<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 04/05/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Lee Corbin</b> <<a href="mailto:lcorbin@rawbw.com">lcorbin@rawbw.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
We're not far apart! I would amend what you have just written to<br>say that we cannot "know" that we remain the same person from<br>moment to moment---it is a conjecture, of course, like anything<br>else. And Heartland has a point in saying that any part of it that is
<br>subjective is pretty weak. We strongly and rightly *believe*<br>that we are the same person from moment to moment, and from<br>day to day, because it has withstood the test of criticism for ages,<br>and we cannot parsimoniously believe that some tremendous agency
<br>has been messing with our minds.<br><br>But the key overriding evidence would be *objective* evidence.<br>Again, one could be shown some videos that would make one<br>doubt that he was the same person he was even an hour ago, or
<br>a few minutes ago. Do you agree with this:<br><br> Were objective scientific means of measuring approximately<br> how much memory change was going on, then we would<br> be the same person from moment to moment if and only if
<br> the objective facts were that our memories had undergone<br> only the usual small quotidian changes to which we are<br> accustomed to (or we think we are familiar with) in daily life.<br><br> The "subjective criterion"---when we are engaged at a basic
<br> level as with Heartland---is worthless.</blockquote><div><br>One would like the objective and the subjective evidence to match up, but if they don't, what basis is there for choosing one over the other? If your brain has been tampered with as expertly as you propose isn't it also possible that the objective evidence in the form of video tapes, other peoples' testimonials and so on, has also been tampered with?
<br></div><br></div>-- <br>Stathis Papaioannou