Re: ality

From: Dace (
Date: Fri Feb 01 2002 - 22:46:11 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "RE: necessity of mental memes"

    Received: by id WAA08011 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:50:47 GMT
    Message-ID: <009101c1ab72$408eb400$0d86b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: Re: ality
    Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 14:46:11 -0800
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008E_01C1AB2F.313D5440"
    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
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    Joe Dees:

    > >> >"Prior" and "posterior" are functions of time. Space has no
    > >> >priority, and it has no posteriority. That's why it's space, not time.
    > >> >
    > >> And, I suppose, that time has no before or behind, no left or right,
    > >no above or below. In fact, time cannot even be within, for that, too is
    > >a location.
    > >>>>
    > >
    > >Time has two qualities, before and after. What it lacks is left, right,
    > >above, and below.
    > >
    > You forgot before and behind, even though I mentioned them above.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but "before" does appear in my brief list of
    temporal qualities, the other being "after." I reject "behind," because
    it's primarily a spatial designation.

    I mention this because you seem to have trouble comprehending what I write.
    Over and over again, you make the same point that I've already refuted,
    completely ignoring the refutation, *as if it had never been written,* and
    then repeating the initial, now-refuted point.

    Here's a prime example:

    > Memories stored in the brain has been verified for many years; brain
    surgeons frequently keep their patients conscious so they can monitor the
    immediate effects of the surgery and modify it as they go. patients
    routinely report that when certain areas are stimulated, that specific
    memories occur to them just as when certain others are stimulated, certain
    body parts move. You really need to keep up with fifty years ago.

    Now, we've been over this before. That the stimulation of certain brain
    regions results in recall does not in any way prove that memories are stored
    in the brain. All we know for sure is that memory, like any mental property, is
    facilitated by the brain.

    The attempt to scientifically demonstrate the existence of memory traces or
    "engrams" in the brain goes all the way back to the 20s, when Karl Lashley
    experimented on conditioned learning in rats, monkeys, and chimpanzees. He
    would train them to remember the correct reaction to a given stimulus and
    then remove the portion of the brain utilized in the conditioned response.
    The animals would quickly regain their former memories, despite the
    permanent loss of brain tissue. This has led to the view that memories are
    stored holistically in the brain. But if the activity of neurons is holistic, we must
    hypothesize a mysterious, holistic property of the brain, which we might call
    "the mind." And thus memory is back in the mind, where it belongs.

    At any rate, there's no one-to-one correspondence between memory and neural
    configuration. This is not a serious, scientific contention.

    > >Distance is not a property of time. Time is nowhere in particular.
    > And space is nowhen in particular?

    The spatio-material universe is right now. Not only does it remain with the
    present, it defines the present. What is present is what is spatially

    > >One more time, Joe. Spacetime is quite real as long as we
    > >recognize that time is not reducible to it. The only element of time
    > >that's coterminous with space is the present. To regard time as
    > >equivalent to space is to compress all of reality to the present, to
    > >erase history and future, leaving us in this eternal, static, four
    > >dimensional universe.
    >No it is not; for spatiotemporality possesses BOTH extension AND duration,

    "Duration" is precisely the concept that was thrown out in Einsteinian
    physics. 4-D spacetime does away with duration and replaces it with
    extension. Instead of involving only three dimensions, extension now
    applies in four. When you assert duration, you're asserting the reality of
    time. In other words, you're conceding the argument. This is why you
    imagine you can maintain concepts such as freedom and self. Because you
    really do believe in the intrinsic, irreducible existence of time.

    > The spatiotemporal universe has been around for at least 12 billion years,

    Again, you reveal your unconscious acceptance of the reality of time.
    According to Einsteinian theory, it's not that the universe has been around
    for a given duration but that it extends in four dimensions, not just three,
    and the units of measurement of the fourth dimension are borrowed from
    our prescientific notion of "time."


    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 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 22:59:32 GMT