On 26 Feb 2009, at 18:41, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> There is no identity without memories... makes no sense to me.

I take it as a superficial part of identity, with respect to  
surviving. Personal identity, I think is more and less than personal  
By loosing memory "I" would be wounded, not dead.

> If "I" with my memories happen to have no next moment with my  
> memories... I will be dead, and no cul-de-sac is false... a next  
> moment where none of your memories is left is no more a next moment.

No memories at all? In that case some month ago I would have agreed  
with you, but I have lost any certainties here.

> You know it was you because you did wake up as you...

How could I know that?

> you didn't know inside the dream...

This is Maury's conception of dream. I doubt it a lot, and consider it  
refuted by the work of Laberge and Dement (and Hearne) on lucid  

> note that I'm not even sure we have of sense of self while dreaming,

OK, here I disagree rather strongly.

> I accept we have it during a recollection of the dream.

Personal identity is indeed related to recollection of some memory,  
even in awaked state. Yet I do distinguish dying and forgetting.

> Memories, like body and brain are things we possess, and this means,  
> I think, that we can still survive without them.
> I think not.
> Suppose that I die tomorrow, and that sometimes after someone find a  
> backup of "me" at the age of five, so that "I" am reconstituted from  
> that backup. Would you say I am dead, or would you say that I have  
> survived, only with a severe sort of amnesy ?
> You will be dead.

Gosh!  And what if the backup has been done last year, or one minute  
ago? I will be dead too? Less dead?

Best regards,



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to