Re: necessity of mental memes

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Tue Jan 29 2002 - 09:04:09 GMT

  • Next message: Joe Dees: "RE: ality, Pt. I"

    Received: by id JAA06310 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:08:22 GMT
    Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 01:04:09 -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)

    > "Grant Callaghan" <> Re: necessity of mental memesDate: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 07:16:57 -0800
    >> >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. ;-)>
    >Velocity, or speed, is the distance divided by the duration. Velocity exists. It involves the rate of positional change in the spatiotemporal manifold. I would rather someone throw a bullet at me than shoot it.
    >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)

    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 : Tue Jan 29 2002 - 09:17:21 GMT