Re: Logic

From: Dace (
Date: Wed Aug 22 2001 - 22:42:38 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Logic"

    Received: by id WAA27334 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:44:21 +0100
    Message-ID: <002b01c12b53$5f061a80$f986b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <> <00a901c12918$67202b80$c024f4d8@teddace> <>
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:42:38 -0700
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Precedence: bulk

    From: Chris Taylor

    > > Bergson asks us to think of time in terms of a pond. There's no
    > > separation between the surface of a pond and its depths. Yet we go
    > > 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.

    - 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

    > 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.

    Sheldrake refuses to say definitively whether organic form somehow stays
    with the current of time, or if the past is in some way literally present.
    I think it's because he's not willing to be completely true to Bergson.
    From the point of view of matter, the past is null and void. The past has
    neither space nor matter. But if time is a thing in itself, irreducible to
    material events in space, then the past doesn't need space and matter to
    exist. Of course, to posit that anything has inherent nature or
    self-existence is move from physics into metaphysics. Perhaps Sheldrake is
    wise to stay out of this dispute.

    > 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.

    > 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.


    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 22:48:54 BST