Hmm.. it seems to be very difficult point to make, perhaps because it is so
very very simple: just this very idea (of you reading this e-mail, and all
the thoughts that entails) is known to exist. Don't infer from that, that
there is an objective 'you' out there. Don't make that leap which is so
natural you can't even see you're making it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Thursday, 04 May, 2000 12:45 AM
> To: james.higgo.domain.name.hidden
> Cc: R.Standish.domain.name.hidden; everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com; j.domain.name.hidden.co.uk
> Subject: Re: this very moment
>
> So what's your point? You're being particularly obtuse today.
>
> Higgo James wrote:
> >
> > 'Psychological time' is a concept of time, part of your current
> psychology.
> > Occam would disapprove of assuming that psychological events are real
> > events; assuming a hard, physical world when there is no need for one.
> >
> > The simplest possible explanation for 'you' is: everything exsists,
> > therefore this current thought exisits.
> >
> > It makes no sense to speak of an objective 'you' - it's as fatuous as
> > pointing at a square piece of pastry, saying 'there's a fish!' and
> cutting a
> > fish shape out of the square to prove it.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 03 May, 2000 1:25 AM
> > > To: james.higgo.domain.name.hidden
> > > Cc: R.Standish.domain.name.hidden; everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com
> > > Subject: Re: this very moment
> > >
> > > There needs to be psychological time in which to unravel the history
> > > embedded in a single observer moment. Once one has psychological time,
> > > one may as well go the whole hog and have a complete history, with an
> > > infinite number of observer moments.
> > >
> > > Its an Occam thing. Nothing rules out a "Groundhog Day" type of
> > > effect, where we endlessly keep playing back a small piece of history
> > > (eg 1 day, or even 10 seconds if you like), however I suspect this is
> > > a more complicated explanation (therefore of smaller measure) than
> > > just assuming that we live our whole lives.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Higgo James wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Would someone please give me a reason why there needs to be anything
> > > more to
> > > > the observer than 'this very conscious moment' ?
> > > > James
> > > > >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > Dr. Russell Standish Director
> > > High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
> > >
> > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
>
> > > Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
>
> > > Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Dr. Russell Standish Director
> High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
>
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
> Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
Received on Thu May 04 2000 - 00:35:07 PDT