On 4 May 2005 George Levy wrote:
I believe that according to some or most participants in this list, transitions between observer moments is representing "Time." I have also been talking about observer moments in the past but I have always skirted around the issue of defining them.
The concept of observer moment is not clear. For example, you could compare each observer moment to the node of a graph and the transitions from one observer moment to the links of the graph. However, it is well known that a graph can be transformed by changing each node into a polygon. Each link then becomes a node. In this new format, you could view "Time" as being represented by the nodes. We are left with two representations of consciousness: the first is a feeling of becoming (the first representation in which the links represent time) and the second is a feeling of being (the second representation in which the nodes represent time).
Ultimately observer-moments are the stuff that makes up the plenitude. They are more fundamental than any physical object and more basic than time and space. If we are to assume some fundamental entity, I think that observer-moments qualify.
Descartes came up with "I think, therefore I am" when he asked himself if there was anything in the world that was safe from extreme scepticism. Modest though his conclusion sounds, it can be argued that he went too far in assuming that a thought implies a thinker. If he had stopped at "I think", then that would really have been the one thing that was beyond all doubt: the observer-moment.
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger v7. Download now: http://messenger.ninemsn.com.au/