Fair enough, I do make assumptions about what you believe consciousness to be - something along the lines of what Russell has said: a sequence of related thoughts in time. As for suffering and other emotions: If you'd read my paper, you would find the quote: "Mere suffereing exists, but no sufferer is found" - Buddhaghosa, VISUDDHIMAGGA; (The Path Of Purification), 5th Century AD James
> -----Original Message----- > From: Marchal [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 4:51 PM > To: Higgo James > Subject: RE: Everything is Just a Memory > > James Higgo wrote: > > >Your question is, why will there be a bruno entity with the idea that > 'he' > >is one moment on from 'you now'. The answer is MWI. Everything exists; > >surely you don't need persuading of that, Bruno? > > > >You then ask where my 'apparantly personal belief' comes from (or as > >Buddhists call it, the 'illusion of self'). The answer is, again, that a > >'me' with such a belief does exist in the plenitude, and it is for you to > >suggest why 'I' should not be that 'me'. > > > >Correction: I do not tell you that there is only one observer moment; > just > >that we experience only one suc moment and our deductive reasoning should > >not start with the assumption that the moment is related to any others. > > > >You ask where your meaningless questions come from. Again. MWI: there are > >very many meaningless questions I suppose an infinite numbe. If there was > a > >limited supply of them, this would imply that the universe was much more > >complex than it need to be - Kolmogorov, counting algorithm etc. > > > >You then ask how to derive schroedinger equation: i.e. why do > >observer-moments which incude awareness of the schroedinger equation tend > to > >include the same equation? I have long argued that all laws and constants > >are products of the weak anthropic principle, as per Barndon Carter. > > > So you say WAP => laws of physics. I agree. My own work can be reformulate > as Weak Turing-tropic Principle => laws of physics. > > But now we must do it, or at least some among us want to do it. > > And the only things I say is that, in the course of trying to do that, > some measure problem(s) appear(s). (cf SSA, ASSA, RSSA, ...). > If you are able to derive Planck constant and Schroedinger > equation from WAP without using the notion of measure, please share your > derivation, or at least the principle of the derivation, with us. > > >To try to put WAP in the language we are using here, the answer would be > >that the Scroedinger equation is one of our subjective ways of stringing > >together otherwise unrelated observer moments. > > > >There are no objective arrows of time, but we have invented/observed many > >subjective ones that tend to give the same answers. > > > >Now, while I claim that this is, in principle, all that is necessary to > >derive Schroedinger, ... > > Necessary or sufficient ? > > >... I graoan at your insistence that I explain > >'consciousness'. I deny that consciousness exists, by however you try to > >define it. > > This is meaningless. I define consciousness by the number 42 (or whatever > you accept as existing), then consciousness exists. > > Here you are betraying yourself! You assume implicitely some meaning > to the word consciousness, and you are telling me that, although > evrything exists, there is no place for consciousness (with your > implicit meaning) in that everything. > > >There is this observer moment, and the onus is on you to > >demostrate that there is another related moment, which would be a > >pre-requisite of consiousness. > > Why? I don't see why consciousness could not be present in singular > observer > moments, even if there are unrelated. I don't see it a priori. > > But why do you tell me that consciousness does not exists ? What are > suffering, pleasure, serenity, astonishment, taste, hope, lonelyness, > nostalgy, terror, fear, ... without conscious subjective experience ? > > (don't tell me that suffering doesn't not exist, Buddha would laugh at > you!) > > And what is Fritz's theory about without consciousness ? > > James, you are underestimating the subtility of your theory, or you are > overestimating my cognitive abilities. > > Bruno
