The Problem of Time

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Prince_James, Dec 13, 2005.

  1. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Satyr:

    Yet from whence does time itself derive? A theory of mine I came up with late last night - or rather, early yesterday morning - I shall be posting soon to address what I think is the proper way to conceptualize the "beginning" of time.

    I would affirm a flaw in this view: There are concrete reasons to affirm that things are determined. For instance, causality and the fact that one cannot do an action without a reason, no matter how stupid said reason might be.

    This may be true for empirical matters, but this does not address logic. Logic is fundementally non-empirical. There are no known "logical particles", as it were. Logic tends to also have that capacity to be irrefutable.

    Perhaps it is improper to speak of any empty space betwixt moments or points in space? For there is a necessary pervasive uibiquity apparent in infinity, and as regards time, one moment need not be separate from the next in such a way as it disallows a connection with the next where there exists no gap whatsoever.

    I shall have to look for it.

    Later, when I present my theory of time, tell me what you think. My conception of its connection with space shall be part of it.

    I do not see how such would be so. What about the present moment would, in and of itself, be an emptiness? There is no nothingness to be found. The present moment is simply the most ephemeral thing that is regularly impressed upon us. In what way would this necessitate us becoming "non-Being" as it were, in each moment?

    In what way may we rightfully proclaim that a moment is void? Would not it, in actuality, be the direct opposite? It is substantial and real, is it not? For clearly an aggragate of many moments could not hold such reality if its components were themselves all unreal, nay?

    I'm always up for inventing new terms when needed. However, let us first be sure that what we speak of has a reality.

    I do not think they needed to do so, actually, nor would they really have an opportunity to. The world of the Greeks was relatively isolated until the Hellenistic period, and aside from that, most Greek developments were original in the field of philosophy and many other things. The Greeks were not mere copiers, but originators. In fact, one can rightfully proclaim that philosophy was started, circa 500 BC, pretty much simulteneously in Greece, India, and China, but ultimately independently.

    How paradoxical and so fitting for man to have this dilemma: Man fears death and seeks eternity, yet through seeking eternity, achieves a true death.

    But it inevitability leads to the dischotomy?

    This oculd indeed provide a reason for the disparity in intelligene levels in various species, specifically our own. It would also speak well of how stupidity is often accompanied by a lack of focus on the part of the stupid person, affording the term "airhead" an excellent connection to reality.

    Well put. The courage of the self-discoverer is immense and few can live up to it.

    A Nietzschean trial by fire, yes. A tempering by the reality of what seemingly distorts the minds of so many.

    So you postulate that it is only through the abandoning of things that we become free?

    So it is through understanding and overcoming, that one may truly represent the courage of anti-nihilism, you would say?

    So it is through the concious rejection of ignorance that we also become more free, you would contend?

    Do you think that this may be the source of what can be considered the group-behaviour displeasures that end up causing man so much grief? For instance, that due to the fact that we all thing our votes in an election shall not count, we choose instead of who we wish to win, the person more likely to win that is "closest", and thus end up far less happy? Also, would you say there is a way to retain a sense of the individual in all without society breaking down?

    Your using of the term "feminization" is also quite apt. Specifically in the most regimented societies, it tends to be that men suffer the most. There is what seems to be an essential restlessness, not found in most women, which men cannot express in a society too restrictive.

    But do we truly have a choice betwixt any possibilities? For does not reasons, in manyways, compell us to act? Ultiamtely, the "strongest reason" prevails, nay? Keeping in mind that "strongest reason" may include any reasons whatsoever for choosing one over the other, even trivial things.

    Yes. I view all three spatial dimensions and time as fundementally irreducible and, for that reason, must all be eternal, also. I even dislike speaking of "four dimensions", as that implies a separation which I would affirm is invalid.

    Would not such capacity to discard, on a large-scale, be against our survival? For would not we still be impacted by it, potentially dangerously, yet be completely unaware?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Oh? It doesn't? Then why do things decay? Why do thinks grow? Why do stars run out of fuel? These processes could not exist in a static moment, which is necessitated by a timeless universe.

    Things grow and decay, stars run out of fuel for reasons that have nothing to do with time. Those processes can be measured by us with time, but time does not influence those processes in any way.

    Are you willing to then say that nothing, whatsoever, happens?

    No, things do happen, but you are mistaken if you think time influences those events. Time can be used to measure those events.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    Prince_James

    Might as well ask what flaw caused the Big Bang.

    I admit ignorance.
    It would entail explaining existence by using empirical concepts to explain pre-existence concepts.

    But he doesn’t disagree with you.
    He’s saying that everything is determined but we can never know what is.
    Or, put another way, there is a truth but we can never know it.
    So we are forced to exist as if there is none.

    I disagree.
    I think logic is a set of rules derived from consistent predictability.
    We say something is logical when nothing in our experience causes us to doubt it.

