If time is the cornerstone of your ediface, Russell, don't stand too close
to it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 4:36 AM
> To: fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden
> Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: Everything is Just a Memory
>
> Fritz Griffith wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd like to hear just one good reason why you are dismissing these
> ideas.
> > You seem to have a lot of ignorance towards solipsism (whatever exactly
> that
> > is), yet you don't give any reasons why. As best as I can understand,
> you
> > think my ideas are crossing too far into philosophical territory, where
> > nothing gets accomplished. This often happens when too many assumptions
> are
> > made. I took the opposite approach, however; I made no assumptions, and
>
> > used logic and reasoning to draw my conclusions. Please point out just
> > where this theory goes wrong.
> >
> >
>
> Bruno pointed out why solipsism is a sterile philosophy, so I won't
> need to go into that. The reason I was comparing your ideas to that,
> was based on an interpretation of your discussion. I can see your
> ideas have been refined away from the initial extreme position in
> discussion with James Higgo.
>
> In its extreme position, you are saying that only one observer moment
> exists, all else are but memories connected to this. This is
> solipsism, as no other point of view can exist, nor is there even any
> process, except in memory.
>
> In your slightly less extreme versions, you affirm that all observer
> moments exist, but are not connected in any way to each
> other. Therefore, you should just expect to find yourself at one
> observer moment, one of the most likely according to the ASSA. The
> problem with this is what is the practical difference between this
> point of view and the extreme position above, except that you've
> answered the question of why this observer-moment, and not some
> other. In particular, there is no time for you to interact with the
> universe and find out about other observer-moments - you only have
> memories. I would label this as "neo-solipsism".
>
>
> Finally, you could assume that one is sampling the observer moment
> distribution, as a sequence embedded in some external time
> dimension. This view was deemed repugnant by Jacques when I suggested
> it. It presumably is rejected because it introduces the very concept
> (that of time) that you want to get rid of. In any case it presents a
> problem of how a conscious entity can make a coherent sense of the
> universe.
>
> As I have stated elsewhere in this discussion list (and in my Occam
> paper) I believe instead that time should be elevated to a fundamental
> postulate of conscious - without time consciousness can't exist, and
> time provides a means for linking observer moments. Conscious entities
> project out sequences of observer moments from the plenitude, these
> sequences defining connections between them.
>
> I take these postulates of consciousness (that of projection and of
> time) to be true, just as I accept the Church thesis to be true. If
> someone could come up with a convincing counterexample of how
> consciousness could work in another way, then I will need to revisit
> these assumptions.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Dr. Russell Standish Director
> High Performance Computing Support Unit,
> University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
> Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
> Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
Received on Mon Jan 17 2000 - 01:58:19 PST