RE: Extra Terrestrials

From: David Seaman <drseaman.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:50:26 +0100

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 - 10:57:07 PDT