FW: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:25:23 -0000

> Well, the more fundamental point is that there is no 'I'. Just and idea of
> an I.
>
> And we do not perceive any other observer moments. We just think we do.
> Having said that, the observer-moments we erroneously think we perceive
> actually do exist.
>
> James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fritz Griffith [SMTP:fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2000 3:09 AM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: RE: Everything is Just a Memory
>
> >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 Mon Jan 17 2000 - 02:26:11 PST