>From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
>To: "'GSLevy.domain.name.hidden'" <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden.com>,
>"'everything-list.domain.name.hidden'" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
>Subject: RE: Everything is Just a Memory
>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
Yes, everything possible did happen - but none of it is linked in any way.
Just because another event COULD logically follow from a different one,
doesn't mean it does. It just simply isn't necessary, for reasons I gave in
my original post.
>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
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Fri Jan 14 2000 - 19:15:12 PST