It is manifested in the mind of the observer, if you like. It is the
observer who is 'logical' and who sees 'linkages'. But there is absolutely
no need for any objectively significant sequence of observer moments.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Chen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 6:18 AM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:      Re: Everything is Just a Memory
> 
> 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