Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA08809 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 2 Feb 2002 05:48:54 GMT Message-ID: <001a01c1abac$a750cea0$be86b2d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <200202020120.g121KnK29734@mail17.bigmailbox.com> Subject: Re: ality Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 21:44:14 -0800 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 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> >Joe Dees:
> OF COURSE memories are stored in the brain, but cortical neurons are
plastic, and can easily relearn that which was excised,
How are neurons supposed to encode recently destroyed memories when these
memories no longer exist? Clearly, this is not an option.
> >"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
> >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.
> Sorry, but duration is not a direction or an extension, but it is an
irreduceable aspect of the spatiotemporal manifold.
According to the standard, Einsteinian conception, duration is reduced to a
fourth dimension of extension. Duration is another word for intrinsic time.
When you argue for duration, you're arguing my point for me.
> The only scale upon which the 'arrow of spacetime' seems not to apply is
simple the quantum one,
There's a reason no one uses the phrase, "arrow of spacetime." It's
> The temporal aspect of the manifold is NOT an extended one, but a
durational one. Einstein did not say that either aspect was nonexistent,
but that they were both relative to referential frames
Einstein denied the existence of a "philosopher's time," i.e. time as it
exists intrinsically in accord with our subjective perception of it. No
Alright, let's get this straight. First you argued that time has no reality
outside of four dimensional spacetime. You repeated this statement quite a
few times, until finally it dawned on you that I wasn't denying the
existence of spacetime. So then you come out with a new argument. Now
you're claiming that duration is real, that spacetime involves the quality
of duration. This is the act of a desperate man. You've now argued both
sides of the issue, both times believing that you've defeated me when in
fact you haven't addressed or even comprehended my conception of time.
It's clear that you're not conducting an honest discussion. You're not
really after the truth here. You're more concerned with proving yourself
superior to your perceived opponent, as if this were a contest rather than a
discourse. When you get to the point where everything you say has to be
capped off with a gratuitous ad hominem, it generally means you've got no
real argument. The bullying mentality is incompatible with the quest for
truth. If people are afraid they'll get bullied, they won't offer their
insights, and all real discussion grinds to a halt. Everyone, except the
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 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 05:57:40 GMT