On 03 Dec 2009, at 19:56, Brent Meeker wrote:

> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> 2009/12/3 soulcatcher☠ <soulcatche...@gmail.com>:
>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com 
>>> > wrote:
>>>> If you were Elvis and Elvis were you, what difference would that  
>>>> make
>>>> to anything?
>>> That would make a huge difference for me and Elvis - my (and his)
>>> subjective experiences would be very different. And, as these
>>> experiences are by definition "private and ineffable" (is it  
>>> right?),
>>> that would make no difference for anything but me and Elvis.
>>> Sorry, maybe I just don't understand your question ...
>> OK, let's leave Elvis out of it since he is dead. Suppose you and I
>> switch places. What would change? To find out, I'll just wave my  
>> hands
>> in a special magical way and - poof! - it's done. You now have my  
>> mind
>> and body, while I have your mind and body. So really it isn't the
>> original me writing this, it is the original you, who only thinks he
>> is the original me since he has my mind and body; and over there it
>> isn't the original you reading this, but the original me who only
>> thinks he is the original you.
>> Do you see the problem in the above exchange? It assumes there is  
>> some
>> metaphysical "me" and "you" that can be conceptualised as flitting
>> about from one body and mind to another. But such a notion seems to  
>> me
>> absurd, meaningless, worse than wrong.
> Exactly.  It is the magical "I" that is swapped.

That "I" is magical. It is like swapping both the mind (or 1-I) and  
the body (or 3-I).
Eventually this is the reason why absolute sample of the observer  
moment does not work, and we need relative self self-sampling. Which  
neither with QM (without collapse) or just digital mechanism is  
obvious to derive.

The mind can swap its body for brain or another, or survive through a  
digital back-up. Rigt?
This mean the notion of "I" still make sense. Both the 1-I, and the 3- 
I makes sense, it is the link between them which is "magical", and  
made harder to figure out than people usually believe, like with the  
identity thesis, physical supervenience, etc.

Now, when you see that people have some difficulty to understand  
thought experience without amnesia, thought experience with amnesia  
are perhaps premature. I am not sure. It depends on your familiarity  
with such kind of thought.




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