new physics = classification of thoughts

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 17:43:25 +0100

David, you're on. I divide thought classes initially into 'this present
thought' and 'not this present thought'. That's a start. I hypothesise that
other thought classes include 'I am David Seaman, contemplating my
existence'. Any further ideas?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Seaman [SMTP:drseaman.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Monday, 14 August, 2000 5:24 PM
> To: Higgo James; 'everything-list.domain.name.hidden'
> Subject: RE: Extra Terrestrials
>
> James, I agree your approach becomes less barren if thoughts can be
> categorised and measures taken. Analysis of appropriate sets of
> thoughts would be very likely to lead to a useful definition of time.
> And there is presumably a set of thoughts which could be labelled
> 'James Higgo' (and probably some thoughts in 'James Higgo' would also
> belong to 'David Seaman'). Of course none of this would be easy,
> it seems to require the development of a new psychological physics.
>
> David
>
> At 9:39 +0100 14/8/00, Higgo James wrote:
> >My approach may be barren, but yours is yelding imaginary, but rewarding,
> >diversity of phantasms.
> >'death' is an event in time. So you have to believe in time to believe in
> >death. I don't. All that exists of 'you' is this very current thought.
> Whle
> >'the measure of some objective George Levy' is meaningless, 'the measure
> of
> >this thought' is a vaild concept; I'm not sure what you can do to
> increase
> >or decrease that. An interesting area is the categorisation of, then
> >distribution of classes of, thoughts.
> >James
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:GSLevy.domain.name.hidden.com]
> >> Sent: Sunday, 13 August, 2000 4:35 AM
> >> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> >> Subject: Re: Extra Terrestrials
> >>
> >> In a message dated 08/08/2000 2:36:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> >> james.higgo.domain.name.hidden writes:
> >>
> >> > There is no objective relationship between 'your present observer
> >> > moment' and any other, let alone 'us' and 'our descendants'.
> >> > James
> >>
> >> James, you may be fundamentally right, but such relationships are
> emergent
> >>
> >> properties which we perceive and give meaning to our lives. In fact it
> is
> >> likely that our whole world is emergent from the plenitude which is
> itself
> >>
> >> void of information because it precisely has all potentialites. So our
> >> world
> >> does have information and meaning while the plenitude has exactly
> zero.
> >>
> >> Your approach is as barren as the plenitude. If we were to take it as
> a
> >> basis
> >> for discussion we wouldn't get very far. A very important question is
> >> whether
> >> measure decreases or remains constant upon death. How would you solve
> this
> >>
> >> problem?
> >>
> >> George Levy
Received on Mon Aug 14 2000 - 09:46:56 PDT