On 4 May 2005 George Levy wrote:
>I believe that according to some or most participants in this list,
>transitions between observer moments is representing "Time." I have also
>been talking about observer moments in the past but I have always skirted
>around the issue of defining them.
>
>The concept of observer moment is not clear. For example, you could
>compare each observer moment to the node of a graph and the transitions
>from one observer moment to the links of the graph. However, it is well
>known that a graph can be transformed by changing each node into a polygon.
>Each link then becomes a node. In this new format, you could view "Time" as
>being represented by the nodes. We are left with two representations of
>consciousness: the first is a feeling of becoming (the first representation
>in which the links represent time) and the second is a feeling of being
>(the second representation in which the nodes represent time).
>
>Ultimately observer-moments are the stuff that makes up the plenitude. They
>are more fundamental than any physical object and more basic than time and
>space. If we are to assume some fundamental entity, I think that
>observer-moments qualify.
Descartes came up with "I think, therefore I am" when he asked himself if
there was anything in the world that was safe from extreme scepticism.
Modest though his conclusion sounds, it can be argued that he went too far
in assuming that a thought implies a thinker. If he had stopped at "I
think", then that would really have been the one thing that was beyond all
doubt: the observer-moment.
--Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger v7. Download now:
http://messenger.ninemsn.com.au/
Received on Thu May 05 2005 - 08:37:58 PDT