>From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden
>To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>Subject: Re: Everything is Just a Memory
>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
>
You are talking about long-term memory, or free will memory, as I like to
call it. This is the memory you can think about whenever you want, like an
old man remembering the good old days. This type of memory has to do with
free will and our ability to think of what we want, when we want. I am not
about to try to explain that. What I am talking about is short-term, or
subconcious memory. This is the memory of the previous (mainly recent)
moments of your life that you subconciously understand even though you're
not thinking about them. Here is an example: suppose you see a car driving
down the road. Without even thinking about it, you know, subconciously,
that the car is moving. A single observer moment must have have the memory
of all of the other positions of the car, otherwise you would not perceive
it as moving. Without the memory of the other positions of the car, each
observer moment would only perceive the car in one particular position,
without any knowledge of where it was a moment ago. One observer moment
would perceive the car as being in one place, and the next would perceive it
as being in another place, slightly ahead of the first, but without any
knowledge of whether the car had been slightly behind the moment before or
if it had always been in the same spot. The same applies for thoughts. The
only way to know what you are thinking, and to expand upon your thoughts, is
to remember what you were thinking just moments ago. As you can see, it IS
necessary to access our entire memory, or at least a lot of it, within a
single observer moment.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Fri Jan 14 2000 - 18:56:49 PST