    1+1=2 because there has been no occasion where it hasn’t been so and we cannot conceptualize an alternative.

    But given current physics where a particle can occupy multiple points in space, at the same time, can we be sure that our logic is not a prejudiced perspective?

    There is, perhaps, a fabric of time.

    I would contend that there is no Being at all.
    We are Becoming seeking a Being.

    We can say that the opposite of the moment is not a void but a non-moment.
    A moment only has meaning in a temporal context.

    But a moment is infinitely divisible. What ‘reality’ can it have?

    If this is true then it’s remarkable that similar conclusions have been reached in many instances. The human condition could account for this.

    The human condition is inherently a contradiction.

    Yes.

    Absolute freedom, by definition, is to be tied down by nothing. To be contained and determined by nothing. To be nothing and then choose something.

    Once one discovers his own nothingness he realizes he can choose to define himself as anything. Possibility is enhanced.

    Rejection of ignorance and ironically of life.

    Part of group dynamics. The choices are limited by the group and the individual believes his limited choice defines his liberty.

    I’ve actually written an essay on the topic called “The Feminization of Man”. It is posted in the Human section and is currently hijacked by a crackpot with an agenda and a delusional psychosis.
    Quit entertaining, really.

    The ideas expressed there were from years ago and some of my views on the matter have been slightly altered, but it encapsulates my opinions on the matter.

    Thing is we have no choice but to direct ourselves to a possibility. Then we justify it by pretending it was our choice when we were thrust to it by circumstances.

    Directing oneself Willfully demands much more force and patience since we must confront and, sometimes, oppose the possibility of the Other.
    This is why life is strife and struggle.

    Perhaps the dimensions are breaking apart through entropy. Increasing in time, creating more possibilities and so the chaos of unrecognizable patterns. Chaos.

    No, our survival means we have successfully simplified reality and incorporated even information we are not consciously aware of into our strategizing. Intuition, Instinct.

    Perhaps this residue information is contained within our subconscious and expresses itself to us through emotion and feeling.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Prince,



    Nonsense.

    For one, women develop far more psychosomatic diseases than men, and this has to do with the way women process suffering. Instead of spouting off pages and pages of philosophical drivel, they grow ovarian cancers, instead living in intellectual ivory towers, they develop thryoid malfunctions, and so on. And then, as they are physcially ill, they have something to treat, something to be busy with, something to identify themselves with. Their time and energy are consumed in trying to take care of the ill body.

    Secondly, apparently, you do not know all that many women, and you certainly don't know them well. They are also very good at acting, which makes it hard to know their true state.


    One thing is to be pointed out though: Men tend to think more analytically than women, and this difference is neurologically based. Men are more prone to analyses than women. Just look at this thread. I admit, I got bored, I apologize that I haven't replied to the posts addressing mine. Also, I was short on time, cleaning house and stuff.
     
  8. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    (Q):

    Then I shall have you explain how they exist in a static universe? Please, present how three-dimensional staticness can produce these things?

    Satyr:

    That is what I am attacking: That it is unknowable. It is not only knowable, but all ready known. In essence, if one is claiming it is unknowable, one is simply saying that "we could be wrong!".

    What aspect of current physics are you referencing? The Uncertainty Principle?

    And here's my reason for suggesting logic is not a set of rules derived from consistent predictability: There are somethings which are not only "consistently predictable", but their opposites are absurd. Consider, for instance, the notion that "there are no absolutes". Yet were this so, that would itself be an absolute, therefore invalidating itself. No matter how one tries to switch this around, it would seem impossible for this to ever cease to be so. Similarly, the reference you made to 1 + 1 = 2 stands to reason that it shall always be so. If one object and another object are ever joined and kept separate, the answer can only be that there are now two objects present.

    Yes, similar to the fabric of space. Although clearly, the fabric itself would be able to be divided into points, there'd exist no space betwixt these points, and thus the continuity necessary.

    Ah, via being transient things?

    Does infinitely divisible necessitate nothingness? No, only an infinite smallness. An infinite smallness is not nothing, but only the smallest possible thing capable. Would not this non-zero necessity assure its reality? Even if, by definition, a reality that is gone in a "blink of an eye"?

    Moreover, what would you consider to be a non-moment?

    The universiality of reason can be astonishing. How men, separated by distance and time - often geat swathes of such, even - can come to similar conclusions, truly seems to point towards a truth being found.

    It would seem so.

    Does this necessitate an abandoning of all things? Or only of realizing that one could abandon them? That is to say, to adopt a willingness to abandon all things if necessary?

    Or define himself as nothing (litterally as nothing, not "to not define at all"), which in the end, would produce death, yes?

    So oddly enough, to reject life itself is to ultimately become more alive?

    Yes.

    Buddha1?

    I'll go check it out.

