--- GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:
> > > 1) There is an absolute objective world
> > > 2) This world gives rise to conscious observers
> > > 3) I am one of the conscious observers.
> > Of course I would say 3) --> [1) and 2)] is
> > trivially obvious. (If 3) is true, 2) is true by
> > definition.
>
> NO, you did not get it. You did not go far enough.
> 3) has to be extended beyond "I am one of the
> conscious observer" by one more step: "I THINK."
I don't know what the distinction would be.
> "I Think" (defines the frame of reference and is the
> only undisputed experiencial/experimental fact.
If it's undisputed, how can we be arguing about
it?
> Talking to you, Jacques, about Frames of References
> (FOR), is like discussing garlic recipes with
> Dracula.
Call me Observer-Count Jacula.
> > > The logical links are just imaginary. I use
> > > them to explain how consciousness flows
> > If they are just imaginary, then there can be
> > no such "flow". The latter is also imaginary,
> > and I dispose of it.
> >
> You don't even know what "real" is. The whole point
> is that our experience of self is imaginary.
You don't really think then? I can believe that
of you.
Or maybe you mean that "self" is a bad idea and
that one should just use observer-moments. But I
doubt it since then you'd agree with me.
=====
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jackmallah.domain.name.hidden)
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Received on Mon May 15 2000 - 17:40:04 PDT