X-Message-Number: 22388
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:01:54 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: "Frame of Reference" Comment

Robert Ettinger, #22378, and my comment.

>First, as to Mike Perry's "frames of reference"--the notion that e.g. a
>static record, including time isomorphism, could still include active life 
>of an
>individual in the frame of reference of that simulation. It seems to me 
>this is
>justifying your postulate by trying to make it a definition--just playing 
>with
>words. A sequence of film frames for a motion picture can be run on screen to
>give the illusion of action, and the static frames can be mentally
>interpreted as representing action, but to say that the frames in fact 
>constitute action
>seems to me unjustified, just word games.

I don't mean to say that "the frames in fact constitute action" as we 
usually understand the term. I use the term "frame of reference" to imply a 
whole history extending over time (and space). (A movie "frame" represents 
a state of affairs at one particular time only, to add to the confusion.) 
An active process can be regarded as a kind of mapping from points in 
space-time into "something." The something might consist of the values 
(quantities) allowable to the quantum psi function (or wave function), that 
is to say, complex numbers, or it could be something else found suitable. 
But a static record, to represent this isomorphically, that is to say, to 
*model* action, would have to have a representation of this mapping (rather 
than the actual mapping). Within the static record the representation 
describes a world (whole history that is) and the events, happenings, or 
actions that occur in it. It must model time as well as space, though time 
is modeled statically like everything else. But among the happenings could, 
in principle, be a human being going through various events in his/her 
life, which of course involves states of consciousness.

The idea I am trying to broach with my "frame of reference" concept is that 
we can consider the (described) human to be conscious *relative to* the 
history that is described, that is, relative to the implied frame of 
reference. If this seems hard to imagine, it might be helpful to think 
about processes in the physical world as we know it. Certain swarms of 
interacting particles exhibit a phenomenon we know as consciousness, but in 
the context of some sort of "world" in which they are embedded. This world, 
whatever it is, establishes such things as space and time, so that this 
phenomenon of consciousness can make its appearance. The world, again 
really a history, is thus a frame of reference relative to which 
consciousness can be said to occur. Next, imagine this whole world has been 
reduced to a description, but a very complete one (an isomorphism of a 
hypothetical real-life situation) listing all interactions of particles. 
That this would be possible at all, and with a finite description no less, 
is at least suggested by the way the real world seems to work, through 
quantum mechanics. The significant events appear to occur at discrete 
points in space-time, with what happens in between being insignificant, at 
least at the perceptual level.

Now, with the assumption of a very complete description, it should not be 
hard to see that a world is specified, relative to which consciousness can 
be said to occur. A described person is conscious relative to the described 
world in which he/she is embedded. But once again, such a described 
individual is not conscious in our world, which is a different and 
incongruent frame of reference.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22388