3 ms·
If you assume that the observer can "occupy" a body, rather than be a body, you have to conclude that the memories are part of the body, not the observer. You a
by exitb 3y ago
If you assume that the observer can "occupy" a body, rather than be a body, you have to conclude that the memories are part of the body, not the observer. You assume that you occupy the "correct" body, because your present experience matches your memories, but that'd be true even if you moved to occupy another body. Moreover, how do you know that there isn't more than one observer in your body? Or maybe there's just one observer sharing all the bodies?
- evrimoztamur 3y agoTo answer your last to questions: I don’t know! And those formulations are simply, in my opinion, rhetorical variations of the hard questions too. One observer many bodies or many observers one body are equally valid possibilities, as far as I can tell, and I am not referring to split personality disorders or a collective external memory for that matter. It’s genuinely one of the most fascinating questions out there for me right now!