> Well, the more fundamental point is that there is no 'I'. Just and idea of
> an I.
> 
> And we do not perceive any other observer moments. We just think we do.
> Having said that, the observer-moments we erroneously think we perceive
> actually do exist.
> 
> James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fritz Griffith [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 3:09 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:      RE: Everything is Just a Memory
> 
> >From: Higgo James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 'Fritz Griffith' 
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" 
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: Everything is Just a Memory
> >Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:20:49 -0000
> >
> >Nothing links two observer moments objectively. It is only we who say 'ah
> -
> >that moment must follow this one, to satisfy our laws of rationality' - 
> >that
> >doesn't mean their is any objective significance to our endeavour.
> 
> If NOTHING linked two observer moments together, how would we perceive any
> 
> other observer moments at all?  The only reason we perceive them is
> because 
> we remember them (think about it - how else would we know about past 
> moments?).  So, I mainly agree with you - nothing links two observer 
> moments, because there are no two observer moments to link.  The
> perception 
> of all other observer moments must exist within only one.
> 
> >
> >Again: nothing links two observer moments. All you are and will ever be
> is
> >this very idea.
> 
> That is a pretty vague statement, but it sounds like we are generally
> coming 
> to the same conclusion.  I would say that because all that needs to exist
> is 
> a single observer moment, all I am and ever will be is that single moment.
> 
> >
> >James
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:     Fritz Griffith [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent:     Friday, January 14, 2000 12:49 AM
> > > To:       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Cc:       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject:  Everything is Just a Memory
> > >
> > > GSLevy wrote:
> > > >I agree with James that consciousness is not a sequence of thought in
> > > >time.... because there is no such a thing as objective time.
> > > >
> > > >The plenitude can be viewed as a vast collection that include all
> > > possible
> > > >observer moments.
> > > >
> > > >Any transition from one observer-moment to another observer-moment
> that
> > > >satisfies rationality, (in mathematical terms, consistency), is a
> > > >"consciousness thread."
> > > >
> > > >I could possibly be more precise by saying:
> > > >Any transition from one observer-moment to another observer-moment
> that
> > > >satisfies rationality-X, is a "consciousness-X thread." Thus the 
> >quality
> > > of
> > > >a
> > > >consciousness corresponds to the quality of the rationality that
> links
> > > the
> > > >observer-moments.
> > > >
> > > >Each observer -moments is linked to many other observer-moments, thus
> > > >giving
> > > >rise to a branching tree or a branching/merging network.
> > > >
> > > >We can invoke the Anthropic principle to explain that only the 
> >logically
> > > >sound links are observed. By "logically sound", I mean correct 
> >according
> > > to
> > > >first person logic. Those links that support consciousness are those
> > > links
> > > >that are observed. They are the consciousness threads.
> > > >
> > > >Time is an illusion created by the *logical* linkage between observer
> > > >moments.
> > > >
> > > >Thus the sequencing from one observer-moment to another is not based
> on
> > > >time,
> > > >but on first person logic.
> > >
> > > I have spent some time thinking about conciousness and how it relates
> to
> > > time, and here are my thoughts:
> > >
> > > I agree with most of what GSLevy said.  However, what is it that links
> 
> >two
> > >
> > > observer moments?  The answer: memory.  The *only* reason you even
> have 
> >a
> > > perception of other observer moments is because you remember them
> within
> > > another observer moment.  In fact, when you are experiencing one 
> >observer
> > > moment, it is not necessary for any previous observer moments to exist
> 
> >(or
> > >
> > > have existed) at all, because they are still perceived in exactly the 
> >same
> > >
> > > way within the current observer moment regardless.  You simply do not 
> >make
> > >
> > > the assumption that anything that has ever happened up to this very 
> >moment
> > >
> > > in your life really did happen.  Of course, in order to be accurate 
> >about
> > > what moment you are actually experiencing and which ones are just 
> >memory,
> > > you would have to constantly update your conclusions because of our
> > > perception that we are continually flowing through observer moments.  
> >Our
> > > conclusions would not be correct until we reached the actually
> existing
> > > observer moment, and all of our previous conclusions never were
> actually
> > > reached, but we only remember them being reached in that one single
> > > observer
> > > moment.  The same goes for all of our thoughts and experiences 
> >throughout
> > > life.  We never actually had any experiences; we only remember them 
> >within
> > >
> > > that one single observer moment.  The only reason it seems as though 
> >they
> > > are actually happening is because we assume that what we remember 
> >actually
> > >
> > > did happen.
> > >
> > > GSLevy said that time is an illusion created by the logical linking of
> > > observer moments; really, though, the illusion is created by the
> logical
> > > structure of memory.  All of our memories must exist within a single
> > > observer moment.  Not only must we remember everything that has
> happened
> > > in
> > > our lives, but we must remember what we remembered within all of the
> > > remembered observer moments in order to have a perception of time.
> The
> > > easiest way to do this is with a linked-list type of memory.  The 
> >actually
> > >
> > > existing observer moment need only remember the most recent observer
> > > moment;
> > > the rest are automatically remembered because the memory of every
> > > remembered
> > > observer moment includes the memory of the previous observer moment.
> > >
> > > Basically, our entire lives are just a logically structured
> linked-list
> > > memory within a single moment of reality that exists independant of 
> >time.
> > >
> > > Let me know what you think about this theory.
> > > ______________________________________________________
> > > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Reply via email to