There is no way to tell, from
> within a particular moment of experience, whether remembered moments
> occurred in the remembered order or even occurred at all in the real world.
> Stathis Papaioannou
I understand that. But if OMs are isolated, unitary experiences, then there is
no way to explain 'consistent continuation' as in Bruno's comp. OMs that don't
happen to be remembering some other OM are disconnected and are equally
consistent and inconsistent with any other OM. They aren't able to create even
the illusion of continuity.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at