Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA06483 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:11:17 GMT Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:05:33 -0800 Message-Id: <200202010605.g1165Xm32036@mail8.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [65.80.160.132] From: "Joe Dees" <joedees@addall.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: ality Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
> "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net> <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Re: alityDate: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:20:06 -0800
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>From: Joe Dees
>
>> >You keep coming back with the same point-- that spacetime is real--
>> >despite the fact that I'm clearly not denying its existence. Space is
>> >bound up with time. Space, after all, is present. What is spatialized
>is
>> >right now. The past doesn't have any space. Potentiality takes up no
>> >space. Only the present has space. Space (and matter and energy) is
>> >what marks the present off from what is past and what is potential.
>> >Since all events in space are also in time, we may speak of spacetime.
>> >All of our experience occurs in spacetime. But time is continual motion.
>> >The present is continually bleeding into the past, as what was merely
>> >potential becomes actual in a new present. And on and on and on. So
>> >time is more than just spacetime. This doesn't mean there's a time
>> >without space. Present time is spatialized. But its inherent motion,
>> >which space entirely lacks, makes time into something fundamentally
>> >different, and without this difference there would be no possibility of
>> >novelty and therefore of freedom. This is simply to take time at face
>> >value, rather than assuming it to be a fourth spatial dimension.
>Einstein
>> >was correct about spacetime. His error was to imagine that spacetime
>> >is synonymous with time. It is not. It is synonymous with space.
>> >
>> Your example, if taken at face value, would not only excise the 'space'
>from past experience, but the 'time' as well. Where is the time in a
>memory? The same place that it's space is. If we play a memory back, we
>re-member, that is, virtually re-live, ourselves as occupying specific
>dynamically changing positions relative to our environment that we once in
>reality occupied; both their re-membered movement and our re-membered
>dynamically changing perpectives in relation to them are co-present in
>memory.
>>>>
>
>The meaning of memory is that the past is still present. This is simply to
>say that time is intrinsically real, whether spatialized (the present) or
>not (the past). It's because mentality is an expression of time that the
>past remains present to us. What we remember is, not neural recordings in
>our brain, but the past itself. In our imagination it's re-spatialized,
>though never like it really was, of course.
>
memories are remembered perceptions, and like the experiencer originally was in spatiotemporally situated in relation to the perceptions, the rememberer is spatiotemporally situated in relation to their mnemonic replay.
>
>> >> Your cryptoreligios pseudoassertion that unless people accept your
>> >flawed schema they must forsake self, mind and freedom is ludicrous,
>> >especially when compounded by such unsupported (because
>> >unsupportable, because wrong) statements such as "Time is both prior
>> >and posterior to space".
>> >>>>
>> >
>> >"Prior" and "posterior" are functions of time. Space has no priority,
>> >and it has no posteriority. That's why it's space, not time.
>> >
>> And, I suppose, that time has no before or behind, no left or right, no
>above or below. In fact, time cannot even be within, for that, too is a
>location.
>>>>
>
>Time has two qualities, before and after. What it lacks is left, right,
>above, and below.
>
You forgot before and behind, even though I mentioned them above.
>
> These are spatial properties. Funny that I'm explaining
>this to a grown man. As to "within," when this term is used spatially, such
>as a location within my house or my body, then no, time has none of this.
>But when it refers to something within my mind or myself, this is temporal.
>In this sense, time is within, and space is without.
>
Nope; our perceptions, or proprioceptions, and our stream of consciousness are all spatiotemporally situated. When we remember or imagine, we replay past or construct possible arrays and milieux that situate us spatiotemporally in relation to them, while qwe still retain marginal conscious awareness of our actual environment and bodily position. Even when we are reviewing abstracted or narratized knowledge or using components of it with which to cognize, we know not only where/when we actually are (here/now), but also where/when such meditations are transpiring (presently and behind our eyes and between our ears).
>
>> It does no good to appeal to a wished-for future and to say that when we
>have new technological tools that your view will be validated,
>>>>
>
>This is an interesting inversion of reality. Of course, it's always the
>mechanists claiming that technology is just about to validate them. Any day
>now, we'll find memory stored in the brain. We'll find that TV set in the
>occipital lobe. We'll trace the causal chain from the shapes and functions
>of organs and bodies all the way back to DNA. Pure sci-fi, all of it.
>
Memories stored in the brain has been verified for many years; brain surgeons frequently keep their patients conscious so they can monitor the immediate effects of the surgery and modify it as they go. patients routinely report that when certain areas are stimulated, that specific memories occur to them just as when certain others are stimulated, certain body parts move. You really need to keep up with fifty years ago.
>
>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
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
===============================================================
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 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 06:19:52 GMT