> Or I could just simply remember what I felt. I actually do
Even eidetic memory isn't as perfect as media likes to pretend. It's unlikely that you have anything but a faint model of what you think you were like.
I shared my experience and you believe I'm wrong or lying. It's OK, but you stated your disbelief without providing any actual reason, just throwing one arcane word, the media and your opinion of what's unlikely in the pot.
Fortunately I have the writings. Otherwise I might be tempted to believe you ;)
How would you, or anyone, know with a high level of certainty that it is unlikely that he has anything but a faint model? You can point to studies I imagine, but how do we know those are correct? The topic isn't as deterministic as math or physics.
To know exactly what the contents of your mind were at that time, you'd need to make a full copy of it, so there is a physical limitation there. You can certainly get approximations of how you felt, but we typically remember peak experiences better than mundane ones. This makes sense from the standpoint of evolution: if you remember what it felt like when you put your hand on the stovetop in vivid detail, you won't do it again. Remembering what it felt like when you walked down the street on October 5th, 1995 is less important because nothing happened, so you just discard it entirely. You can make an educated guess from some template of what walking down the street feels like and what the weather in early October feels like, but you're not going to remember that instance exactly as it happened.
To know exactly what the contents of your mind were at that time, you'd need to make a full copy of it
To know it exactly. But I don't need that. I just remember how I felt and why, and that's what we were talking about, not about some sci-fi cloning feat.
Persons are different and experiment life, memories and emotions in different ways. I was once talking to a friend and then certain night arised in the conversation. It turned out that she had forgotten we had had sex five years before. I don't know which of us was more dumbfounded.
The argument in my first post was about remembering your experience exactly, so I think we agree. I am curious, how do you know you are remembering exactly how you felt and why? The 'why' you feel a certain way is itself actually tricky because we often do post hoc rationalizations for why we feel a certain way, so we aren't even always good at explaining why we feel the way we do in the present, let alone in the past.
'Thinking Fast and Slow' by Daniel Kahneman has an interesting bit on experience vs memory and how this affects our judgement. The two can differ quite a bit, based on the research presented in this book.
I'm very suspicious of treating the Kahneman system 1, system 2 as any more than a hypothesis since even he admits it's a model without any biological basis. What's worse is that most of the research he cites come from studies with almost no replication.
The hot-hand fallacy is perhaps my favorite example of experimentally debunked wisdom from that book.[0]
Fortunately I have the writings. Otherwise I might be tempted to believe you ;)