And what is it that determines which moments we link together?

>From: Higgo James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'Fred Chen'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,        
>"'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Everything is Just a Memory
>Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:01:15 -0000
>
>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
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Reply via email to