Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA08961 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 2 Feb 2002 07:00:08 GMT Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:54:24 -0800 Message-Id: <200202020654.g126sOB21205@mail24.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: [66.156.194.7] 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: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 21:44:14 -0800
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
>
>
>> >Joe Dees:
>> >
>> >
>> OF COURSE memories are stored in the brain, but cortical neurons are
>plastic, and can easily relearn that which was excised,
>>>>
>
>How are neurons supposed to encode recently destroyed memories when these
>memories no longer exist? Clearly, this is not an option.
>
You said that they were able to *relearn* them easily, so obviously, it is. This could be because cues remained in the surrounding tissue which made relearning relatively easy. If you are saying that once the appropriate identified location was *completely* excised, that the memory or action was supposedly able to occur in its entirety the FIRST time as well as it did before the excision, I want URL or book references, with pagination, so's I can sell an article refuting such ludicrous nonsense.
>
>> >"Duration" is precisely the concept that was thrown out in Einsteinian
>> >physics. 4-D spacetime does away with duration and replaces it with
>> >extension. Instead of involving only three dimensions, extension now
>> >applies in four. When you assert duration, you're asserting the reality
>of
>> >time. In other words, you're conceding the argument. This is why you
>> >imagine you can maintain concepts such as freedom and self. Because
>> >you really do believe in the intrinsic, irreducible existence of time.
>> >
>> Sorry, but duration is not a direction or an extension, but it is an
>irreduceable aspect of the spatiotemporal manifold.
>>>>
>
>According to the standard, Einsteinian conception, duration is reduced to a
>fourth dimension of extension. Duration is another word for intrinsic time.
>When you argue for duration, you're arguing my point for me.
>
No, it isn't. No one, not even you, can point to the supposed duration-direction that is perpendicular to the three spatial aspects of the manifold; this is because duration is a spatiotemporal manifold component with different attributes. for instance, if you subtract a spatial component and enter flatland (or two and enter lineland), change can still happen on the plane (or along the line). But without duration, just like without at least one of the three spatial component dimensions, change is impossible. But it is not (only) intrinsic, but also extrinsic (just like the spatial aspects). Spatiotemporality is internal and external. It grounds our every perception, our every proprioception, our every memory and our every imagining. Even when we have stripped spatiotemporal location from such things (as we do in knowledge and cognition), we still retain marginal awareness that our cogitations are occurring behind our eyes and between our ears, and that we continue to!
occupy a spatiotemporal location relative to a marginally perceived environs, at a specific orientation with respect to gravity.
>
>> The only scale upon which the 'arrow of spacetime' seems not to apply is
>simple the quantum one,
>>>>
>
>There's a reason no one uses the phrase, "arrow of spacetime." It's
>incoherent.
>
But it isn't, once it is understood that arrows fly through both, or not at all.
>
>> The temporal aspect of the manifold is NOT an extended one, but a
>durational one. Einstein did not say that either aspect was nonexistent,
>but that they were both relative to referential frames
>>>>
>
>Einstein denied the existence of a "philosopher's time," i.e. time as it
>exists intrinsically in accord with our subjective perception of it. No
>duration.
>
I deny the existence of your bifurcated time split off from the spatial aspects of the manifold; it is the pseudophilosopher's pristinely separate-from-space introspective 'time' (a Bergsonian mistake corrected by the more disciplined and attentive phenomenologists, following Edmund Husserl) that I deny and you futilely defend.
>
>Alright, let's get this straight. First you argued that time has no reality
>outside of four dimensional spacetime. You repeated this statement quite a
>few times, until finally it dawned on you that I wasn't denying the
>existence of spacetime. So then you come out with a new argument. Now
>you're claiming that duration is real, that spacetime involves the quality
>of duration. This is the act of a desperate man. You've now argued both
>sides of the issue, both times believing that you've defeated me when in
>fact you haven't addressed or even comprehended my conception of time.
>
Actually, I never, NEVER denied the existence of either duration or extension; I always asserted that they were equally omnipresent to consciousness, and that they were inextricably intertwined perceptually because our perceptions were indeed authentically grasping the spatiotemporal manifold. What is desperate is your failed and futile attempts at mischaracterization. I actually do not believe that anyone can comprehend your bizarre misconception of the manifold, although they might naively deceive themselves that they do, because at heart it is quite incomprehensible.
>
>It's clear that you're not conducting an honest discussion. You're not
>really after the truth here. You're more concerned with proving yourself
>superior to your perceived opponent, as if this were a contest rather than a
>discourse. When you get to the point where everything you say has to be
>capped off with a gratuitous ad hominem, it generally means you've got no
>real argument. The bullying mentality is incompatible with the quest for
>truth. If people are afraid they'll get bullied, they won't offer their
>insights, and all real discussion grinds to a halt. Everyone, except the
>bully, loses.
>
To answer your own extended ad hominem:
I'm conducting a quite honest discussion, in spite of my interlocuter, not because of him. On this issue, you are, quite simply and honestly, wrong, but your emotional and self-esteem investments in your false and fallacious position blind you to its evident flaws even when they are shined in your averted eyes with logical kleig lights. True believers always shun the informative and enlightening views and vistas that are offered them, and embrace their benighted misunderstandings with grizzly bear hugss, ever since the bishop refused to gaze in Galileo's telescope. I hope that your eyes are fond of the scales that you've superglued to them.
>
>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 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 07:08:43 GMT