Re: Logic

From: Dace (
Date: Sun Aug 26 2001 - 18:36:34 BST

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

    Received: by id SAA05607 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:38:19 +0100
    Message-ID: <000b01c12e55$a9cf0860$6f24f4d8@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <> <00a901c12918$67202b80$c024f4d8@teddace> <> <002b01c12b53$5f061a80$f986b2d1@teddace> <>
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 10:36:34 -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

    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
    > > > > 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
    > > time is singular. It's not composed of discrete elements. Our
    > > between present and past, between days and hours, is purely utilitarian.
    > > we didn't distinguish between heads and tails, flipping a coin would be
    > > meaningless. But that doesn't mean the disinction between them is
    > 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.

    > > - you can argue
    > > > that we're passing along the fourth dimension of space-time thingy,
    > > > 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
    > > 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
    > > 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
    > > see our future as well as our past. Yet, the very idea of a time
    > > implies a second kind of time, a continuous motion from the tourist's
    > > to the tourist's future. This is real time, the time that cannot be
    > > 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."

    > 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.

    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.

    > > > 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.

    > > > 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
    > > in the past as well as the present, then it would still be at the
    > > 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.

    > > > 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
    > > space involve fields, whether morphic, electromagnetic, or
    > 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


    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 : Sun Aug 26 2001 - 18:42:52 BST