Alfred Einstead wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:

We feel our heart beat.
We pick up a stone and throw it in the air.


The observations are red herrings. Even if you experienced time
in discontinuous jumps, even jumping from body to body at arbitrary
points in space and time; [each of] you would STILL perceive exactly
the same way as if [each of] experienced it as separate continuous
streams; because what makes the stream appear as a stream is the
way memory is structured:

(1) At any given time, [each of] your past[s] of that time is
in [each of] your memory[/ies], but little or none at all
of [each of] your future[s].
(2) Your memories of the past include memories of memories;
memories of memories of memories; and so on.

The net result of (1) creates a sense of a forward direction,
the net result of the cascading in (2) creates a sense of motion;
such that EVEN IF [each of] you didn't experience your events
in sequential order, [each of] you would STILL perceive them as such.

So, there isn't even a meaningful distinction at all between
"flow" and "not flowing"; nor -- given the above point about
the unobservability of whether you're actually jumping between
everyone's bodies or not -- any meaningful distinction between
"you" and "not you".

The most paradoxical in all this diatribe is the use of the second person that
denies its conclusion. Besides I must be confused about the English meaning of
"to experience" and "to percieve", which I don't know how *not* to read as
equivalents. The general impression is that the poster is responding to a red
herring that's not the one he denounces.