jcs-online ("Solipsism Virtualized")

[Andemicael]
Not exactly. The point I am making in the article is that "existence" and "persistence" are indistinguishable concepts; I am demonstrating that "existence" is dynamic not static in its nature. However, I do agree completely with your statement that a moment of time "essentially has no existence whatsoever."

Existence requires duration.

And duration, in order to arise, requires a persisting present.

(Readers interested in this subject of temporal passage may wish to examine detailed arguments contributed by me to the Quantum-Mind archives some months ago [September-November, 1998: http://listserv.arizona.edu/lsv/www/quantum-mind.html].)

***

[Andemicael, from abstract (http://home.att.net/~Andemicael/process1.html)]
To date, we have not formulated a truly satisfying theory explaining time's "flux" (or "passage") and its relationship to consciousness; but this stems from a mistaken assumption on our part regarding the relationship between the concepts "existence" and "persistence."

Clearly, a thing (e.g., a material entity) cannot exist if it does not remain in existence. After all, a thing which exists, but does not persist, exists for a total duration of only one moment. One moment, however, is by definition only zero seconds long--no length of time at all. We must realize that if we say a material object (or anything else for that matter) has existed for no length of time, we are stating, in effect, that it has never been in existence. All things which exist necessarily exist for some length of time, however short this may be.

This argument applies to the present moment. If the present moment is to exist, it must remain in existence: it must endure. We often picture the present moment as moving up through time, into the future; this, in fact, is our way of visualizing the idea that the present moment maintains its existence, as time passes.

Clearly, the mystery of time's passage is solved. Given that:

1. the present must endure in order to exist, it follows that
2. time must pass if the present exists.

Time passes, therefore, for the simple reason that the present exists.

[Andemicael]
I believe that this and other arguments presented by me strongly support the view that temporal passage is a subjective phenomenon which results from the persistence of an individual mind's mental states.

***

[Andemicael, previously]
There can be no "factual inconsistencies" if reality is considered strictly from the point of view of the individual mind, which, as described above, is temporally independent of all other minds. Factual inconsistencies or conflicts can arise between two experiences of reality only if a temporal relationship exists between the two experiences. In order to compare experiences in the mental life of any two consciousnesses, the two must somehow co-exist within a common temporal context. It is, however, logically impossible to define such a common context/present.

[Cook]
"Minds" are not only temporally but also spatially "independent of other minds". The fact of the matter is that we can organize separate, individual experiences into common contexts, which of course is the purpose and function of language. If this could not be done then language would not work, and all of your speaking above is quite useless from your own logic and point of view. You contradict yourself.

[Andemicael]
Language permits us to describe the experiences of individual minds individually. However, it does not allow us to coordinate the experiences of two minds temporally unless we first make the assumption that the two are embedded within the same, objective present. I have already argued that there can be no such objective present.

My use of words such as "we" and "us" acknowledges the existence of many minds. But it in no way implies that these minds exist within the same temporal context/present.

There are no contradictions to be found here.