RE: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:59:45 -0000

Fair enough, I do make assumptions about what you believe consciousness to
be - something along the lines of what Russell has said: a sequence of
related thoughts in time.
As for suffering and other emotions: If you'd read my paper, you would find
the quote: "Mere suffereing exists, but no sufferer is found" - Buddhaghosa,
VISUDDHIMAGGA; (The Path Of Purification), 5th Century AD
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marchal [SMTP:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 4:51 PM
> To: Higgo James
> Subject: RE: Everything is Just a Memory
>
> James Higgo wrote:
>
> >Your question is, why will there be a bruno entity with the idea that
> 'he'
> >is one moment on from 'you now'. The answer is MWI. Everything exists;
> >surely you don't need persuading of that, Bruno?
> >
> >You then ask where my 'apparantly personal belief' comes from (or as
> >Buddhists call it, the 'illusion of self'). The answer is, again, that a
> >'me' with such a belief does exist in the plenitude, and it is for you to
> >suggest why 'I' should not be that 'me'.
> >
> >Correction: I do not tell you that there is only one observer moment;
> just
> >that we experience only one suc moment and our deductive reasoning should
> >not start with the assumption that the moment is related to any others.
> >
> >You ask where your meaningless questions come from. Again. MWI: there are
> >very many meaningless questions I suppose an infinite numbe. If there was
> a
> >limited supply of them, this would imply that the universe was much more
> >complex than it need to be - Kolmogorov, counting algorithm etc.
> >
> >You then ask how to derive schroedinger equation: i.e. why do
> >observer-moments which incude awareness of the schroedinger equation tend
> to
> >include the same equation? I have long argued that all laws and constants
> >are products of the weak anthropic principle, as per Barndon Carter.
>
>
> So you say WAP => laws of physics. I agree. My own work can be reformulate
> as Weak Turing-tropic Principle => laws of physics.
>
> But now we must do it, or at least some among us want to do it.
>
> And the only things I say is that, in the course of trying to do that,
> some measure problem(s) appear(s). (cf SSA, ASSA, RSSA, ...).
> If you are able to derive Planck constant and Schroedinger
> equation from WAP without using the notion of measure, please share your
> derivation, or at least the principle of the derivation, with us.
>
> >To try to put WAP in the language we are using here, the answer would be
> >that the Scroedinger equation is one of our subjective ways of stringing
> >together otherwise unrelated observer moments.
> >
> >There are no objective arrows of time, but we have invented/observed many
> >subjective ones that tend to give the same answers.
> >
> >Now, while I claim that this is, in principle, all that is necessary to
> >derive Schroedinger, ...
>
> Necessary or sufficient ?
>
> >... I graoan at your insistence that I explain
> >'consciousness'. I deny that consciousness exists, by however you try to
> >define it.
>
> This is meaningless. I define consciousness by the number 42 (or whatever
> you accept as existing), then consciousness exists.
>
> Here you are betraying yourself! You assume implicitely some meaning
> to the word consciousness, and you are telling me that, although
> evrything exists, there is no place for consciousness (with your
> implicit meaning) in that everything.
>
> >There is this observer moment, and the onus is on you to
> >demostrate that there is another related moment, which would be a
> >pre-requisite of consiousness.
>
> Why? I don't see why consciousness could not be present in singular
> observer
> moments, even if there are unrelated. I don't see it a priori.
>
> But why do you tell me that consciousness does not exists ? What are
> suffering, pleasure, serenity, astonishment, taste, hope, lonelyness,
> nostalgy, terror, fear, ... without conscious subjective experience ?
>
> (don't tell me that suffering doesn't not exist, Buddha would laugh at
> you!)
>
> And what is Fritz's theory about without consciousness ?
>
> James, you are underestimating the subtility of your theory, or you are
> overestimating my cognitive abilities.
>
> Bruno
Received on Fri Jan 21 2000 - 09:00:24 PST