RE: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:47:28 -0000

Bruno, you keep askimng questions about the 'self'; - eg 'all of us' - there
IS NO YOU, there IS NO ME, there IS NO US. There are just observer moments.
Your question is MEANINGLESS in this world view.

The problem of identity is a problem because there is NO objective formula
which relates one observer moment to the next. THERE IS NO IDENTITY.

Do you agree that the question is meaningless, given what we are saying, or
has the point not been made?

If it has not been made, I shall have to compose a detailed, simple,
explicit e-mail trying to put across the point that Fritz and I are making -
that there si no such thing as a self: there are just ideas.

James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marchal [SMTP:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 11:27 AM
> To: Fritz Griffith
> Subject: RE: Everything is Just a Memory
>
> Fritz Griffith wrote:
>
> >It is easier to extrapolate that
> >the real observer moment lies somewhere in the future.
>
> Is it the same "real observer moment" for each of us?
> Where does that "real observer moment" come from ?
> And what is it ?
>
> Where does your "future" come from. Most of us doesn't take time
> for granted.
>
> Have you read that insightfull book by Oliver Sacks ``the man
> who mistook his wife for a hat".
> He describes in it people who have lost their hypocampus. That is the
> part of the brain which transform short term memory with
> lon term memory. The apparent effect is that they are trapped in
> one single observer moment (which is rather long, +/- 5 to 10 minutes).
> That guy at the age of 50 still believe that he was 20 age old.
> You could explain him what happened, but then after 10 minutes you
> must explain him it again, and again ...
> How will you figure his experience with your "theory"?
>
> >The everything idea, or the MWI, is used to explain the universal laws,
> just
> >as they are used in the 'real world'. The only difference is, rather
> than
> >encapsulating the universe as the wave function as in MW, you encapsulate
>
> >conciousness as the wave function, so that rather than having every
> possible
> >parallel universe, you have every possible parallel observer moment.
> Each
> >branch in the wave function is really a branch in memory. Because you
> only
> >exist as a single observer moment, your path is predetermined, but still
> >follows probability laws.
>
> OK. This is somewhat similar, at first sight, with the many-history
> interpretation of QM.
>
> Your theory is interesting but very very vague, IMO.
>
> You could help us in comparing your approach with some most ``traditional"
> approaches among those discussed in this list (SSA, AP, Everett,
> Leslie-Bostrom, Tegmark, Schmidhuber-comp, Mallah-comp, Standish's
> justification of OCCAM,
> Higgo "measure-less" Buddhism, and others...).
>
> My feeling is that with your "single observer moment" you will
> miss (put under the rug?) the measure problems, like James Higgo ...
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 20 2000 - 06:47:16 PST