Re: this very moment

From: Alastair Malcolm <amalcolm.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 12:47:46 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: Jacques Mallah <jackmallah.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: 11 May 2000 02:27
Subject: Re: this very moment


> --- Alastair Malcolm wrote:
> > Note James is also saying that there is no such
> > thing as an objective 'you' (other than bare
> > instantaneous thought content). This part of the
> > hypothesis, at least, has severe problems (see my
> > email of 1st Feb or thereabouts).
>
> Since I have maintained that the best definition
> of 'you' is your observer-moment, I'll respond to
> this. You appear, above, to be claiming that it is
> necessary to believe that there is a "you" extended
> over time, and that your post showed that. Let's have
> a look at this legendary post. (It is quoted in full
> below.)
> It is clear that what you really claimed is that
> believing that "you" are just an observer-moment, is
> the same as ordinary (AUH) physics. Perhaps Fritz'
> proposal made some other claim, but clearly you did
> not show any problem with the observer-moment
> *definition* of "you".

You try to read into my posts more than is there. My criticism of James'
hypothesis has nothing to do with any particular definition of 'you'. The
reference to 'objective you' does not imply any necessary linear
connectedness in the *concept* 'you', rather it is a reminder that for James
there is not even an observer, momentary or not, in the first place. (And it
is the consequential *physical* non-connectedness that leads to the problems
described in the post I referenced, which is actually not the post you
listed.)

Alastair
Received on Fri May 12 2000 - 04:54:03 PDT