You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

michael_b comments on Deconstructing the riddle of experience vs. memory - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: michael_b 17 February 2015 03:36PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (22)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: michael_b 20 February 2015 09:52:22AM *  1 point [-]

Not if everything is reset back to the way it was!

He doesn't say that though. Perhaps he meant to imply that. Let's suppose he did, what does the experiencing vs remembering self model say about that?

You would start building memories. As you build them you're servicing the experiencing self, and over the course of the vacation your remembering self can recall the things you did earlier in the vacation. Finally the vacation ends and time resets to before the vacation and it's all gone, memories, sunburn. All of your new Facebook friends are strangers again.

If this is the problem he meant to specify then I'm still confused. Isn't this vacation model a microcosm of life? One day it ends, and everything is gone. Do you still bother living it? Is talking about a vacation that resets just less likely to trigger existential angst in the audience than asking people to think about why they bother living?

Comment author: dxu 22 February 2015 08:05:12PM 1 point [-]

A different but related question that (I feel) makes the dilemma clearer:

Is there any cause that you would be willing to be tortured for if you were assured that your memories of the torture (and all subconscious aftereffects) would be subsequently erased, but would be unwilling to be tortured for if there were no such assurance?