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