    The question is: Can we truly be considered to be the impetus to that imposition of the Will towards one thing above all else? Are we the controller of such, or have we been shaped towards such ends?

    Possible, yes. At least in terms of the temporal.

    Would intuition and instinct truly be able to transcend beyond what we could know consciously?

    Hmmm, perhaps indeed. THings too subtle for our conscious mind to perceive, yet nonetheless understood by the subconsciousness, may indeed be so.

    Water:

    An interesting theory and one which does seem to be so. It would also seem connected to be able to take care of something.

    Actually, I do know a lot of women. Whether or not they are acting is another thing entirely, but from what I can tell, they are not. Of course, personal experience tends to lead one to towards biased views.

    Yes. Men are naturally inclined to analytical thought patterns.
     
  9. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    Prince_James

    You’ll have to excuse me for not commenting in your other thread, but I find it difficult to spend more time here than I can.
    Perhaps you can work in some of your insights about solipsism here, since we seem to be involved in a very broad discussion.

    I mostly enjoy integrating multiple opinions on a variety of subjects within one. In my eyes everything is connected and it is helpful to see how the connections work.
    So socio-economic patters can be integrated with metaphysics and cosmology and religion and psychology and physics and every other discipline man knows.

    I think it goes beyond just acknowledging the possibility of error.
    As participants in the very tings we attempt to know, we are restricted by the very things we describe. It is our temporality that limits us to perspective and it is our participation that limits us to prejudice.

    For example if we consider the dimensions as some tearing part of a single phenomenon, and time/space (as well as all the other theoretical dimensions) are all manifestations of the same thing, then chaos is simply the increase of possibility,within our perceptual horizons.

    Our brains, created for simpler tasks cannot discern patterns in the multi-dimensional rift and, so called, chaos.
    Perhaps our mental evolution is slower than entropy and our mental computing power can never catch up through sexual selection.
    I see technology as an evolutionary, evolution. It is an evolution of evolution, where man speeds up computing power so as to catch up and see the patterns that are becoming more and more complicated.

    Theoretically and if the doubling of computing power every seven years continues and there isn’t some technological or ingenuity barrier, we could produce machines much more intelligent than us.
    Many ifs.

    Partly.

    And this notion is a derivative of your perception of the temporal universe you occupy.
    You are a creation that could only exist within a universe with no absolutes or where certain logical patterns remain consistent and predictable therefore you construct your logic accordingly.

    It stands to reason that if 1+1 didn’t =2 then you would not be possible to think so.

    But given what we said about the moment lacking substance or definition and that being is an endless Becoming then the number 1 would represent a Being, a substantial finality, which is not possible.
    In fact the number 1 represents an approximation of a temporal point. It is, itself, a generality with no definite here/now.
    If everything can be infinitely deconstructed or constructed then what does 1 correspond to?
    It corresponds to an idealized, hypothetical point encompassed within this ().
    So 1+1=2 can be more accurately represented by () + () = ( )

    In a universe in flux, the very idea of a 1 is an idea of a hypothetical, indefinable absolute.

    Like we’ve mentioned space and time could be the same thing divided or interpreted by our minds differently.

    The separation of time/space into points would be how our mind understands it. That is our own temporality would effect how we divide the temporal fabric we perceive.
    The point would represent the 1, as a human fabrication that enables us to navigate and understand it. A hypothetical reference point.
    But the point is infinitely divisible, so what 1 are we referring to?
    All there is, is a movement towards the potentiality of 1, where the number can be defined as Self or God or Here or Now.

    Yes. But “things”, objects, matter, temporal/spatial points can only be transient.
    We are becoming because we are never complete.
    If we were complete our consciousness and our life would be obsolete. It would be unnecessary.
    Theoretically a thing that is, needs nothing more. It is inert, stable, content, perfect.
    There is nowhere to go from here.
    If something were truly 1 then why would it need another 1 to make 2?
    It is that 1 is incomplete, never absolutely 1, that makes it possible for it to be added to.

    No, infinite divisibility necessitates somethingness. If it were not infinitely divisible then it would be; it would be by not-becoming.
    In essence not being is the absolute and being is the becoming that strives for it.
    Non-Being is the 1 and we are transient manifestations of temporality trying to be or reach 1 (oneness).

    A non-moment is non-being. It is the opposite of existence. It is one, Self, Perfect, INNERT. It is timeless/spaceless. Void.

    We stop running, we stop being.
    This is why suffering can never be overcome only be tolerated.
    Life is Need and Need is consciously interpreted as suffering.
    Strength measured by the amount of suffering one can endure.
    Need is life expressing its incompleteness and necessity.
    Animated flux.

    It mostly points to a collective unconscious, as Jung put it. Common ancestry resulting in common processes and conclusions.

    I can see no way around this.
    Once we cling to anything, including our own existence, we are trapped by its demands and prejudices. We become servants to our nature.
    Our mind trapped in the body.

