RE: History-less observer moments

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:05:07 +0100

The 'why me?' thought is associated with other thoughts, and I'm not curious
about what those other thoughts are. All thoughts exist, so the question of
why this not that is silly: it's just a matter of random sampling of OMs to
use Jacques's terminology.

I don't include or exclude an 'ordinary physics universe'. If you look at
things from the right perspective you will see an 'ordinary physics
universe' so in that sense it exists. Objectively, it does not.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alastair Malcolm [SMTP:amalcolm.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Friday, 19 May, 2000 2:24 PM
> To: Higgo James; everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: History-less observer moments
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
> > The answer is simply the anthropic principle - which should strictly be
> > applied to thoughts, not to people. The question, 'why is it that I am
> > having this exact thought?' exists. You should not be surprised that
> your
> > thought is that question.
>
> Many, perhaps all, human thinking experiences are 'compound', that is,
> logically decomposable; for example, you have the sense of being James, in
> London, in May as you are (having the thought of) looking at this vdu and
> reading this message. Now, of all possible thoughts, some will have the
> background self-sense of 'James in London in May'. But of those, the vast
> majority will not have a corresponding visual thought compatible with that
> background (some will have a corresponding visual image of a lunar
> landscape, or of hell, or of nothing coherent at all, rather than of a
> vdu).
> Sure you will say 'but there *will* be a James/London/May-seeing-a-vdu
> thought, and this is it', but the point is that there is no *reason* for a
> J/L/M background in general to find itself associated with a vdu thought.
> And the same goes for other logical decompositions of that
> thought experience as well: if there are only isolated thought
> experiences,
> then why should the sense of touch of the mouse cohere with the (thought
> of
> the) image of the vdu, why should the memory of yesterday cohere with that
> of today etc.
>
> The above is not intended as a definitive refutation of your ideas, but
> taken together with other problems, gives me great difficulty in assigning
> any credance to them. These other problems largely depend on whether your
> 'everything' scheme includes or excludes an 'ordinary physics' universe,
> though an explanation for how thoughts can occur in the absence of physics
> seems to be missing in any event.
>
> Alastair
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and may be privileged.
It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to
deliver it to the intended recipient, this message must not be copied or distributed to
any other person. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
by telephone (+44-20-7337-3500) and destroy the original message. The Gerrard Group reserves
the right to monitor all e-mail messages passing through its network.

This e-mail originates from the Gerrard Group unless otherwise stated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri May 19 2000 - 07:06:55 PDT