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
> >
> >



Reply via email to