Now let’s consider two possible scenarios. In one scenario, the subject is moderately shocked 500 times (each shock being cured and wiped from memory before the next shock). In another scenario, the patient is severely shocked once (with one shock cured and wiped from memory). Which one is worse? While there may be more aggregate pain occurring across time in the first scenario, the pain that is actually felt is greater in the second scenario. The sum of 500 shocks occurs but is not experienced while the excruciating shock is actually experienced. If I were the subject, I would want to reduce the severity of my first-person experience rather than a discontinuous third person aggregation even though I leave the experiment unharmed in both scenarios.
Why are the 500 shocks considered to be not experienced but the excruciating shock is considered to be actually experienced, if in both scenarios the memory is wiped?
The severity of an excruciating shock is felt by a living being in first person. In that sense it exists in its full badness. Even if it is forgotten, it was experienced.
For 500 shocks, the forgetting happens in between each shock. The worst that is experienced in first person at any moment is a moderate shock even if there are way more shocks from a third person perspective.
Why are the 500 shocks considered to be not experienced but the excruciating shock is considered to be actually experienced, if in both scenarios the memory is wiped?
The way I was thinking of it was:
The severity of an excruciating shock is felt by a living being in first person. In that sense it exists in its full badness. Even if it is forgotten, it was experienced.
For 500 shocks, the forgetting happens in between each shock. The worst that is experienced in first person at any moment is a moderate shock even if there are way more shocks from a third person perspective.
Ah I see what you mean now! The summation of the 500 shocks isn’t experienced in first person but each individual shock is.