RE: The Game of Life

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:12:18 -0000

Thanks, George
I agree pretty muuch with what you say, George, but I deny that there is any
objective consciousness thread. Of course, you can choose to see one
subjectively by picking out observer moments and stringing them together,
subject to a rule you call rationality-X, but while that may amuse you it
won't achieve much.
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:GSLevy.domain.name.hidden.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2000 3:56 AM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: The Game of Life
>
> In a message dated 01/07/2000 9:21:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> jqm1584.domain.name.hidden 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?
Received on Mon Jan 10 2000 - 02:13:11 PST