Nothing links two observer moments objectively. It is only we who say 'ah -
that moment must follow this one, to satisfy our laws of rationality' - that
doesn't mean their is any objective significance to our endeavour.
Again: nothing links two observer moments. All you are and will ever be is
this very idea.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fritz Griffith [SMTP:fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 12:49 AM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Cc: fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Everything is Just a Memory
>
> GSLevy wrote:
> >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.
>
> 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.
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Fri Jan 14 2000 - 01:22:50 PST