>From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
>To: 'Fritz Griffith'
><fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden>,"'everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com'"
><everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
>Subject: RE: Everything is Just a Memory
>Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:20:49 -0000
>
>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.
If NOTHING linked two observer moments together, how would we perceive any
other observer moments at all? The only reason we perceive them is because
we remember them (think about it - how else would we know about past
moments?). So, I mainly agree with you - nothing links two observer
moments, because there are no two observer moments to link. The perception
of all other observer moments must exist within only one.
>
>Again: nothing links two observer moments. All you are and will ever be is
>this very idea.
That is a pretty vague statement, but it sounds like we are generally coming
to the same conclusion. I would say that because all that needs to exist is
a single observer moment, all I am and ever will be is that single moment.
>
>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
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Fri Jan 14 2000 - 19:10:13 PST