Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA06816 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:01:37 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:05:49 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Logic Message-ID: <3B8964AD.5316.3FA9A5@localhost> In-reply-to: <000b01c12e55$a9cf0860$6f24f4d8@teddace> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 26 Aug 2001, at 10:36, Dace wrote:
> Hi Chris.
>
> > > > Dace wrote:
> > > > > Bergson asks us to think of time in terms of a pond. There's
> > > > > no
> > > absolute
> > > > > separation between the surface of a pond and its depths. Yet
> > > > > we go
> > > around
> > > > > speaking of the "surface" and the "depths" as if they were two
> different
> > > > > things.
> > > >
> > > > Surface - air-water interface.
> > > > Depths - below surface.
> > > >
> > > > Current - happening now, instantly part of the past.
> > > > Past - things that have happened.
> > > >
> > > > There is a difference between the past and the present
> > >
> > > And there's a difference between heads and tails. But the
> > > difference is only within the context of sameness. There's no gap
> > > separating the two sides of a coin, and it's the same with present
> > > and past. Like the
> coin,
> > > time is singular. It's not composed of discrete elements. Our
> distinction
> > > between present and past, between days and hours, is purely
> > > utilitarian.
> If
> > > we didn't distinguish between heads and tails, flipping a coin
> > > would be meaningless. But that doesn't mean the disinction
> > > between them is
> absolute.
> >
> > Uh-uh - H/T is an arbitrary assignment to two distinct sides of a
> > para-2D object. Now is the point where the past starts. You define
> > the surface as where the water stops, but it is more than that -
> > consider water striders (pond skaters) - they live their whole lives
> > at the interface, exploiting its properties.
>
> And simple, material objects skate along on the surface of time, while
> organisms such as ourselves encompass the depths as well.
>
Mountain ranges age like anything else does; we're just aware of it,
and of much else besides. It is highly unlikely that mice and
shrews, lacking self-conscious awareness, are aware of their
impending mortality, yet they live.
>
> > > - you can argue
> > > > that we're passing along the fourth dimension of space-time
> > > > thingy,
> but
> > > > MR would be the index case of something from the past having
> > > > *any* existence in the present.
> > >
> > > If time is merely another dimension tacked onto the first three,
> > > then
> past
> > > and future are akin to left and right, and "time travel" is
> > > perfectly plausible. If time is a kind of space in which we're
> > > constantly moving
> at
> > > the same rate in the same direction, then going back to the past
> > > would simply entail stopping and reversing direction. In
> > > principle there's nothing to prevent this. This flawed view also
> > > implies absolute determinism, since everything has already
> > > happened. We can hop around
> to
> > > see our future as well as our past. Yet, the very idea of a time
> tourist
> > > implies a second kind of time, a continuous motion from the
> > > tourist's
> past
> > > to the tourist's future. This is real time, the time that cannot
> > > be
> reduced
> > > to a kind of extra-space. As Bergson pointed out, real time
> > > cannot be eliminated. "Sooner or later" we are forced to confront
> > > its inherent nature.
> >
> > Personal time just implies that you can't stay still in this extra
> > dimension.
>
> What we think of as "subjective time" is our only direct means of
> knowing what time actually is, as opposed to the spatialized
> abstraction of the "fourth dimension."
>
Subjective time is exactly that: subjective, and not an accurate
measure. An hour flys by in a minute in the embrace of one's
significant other; a minute crawls by like an hour if one is walking
barefoot across hot asphalt.
>
> > Btw noone convinced me that we are not in a completely
> > deterministic universe (although I'm more or less on my own on that
> > one I think) - find me the outcome without a cause.
>
> By definition, an outcome is produced by a cause. If all you're
> looking for it outcomes, that's all you're going to find.
>
Positron-electron pairs that pop into and out of existence.
>
> If time is really just spacetime, then we do indeed inhabit a
> completely deterministic universe. But if time exists intrinsically,
> then it can be defined as the continual eruption of novelty into
> space.
>
Actually, no; the two issues are entirely separate. Spacetime
exists intrinsically to the fabric of the universe; we, on the other
hand, are a happy (for us, some of the time) accident, and the
spatiotemporal universe would continue on quite capably without us
here to view it.
>
> > > > This is a bigger question than development,
> > > > because you're positing the passage of information from the
> > > > past, direct. So are we talking about some undiscovered
> > > > continually existent store of info (so where do we start
> > > > looking), or are we talking about access to information direct
> > > > from the past?
> > >
> > > Where do we start looking for memory? This could take awhile,
> > > since
> time is
> > > a matter of when, not where.
> >
> > Memory in us (you look in the brain btw) is almost certainly stored
> > the way it is in neural networks that have been trained. Neural
> > networks are inanimate and therefore can't be resonating, yet they
> > have memory.
>
> Physicalism eliminates memory as well as time (not to mention life,
> self, consciousness, experience, quality, etc.) If memory is the
> storage of information, then it's not really memory is it? The point
> of remembering something is that you don't have to look it up, either
> in your brain or anywhere else. Memory is when, not where.
>
This indicates a gross lack of understanding of neural net theory,
as well as the inseparability of the spatiotemporal manifold. Art
Bell might even object ot such a statement.
>
> > > > Books etc. don't count, because they are in the present as well
> > > > as the past (sort of a concrete version of option one in the
> > > > last paragraph).
> > >
> > > As material objects, books exist only in the present. If a book
> > > could
> exist
> > > in the past as well as the present, then it would still be at the
> printing
> > > factory and the bookstore as well as your hands while you read it.
> >
> > Er, all my stuff, and me, existed in the past; you've lost me here.
>
> You switched "exist" with "existed." That's the whole point. Books
> existed in the past. They don't continue to exist in the past.
>
No, they continue their existence through the past into the present,
or rather, time passes while the existence of the books perdures.
>
> > > > Btw, to what extent do allegedly MR-influenced items refer
> > > > to the past, and to what extent to other contemporary instances
> > > > of the item?
> > >
> > > Morphic resonance works across time, not space. Non-contact
> > > effects
> across
> > > space involve fields, whether morphic, electromagnetic, or
> gravitational.
> >
> > So what's going on with all these staring at the back of the head /
> > pet
> > + owner experiments if it's a time thing only? Has Sheldrake perhaps
> > cast his net a bit wide? Sort of Pauling in his vitamin C frenzy.
>
> Sheldrake is trying to demonstrate the existence of field effects
> among organisms.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 27 2001 - 03:06:17 BST