= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bramflakes comments on Why is the A-Theory of Time Attractive? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (89)
I had to re-read this several times before I understood the point of what you were saying. It has a lot of important things missing, in particular:
Why bring time into this? Intuitions 1 and 2 collide in the same way regardless of whether the two mind-states are causally connected (e.g. I'd still feel that a sufficiently-similar-to-me simulation in some place outside my light cone is still me, somehow, even though I don't have any of his qualia).
How does B-theory solve this problem?
I'm not sure that I understand the question. The post started out being about time. Time wasn't "brought into it".
I think you're right that the intuitions collide regardless. In my experience, B-theorists reject Intuition 1. B-theorists incline to say that you are a temporally extended object, and that your present awareness is just one time-slice of this 4D object. That is, they allow that you contain, within your 4D extension, several self-aware parts that are not aware of one another. Two such self-aware parts are you-today and you-tomorrow.
(Here, I'm using "aware" to refer to the kind of immediate awareness that you have of your current experiences. Normally, even the most vivid memories lack this sense of immediateness and so are easily distinguished from present experience.)
I'm an A-ist and that's what I think. I don't see how it's incompatible with A-ism.
I probably should have used the terminology of "presentism" and "eternalism" instead of "A-theory" and "B-theory". Do you consider yourself to be a presentist?