In a message dated 01/07/2000 9:21:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Higgo James wrote: > > Desmund Biddulph helped me to a crucial insight: thoughts exist in the > > plenitude, but they are not objectively related to one another. This very > > thought, of you reading this e-mail, exists. But don't expect it to be > > followed by another one! > > So - consciousness is the hard problem precisely because it does not exist > > as a sequence of thoughts in time. Nothing can be viewed objectively as a > > sequence of thoughts in time. > > A lion's idea of hunger exists, but there is no lion... > > James, should we interpret this to mean that you now accept the > ASSA rather than the RSSA? > 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. Now to respond to Jacques: Since all experience is based on first person logic and first person observation, the frame of reference is necessarily the Self. Hence the validity of the RSSA. In so far as the ASSA is concerned, it can be thrown in the same basket as the idea of the Ether. George PS. We are in the twenty first century, but I haven't noticed any intelligent robots such as HAL cooking and doing dishes and there are no flying saucers in the sky. There is no likelihood that in 2001 there will be a manned mission on the moon. January 1st 2000 is now in the past! Where did the future go? What happened?