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?
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