Tom (and Russell and others in the discussion):
(Remark: I did not read Russell's book, it is above my head to follow his
(math-related?) logic. So I rely on remarks I read on the list. Sorry, if it
is unfounded or erroneous).
"our there"
The ominous MIR assumption (Mind Independent Rreality) I've debated on the
Karl Jaspers Forum and other lists, on the grounds that our mind is PART of
that "MIR" and cannot look at it as the "legendary scientist in his armchair
who visualizes the rolling little fireball he calls the BigBang Universe".
After Colin Hayes (maybe I misunderstood him?) I use our 'in'-  vision(s) as
"mini-solipsism" containing a figment of a perceived reality on a basis I do
not identify. I MAY have impacts into my consciousness (whatever that may
be) but no way to understand them "as is", only as my intellect can
translate 'them?'  for "me" (the ominous "I").
With similar 'built' in all aspects of our mentalty it can include very
similar facets, -not identical ones- we all have differencies in all the
similarities. So we have a basis for discussion.
The ideas in this debate are all applying circumstances, facts?, concepts
and conclusions as understandable(?) by the human mind - ours. I am missing
Bruno's humility (IF comp is valid...).

Of course the entire list is positioned into a rather physicalistic logical
 Russell once (~decade ago?) objected to my terming it as 'some scientific
religion' - meaning: a belief system (of any kind).

I want to press the much wider conditional possibilities than the ones WE
can imagine or just even speak about in human logic-  language. The
acquisition of epistemic enrichment - allowed for even fantasy-tools as in
Gedanklen-experiments - is IMO not limited. Abiding 'firmly' on our present
mindset is a negation of further future expansions unlimited.

Just expressing my thoughts - not in a constructive way.

John M

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 01:20:21PM -0700, Tom Caylor wrote:
> > >
> > > Except that the evidence seems to support that our past is also
> > > recorded in a reality "out there" that seems independent of our
> > > brains.  For example when we are reminded of something from our past,
> > > from looking at old photos, or from someone from our past telling a
> > > story about us, which as far as we can tell we would have never
> > > remembered without that reminder from outside of our possible streams
> > > of consciousness without the reminder.
> >
> > You have to distinguish between "being reminded of something" - here
> > an external event triggers our brain to recall a memory that is really
> > there, and "finding out about our past" by performing a
> > measurement. The latter entails completely new knowledge. It is no
> > different in principle to finding out about the present by performing
> > a normal measurement.
> >
> > I would argue that this implies our past (that which is beyond our
> > memories) is a superposition of those histories prior to any
> > measurement that might distinguish them, just as it might be in an
> > experimental apparatus measure circular polarisation.
> >
> > The independent "out there" feeling is just the self consistency of
> > all our observations - one that is nevertheless quite remarkable, but
> > not entailing the existence of something that is out there.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > Mathematics
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Australia                      
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Your "external event" is part of what I was referring to as "out
> there". I would argue for the consistency and the merits of the view
> that our identity is tied not only to our brains but also to events
> recorded outside of our brains.  Someone with Alzheimers still has a
> history (and also an identity) recorded externally to their brains, a
> history that can be read by other persons.  I know, the quantum
> superposition view entails that there are multiple histories being
> read by multiple persons in multiple universes.  As I have said before
> on this list, I think that this just multiplies the problem.  If your
> identity is tied only to your brain, and the first person observer
> moments that it can experience based solely on internal "memory", then
> you have multiple people in multiple universes treating the Alzheimers
> patient as worthless (since they know that the patient cannot remember
> these accomplishments), and multiple Alzheimers patients believing
> that he/she is worthless, with no identity so speak of.  What's wrong
> with the view that our memory is augmented by the external world
> around us?  In fact, it has been discussed here before that perhaps
> consciousness itself needs a world external to our "brains" in order
> to keep living.  I'm for the view that life/consciousness/everything
> is about relationships rather than data.
> Along these lines, I'm wondering if the pursue of thought experiments
> like this, that use the past, is a valid way to explore the everything
> idea.  Perhaps this is tied to the topic of reversibility of laws. (?)
> Tom
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to