On 1/15/2013 8:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only
life from
their childhood to now?
All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly
immortal it
does't mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our
memories all
the time. How much of your current life are you recalling at any given
moment?
To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or
someone
else experiencing what it was like to be an original biological human.
When
this life ends the consciousness original biological humans ends, but it
continues as the someone else who experienced that original biological
human's
life.
But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of
experiences -
so if the sequence continues (and I don't know how you distinguish one
continuation from a another)
I don't bother trying as I've realized it is futile. I've found only two
workable
definitions of "you" which don't lead to contradictions:
1) Each observer moment has its own unique experiencer.
2) All observer moments belong to the same experiencer.
The latter at least leads to useful decision theories (like why bother
getting out
of bed in the morning), while the former seems to lead to nihilism. I
prefer the
second one.
I love it how empirical contradiction is so easily dismissed.
The theory that you are everyone is not falsified by our experience (the examples I gave
above show that one don't need to remember experiencing something in order to have
experienced it or to be experiencing it (as a duplicate)).
"To be experiencing it as a duplicate (but not remember)" is just double-talk. It just
trashes the concept of person, which it pretends to explain. Do you think you could be a
person without memory (ever known someone with severe Alzheimer's?).
Further, this theory makes makes fewer assumptions than the single-life theories. Those
theories contain an additional assumption that there is some process of selection which
led to you being born as you and no one else.
A sentence that made sense up until "as you...".
What is your justification for adding this additional assumption when the theory itself
explains why we can't recall the perspectives of other people?
It doesn't explain it. In fact it denies there are other people (thus violating Bruno's
religion).
It is just like the collapse postulate, which you are also fond of. It serves no useful
purpose and needlessly complicates the theory.
No useful purpose except making the theory useful.
Brent
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
