From:	owner-jcs-online@lists.zynet.co.uk on behalf of Adhanom Andemicael 
<Andemicael@worldnet.att.net>
Sent:	Wednesday, May 12, 1999 1:56 PM
To:	jcs-online@sol.zynet.net
Subject:	JCS: Solipsism virtualized

[Cook]
In your article ["Existence As Process,"
http://home.att.net/~Andemicael/intro.html] you simply identify persistence and existence with a 
moment of time, which essentially has no existence whatsoever.

[Andemicael]
Not exactly. The point I am making in the article is that "existence" and "persistence" are 
indistinguishable concepts; I am demonstrating that "existence" is *dynamic*, not static in its nature.  
However, I do agree completely with your statement that a moment of time "essentially has no 
existence whatsoever."

Existence requires duration.

And duration, in order to arise, requires a persisting present.

(Readers interested in this subject of temporal passage may wish to examine detailed arguments 
contributed by me to the Quantum-Mind archives some months ago [September-November, 1998:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/lsv/www/quantum-mind.html].)

***

[Andemicael, from abstract (http://home.att.net/~Andemicael/process1.html)]
To date, we have not formulated a truly satisfying theory explaining time's "flux" (or "passage") and its 
relationship to consciousness; but this stems from a mistaken assumption on our part regarding the 
relationship between the concepts "existence" and "persistence."

Clearly, a thing (e.g., a material entity) cannot exist if it does not
*remain* in existence. After all, a thing which exists, but does not persist, exists for a total duration of 
only one moment. One moment, however, is by definition only zero seconds long--no length of time at 
all.
We must realize that if we say a material object (or anything else for that
matter) has existed for *no* length of time, we are stating, in effect, that it has *never been* in 
existence. All things which exist necessarily exist for some *length* of time, however short this may be.

This argument applies to the present moment. If the present moment is to exist, it must remain in 
existence: it must endure. We often picture the present moment as moving up through time, into the 
future; this, in fact, is our way of visualizing the idea that the present moment maintains its existence, as 
time passes.

Clearly, the mystery of time's passage is solved. Given that:

    1. the present must *endure* in order to exist, it follows that
    2. time *must* pass if the present exists.

Time passes, therefore, for the simple reason that the present exists.

[Andemicael]
I believe that this and other arguments presented by me strongly support the view that temporal 
passage is a subjective phenomenon which results from the persistence of an individual mind's mental 
states.

***

[Andemicael, previously]
There can be no "factual inconsistencies" if reality is considered strictly from the point of view of the 
individual mind, which, as described above, is temporally independent of all other minds. Factual 
inconsistencies or conflicts can arise between two experiences of reality only *if* a temporal 
relationship exists between the two experiences. In order to compare experiences in the mental life of 
any two consciousnesses, the two must somehow co-exist within a common temporal context. It is, 
however, logically impossible to define such a common context/present.

[Cook]
"Minds" are not only temporally but also spatially "independent of other minds".  The fact of the matter 
is that we can organize separate, individual experiences into common contexts, which of course is the 
purpose and function of language. If this could not be done then language would not work, and all of 
your speaking above is quite useless from your own logic and point of view. You contradict yourself.

[Andemicael]
Language permits us to describe the experiences of individual minds individually.  However, it does not 
allow us to coordinate the experiences of two minds *temporally* unless we first make the assumption 
that the two are embedded within the same, objective present. I have already argued that there can be 
no such objective present.

My use of words such as "we" and "us" *acknowledges* the existence of many minds. But it in no way 
implies that these minds exist within the same temporal context/present.

There are no contradictions to be found here.



Adhanom Andemicael
Andemicael@worldnet.att.net






--
List Moderator: Len Maurer <len@maurer.demon.co.uk>

jcs-online is a service of the Journal of Consciousness Studies