Re: necessity of mental memes

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 15:16:57 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "Re: Abstractism"

    Received: by id PAA04194 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:21:15 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    Subject: Re: necessity of mental memes
    Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:16:57 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2002 15:16:57.0611 (UTC) FILETIME=[D398F5B0:01C1A80E]
    Precedence: bulk

    > >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
    > >inside of it. Obviously, when you view something from outside itself,
    > >no longer see its self-nature but only its relativity to other things.
    > >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
    > >around-the-world-flying B-52's carrying atomic clocks, compared with
    > >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
    > >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
    > >concerned, nothing has changed. The rate of time's passage varies only
    > >its external relation to space and the objects moving through it more
    > >slowly.
    > >
    >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.
    > >
    > >Ted
    > >
    Maybe my perceptions here are wrong, but I thought time was a measurement of
    change, not the change itself, just like length, width and height are
    measurements of what it that is changing, not the thing itself. How we
    experience time is a perception that has nothing to do with the measurement
    but is a reaction to our experience. It's not just the brain that perceives
    and reacts to our experience, it's the entire body -- a body that generates
    chemical reactions of its own to create the perception of time speeding up
    or slowing down.

    But spacetime does nothing. It is a meme. A set of measurements comparing
    the motion of one thing with the motion of something else, most often the
    rotation of the earth around its axis and subdivisons thereof -- i.e. hours,
    minutes, seconds, nanoseconds, hertz, megahertz, etc. All of these are
    comparisons of the earth's motion with what we are measuring. The
    measurement itself only exists as an abstraction in our minds. Light
    doesn't care how fast it travels compared to how fast the earth rotates.
    The feet and miles we compare it to are comparisons with some English king's

    So when you say time does this or time does that, you're confusing
    subjective reality, which we create inside our heads, with the objects we
    are thinking about. Galaxies, stars, light waves, etc., have nothing to do
    with the earth's rotation or the king's feet. Or even the rods we created
    to define a meter because it was "more precise" and fit more easily into our
    base ten counting system.

    This personification of time based on our experience leads to such nonsense
    as "going back in time," as if yesterday were a place and tomorrow something
    more than just a prediction. If you could jump to where the earth, which is
    traveling around the sun, which is traveling around a galaxy, which is
    traveling with a group of galaxies toward some unknown destination, will be
    after one more rotations of the planet, it won't be there. You would find
    yourself standing in airless space. It would be the same if you jumpped
    backwards to where earth was yesterday. You wouldn't find it. Time is a
    function of how we perceive the universe, not the universe itself.

    Anyway, there's two cents worth of my perspective on the subject. I doubt
    it will cause Mr. Hawking to start changing his book. ;-)>


    Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

    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 - 15:32:52 GMT