RE: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:59:48 -0000

But dont forget that what we remember ACTUALLY DID happen - somewhere in the
plenitude. And there ACTUALLY WILL be another event in the plenitude that
will follow 'logically' from our current status
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:GSLevy.domain.name.hidden.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 4:27 AM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: Everything is Just a Memory
>
> 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 Fri Jan 14 2000 - 01:59:14 PST