FW: so you think you exist...

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:03:15 +0100

> I disagree with the statement 'some thoughts in the multiverse which can
> only be experienced by Anna'. There are some thoughts which include the
> thought 'I am Anna' - but there is no 'Anna', other than that (class of)
> thought. So it's tautological to say the thought can only be thought by
> itself. And, of course, true.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Seaman <drseaman.domain.name.hidden>
> To: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>;
> <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Cc: <j.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 6:14 PM
> Subject: Re: so you think you exist...
>
>
> > At 17:41 +0100 18/8/00, Higgo James wrote:
> > >Yes, Brent, 'objective' is the key. I should have made that clearer,
> perhaps
> > >- you will note that I always say there in no *objective* relationship.
> > >
> > >What I mean by using 'objective' is that, unless a thought defines it,
> a
> > >group of thoughts can not exist. Archimedes, viewing the multiverse
> from
> > >without, cannot see any groups of thoughts unless he specifically
> chooses
> to
> > >- in which case he can see anything, choose any group he likes. But
> what
> > >would be the point of that? Archimedes can just imagine something
> without
> > >bothering to look at the multiverse, as he knows for sure that
> something
> is
> > >there.
> >
> >
> > Surely Archimedes can only experience his own thoughts. If a thought
> > has 'I am Anna' associated with it then Archimedes might be able to
> > imagine what it is like to be Anna experiencing that thought but he
> > could never know what it is like (you can assume that all the
> > thoughts which wrote this paragraph contained the concept of
> > 'Archimedes' so in this context he does exist).
> >
> >
> > >You could say, "well this very present thought of mine is defining a
> group
> > >of thoughts as all the ones I remember, and calling that group 'Brent
> > >Meeker'". Congratulations, you have defined yourself into existence!
> But
> why
> > >do so? What is the point? What objectives will you meet? The only thing
> you
> > >achieve is pander to an urge that is a component of your very present
> > >thought - an urge to believe 'I exist!' I speculate that all thoughts
> which
> > >include 'I am submitting a post to the everything list' have that urge
> as a
> > >component.
> > >
> > >So this is why I say it is meaningless to declare that Brent Meeker or
> James
> > >Higgo exist. It is meaningless to say anything particular thing exists
> if
> > >everything exists. This means that observers ('selves') do not exist,
> if
> you
> > >define them as groups of thoughts - unless they literally think
> themselves
> > >into existence! The reason I mention buddhism now and then is that I
> just
> > >happened to notice that this is buddhist philosophy too - Nirvana is
> when
> > >you stop willing yourself into existence, and simply enjoy all there is
> to
> > >enjoy, your very present thought.
> >
> > It's not meaningless to declare an individual exists since there are
> > some thoughts in the multiverse which can only be experienced by
> > Anna. Anna has thought herself into existence and now has thoughts
> > and memories which belong to her alone and which could not be
> > experienced by anything else. So if all thoughts exist all observers
> > must also exist. I agree there are some thought which contain no
> > experience of self, but my experience is that these types of thoughts
> > must either have small measure or be not very interesting.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
Received on Wed Aug 23 2000 - 01:08:46 PDT