Are you saying the sequence of observer moments is not needed? How can the logical linkage Fritz mentioned below be manifested?
Higgo James wrote: > Quite the contrary: there is no ordering mechanism. All observer moments > that are remembered are real, because they do actually exist. It is simply > that there is no causal relationship between the real OMand the remembered > one. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fred Chen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 6:00 AM > > To: Fritz Griffith > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Everything is Just a Memory > > > > Your theory helps to demystify the concept of consciousness, and perhaps > > time, > > but the explanation of a mechanism of ordering the sequence of observer > > moments, > > as well as distinguishing 'real' observer moments that are remembered from > > alternatively possible observer moments which could have happened, is > > still > > needed. > > > > Fritz Griffith wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > >
