Re: Everything is Just a Memory

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 23:27:20 EST

In a message dated 01/13/2000 4:51:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden writes:

>
> I have spent some time thinking about conciousness and how it relates to
> time, and here are my thoughts:
>
> I agree with most of what GSLevy said. However, what is it that links two
> observer moments? The answer: memory. The *only* reason you even have a
> perception of other observer moments is because you remember them within
> another observer moment. In fact, when you are experiencing one observer
> moment, it is not necessary for any previous observer moments to exist (or
> have existed) at all, because they are still perceived in exactly the same
> way within the current observer moment regardless. You simply do not make
> the assumption that anything that has ever happened up to this very moment
> in your life really did happen. Of course, in order to be accurate about
> what moment you are actually experiencing and which ones are just memory,
> you would have to constantly update your conclusions because of our
> perception that we are continually flowing through observer moments. Our
> conclusions would not be correct until we reached the actually existing
> observer moment, and all of our previous conclusions never were actually
> reached, but we only remember them being reached in that one single
observer
>
> moment. The same goes for all of our thoughts and experiences throughout
> life. We never actually had any experiences; we only remember them within
> that one single observer moment. The only reason it seems as though they
> are actually happening is because we assume that what we remember actually
> did happen.
>
> GSLevy said that time is an illusion created by the logical linking of
> observer moments; really, though, the illusion is created by the logical
> structure of memory. All of our memories must exist within a single
> observer moment. Not only must we remember everything that has happened
in
> our lives, but we must remember what we remembered within all of the
> remembered observer moments in order to have a perception of time. The
> easiest way to do this is with a linked-list type of memory. The actually
> existing observer moment need only remember the most recent observer
moment;
>
> the rest are automatically remembered because the memory of every
remembered
>
> observer moment includes the memory of the previous observer moment.
>
> Basically, our entire lives are just a logically structured linked-list
> memory within a single moment of reality that exists independant of time.
> Let me know what you think about this theory.

Yes, I agree with most of what you say. Your link list analogy is
interesting. Just a few observations:
The ability of our brain to form memories is anthropically necessary for our
consciousness. But we don't access our whole memory with every single
thought. A given thought corresponds to a given state in what we may call our
"working cache" for want of better words, to use computer science
terminology. Therefore, two different individuals with mostly different
memories, may at a given time share the same thought because their "working
caches" are in the same states.

George Levy
Received on Thu Jan 13 2000 - 20:29:41 PST