Re: necessity of mental memes

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 06:54:23 GMT

  • Next message: Joe Dees: "RE: Light and the Big Bang"

    Received: by id GAA02946 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 06:58:39 GMT
    Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:54:23 -0800
    Message-Id: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain
    Content-Disposition: inline
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
    X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116)
    X-Originating-Ip: []
    From: "Joe Dees" <>
    Subject: Re: necessity of mental memes
    Precedence: bulk

    ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)

    > "Dace" <> <> Re: necessity of mental memesDate: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:33:26 -0800
    >> Keith Henson:
    >> >>Joe, this is one of those cases where if you take another viewpoint,
    >> >>the problem might make more sense. Consider driving down a road.
    >> >>From your viewpoint, *anything* could happen, rabbits run across the
    >> >>road, an airplane land on the road ahead, etc. Now consider it from
    >> >>the viewpoint of a person far overhead making a film. Now consider
    >> >>it from the viewpoint of someone watching that film later. They will
    >> >>see the chain of events where too much head wind and not filling the
    >> >>tanks caused an aircraft to land on the road in front of your car.
    >> >>
    >> Joe Dees:
    >> >>OF COURSE everthing appears fron hindsight to be necessary, just
    >> >as things appear in foresight to be contingent, but in the present cusp
    >> >where causally effective decisions are made, neither assumption can
    >> >be made, for the appearance/reality distinction collapses on this plane.
    >> >>>>
    >> Ted Dace:
    >> >Ah, but Joe, there's no such thing as time-- remember? There's only a
    >> >static, four-dimensional space-time. "Before" and "after" are nothing
    >> >more than "left" and "right" from the limited point of view of people
    >> >trapped in the illusion of time.
    >> >
    >> >As long as you've conceded the reduction of real time to space-time,
    >> >there's nothing you can say against determinism.
    >> >
    >> Wrong; spatiotemporality is quite real
    >Of course. Everything that exists in space also exists in time. From the
    >point of view of physical objects, the two are totally intertwined. But
    >time itself doesn't exist in space. It exists intrinsically, irreducibly.
    Nope; spatiotemporality is a single irreduceable manifold. There is no way that anyone can perceive either a spaceless time or a timeless space, or even imagine such things. Our perceptions grasp the various aspects of this manifold to differing degrees, but both aspects of the manifold - the spatial aspect and the temporal aspect - are omnipresent to all modes of perception. And spacetime does not itself exist apart from the matter/energy that curves and creates it by means of gravitation. There cannot be space without matter/energy, there cannot be matter/energy without change, and there cannot be change without time.
    >Only when viewed from the outside-- that is, from the point of view of
    >space-- does it appear to be purely relative to space.
    Nither is dependent upon the other; they are interrelationally correlative with neither being prior or posterior.
    > The same is true of
    >the mind. It exists intrinsically and irreducibly but only when viewed from
    >inside of it. Obviously, when you view something from outside itself, you
    >no longer see its self-nature but only its relativity to other things. This
    >is how physicists approach time (from the pov of space)
    Nope; they label both spaceless time and timless space as cognitive misunderstandings from the pov of spatiotemporality.
    >and how biologists
    >approach mind (from the pov of brain).
    The brain is the amterial substrate for the emergent mind. Neither space nor time provides the substrate one for the other; 'they' are aspects of a single perceptual manifold, and we perceive that manifold, in which we perceive matter/energy, because that is a valid reflection of the way circumstances actually proceed according to the field equations.
    >> When you travel faster, the temporal aspect slows (empirically verified by
    >around-the-world-flying B-52's carrying atomic clocks, compared with clocks
    >that weren't flown) and the spatial aspect shrinks (gets shorter) on the
    >axis of travel direction.
    >Yet, no matter how fast you travel, you still perceive time-- from within--
    >the same way you always have. At no point does the person on the rocket
    >ship perceive a change in tempo. As far as the direct experience of time is
    >concerned, nothing has changed. The rate of time's passage varies only in
    >its external relation to space and the objects moving through it more
    That is because you are not distinguishing between the subjective experience and the objective passage. The objective passage of time is indeed relative to a frame of reference, and one resides in a referential frame moving at one's own velocity in either case. But, subjective, existential duration experience may vary. An evening in the arms of Catherine Zeta-Jones might seem to just speed by (time flies when you're having fun), but that same afternoon strapped to a hot eye on an electric oven would seem to last much longer.
    >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)

    Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL! 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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 07:18:07 GMT