I read this discussion and 'try' not to get involved (never succeed<G>).
Ourselves w/wout our memories? what else? These terms come from the ancient
religious fable about a 'soul' - the person in the faith-domain.
Even the old Indians made 'reincarnation' hazy without memories and the only
item to be reincarnated was a nebulous 'identity without identity'.
In your very logical and 'cool-headed' reply below I cannot help but detect
the 'physicist' as first line, going into anything else from there.
"Gap?" "I" and "you"? concepts of materialist physiscs base, which is not
proven the fundament of them all, rather a consequence in a certain
"mindset" (whatever that may be). We 'feel' something like 'I' and make it
the spiritus rector of them all, looking for "where is it"? (one step
better: "how does it do it"?) while "it" may be a limited consequence of
what we don't understand but use.
"Unconscious memories"? if we ever live in a dynamics of timeless
interconnection into the totality (no space either, only in our wish to
[co]-ordinate our limited views): rather  'take another  look at - what we
call - *memory recall* and perceive it according to our upest-to-date
Dynamic relational adjustments incorporated. Or whatever is beyond our
limited imagination (solipsist view about the *existence* especially based
on a physically related view).* 'Where are they'?* in the spaceless realm.
(Dis-)Continuity? absolutely physical.
And a second is not a 'short term' in a timeless view.

I can make one statement and that looks to me unbeatable (as well as
unprovable): *We don't know, but think (feel?) we do*.
Have a good springtime
John M

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Brent Meeker <>wrote:

> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > 2009/4/2 Bruno Marchal <>:
> >
> >
> >>> I would say that if you are at a fork where one version of you loses
> >>> all memories and another does not, then you will find yourself going
> >>> down the no memory loss path.
> >>>
> >> At which point? Also, why is it that we din't survive them to the
> >> continuation where we don't ever mage very weird (amnesic) dreams.
> >> We would not survive salvia at all.
> >>
> >
> > This sounds a bit like the argument which says that if QI is true, we
> > could never fall asleep, since we don't experience unconsciousness and
> > therefore we would only experience the worlds where we stay awake
> > indefinitely. That argument is invalid, unless we are falling asleep
> > permanently, i.e. dying. If we fall asleep and wake up again, or
> > experience amnesia and recover, then the worlds where that happens are
> > *not* excluded by QI. They are simply worlds where you have a gap in
> > consciousness, as valid when you are calculating subjective
> > probabilities as the (in general far less common) worlds where there
> > is no such gap.
> >
> >
> >
> But if you're going to derive physics from consciousness you need to
> explain what connects across the gap - why is it still "you".  I
> appreciate that part of the answer is memories, although Bruno seems to
> think they are inessential.  But even if they are part of the answer
> there still seems to me to be a problem in that almost all memories are
> *not* in consciousness at any one time.  So must we invoke "unconscious
> memories" (which are where?) or some other factor that provides the
> continuity of self or do we simply assert that you are no one in
> particular when you are not remembering anything.  My speculation is
> that there there is subconscious "memory" on the very short term,
> ~second, which provides continuity .  This operates even when you are
> asleep so that there is continuity of events in you dreams.  If you
> suffer a concussion the continuity is broken and you have gap in  memory
> and in consciousness.  This immediate memory provides continuity between
> times when you recall long-term memories, which are the ones Quentin is
> concerned with.
> Brent
> >

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

Reply via email to