    But this does not mean life must be abandoned only that one can abandon it.

    Yes, this “willingness” is what epitomizes freedom of thought.

    It could produce death if one surrenders to despair.
    This Nothingness, as Sartre used it, is what we must come to terms with. Recognizing it is recognizing our “authentic being”. We are the living dead. We are life defined by a birth and an inevitable death.

    The first stage of this realization, against which the common mind turns a blind eye, is despair. The second is acceptance and awareness. The thirds is choice and a child-like happiness, where one is free from all and can play ‘in the field of the Lord’.

    When one completely frees himself – doubtful as to how much this is possible – one gains free-spiritidness, indifference, joy.
    One dances, at every tragedy, like Zorba the Greek. One dances like a Hellene.

    And this is the great irony, isn’t it?

    I’ve become aware of how confidence and indifference are related and as to how the most unconcerned and unhindered by duty, morality, integrity, ego enjoy the greatest pleasures.
    I’m currently trying to write something on it.

    Not surprisingly - and this is how I first became aware of it - even in sexual relations this rule holds true.
    It is the males that have the least interest in the particular woman, or a particular woman, that enjoy her greatest adoration and respect and attractions.
    I’ve called it the “bad boy effect” in my “Feminization of Man” essay.
    At first it baffled me how the least concerned with the identity or the interests of the other, would be worshiped the most, by them.
    Then I figured it out.

    But this holds true in everything.
    Imagine a job interview where you are desperate for the job. Your nervousness will work against you, unless there’s some desperation on their part.

    Now imagine that you are indifferent in the job. How confident and calm and charming you’ll be. How they’ll perceive your indifference for quality.

    There's a logic behind this.

    Yes, Buddha1 is one of those characters who’s trying to justify his own nature to himself in the most absurd and untalented ways.

    I neglected to tell you that I was once posting under the alias of WANDERER, before this place forced me to abandon my seriousness and care. I’ve posted multiple essays under that name.
    Now I’m a Satyr.

    I guess one has to accept a certain amount of natural determination. Let’s call it our honoring of our roots.
    But that’s the big question, isn’t it?

    I think intuition is the information which participates in our reasoning which we simplify or we ignore consciously, so as to achieve speed of action and thought.
    This is why women are such intuitive creatures. Their weakness in analysis and reasoning forces them to feel their way through information.
    They sense things without being able to explain why or from where these sensations come from. They then imagine some higher authority or some sixth sense, when it is simply their minds normal process of generalization.
    For this very reason their conclusions incorporate far more information into them, even though they cannot pinpoint their source or explain their interrelations.

    Concerning generalization

    Many use this concept to excuse themselves of to refute positions they cannot reasonably.
    In fact generalizing is what the mind does at all times.
    Sensual information is too mush for the mind to process effectively and efficiently as to react and act, in time.
    So, it finds patters and encapsulates reality within rules laws and logical parameters of consistency.

    Higher minds find patters in more intricate phenomenon. Lower minds are baffled by the intricacy and call it chaotic or too complicated.

    Ideas are always generalizations.
    The only distinction between them is how accurately they’ve incorporated all the information within their premises.

    Einstein was someone that found a pattern in an intricate phenomenon - a pattern that made the chaotic intelligible. A pattern that generalized intricacy down to a few simple tenets.


    water

    Then how did you come up with this bit of sophisticated wisdom:
    Being bored by analysis, how do you conclude in these positions?
    How do you propose to justify them?

    Lacking any talent in analysis, according to your own words, how do you conclude that it is “philosophical drivel”?
    Did you feel it?

    Wouldn’t it be logical for you to alleviate your boredom by participating in the Cesspool topics of teenage angst and emotional vampirism?
    Wouldn’t your female dispositions be better used there and your mind fully engaged by Soap-Opera dramatic, gossip and bragging?
    Wouldn’t you be better entertained by pretending disinterest while proving interest and then feeding off the reactions of your fellow noble souls?
    Shouldn’t you be searching for Self in holistic and gestalt conceptions where you become more than the sum of your parts and where your sense of anxiety, concerning your true nature, is not burdened with evil analysis and damaging deconstruction and you simply have faith in your emotional reactions?

    If you’re bored why comment at all?
    I usually don’t get involved in what bores me or in what I care nothing about.
    How about you?! Hm?
    It seems this “I don’t care” or “I’m bored” is a popular method of excusing oneself around here. It’s a way of adding a layer of protection to an intimidated heart.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Huh?
     
  10. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Satyr,



    I said:

    The more adequate differentiation is that between "typical male brain" and "typical female brains", whereby a man may have a "typically female brain", and a woman a "typically male brain" as well. The types are not automatically gender specific, there is just a tendency that many females have a "female brain", while many males have a "male brain".
    See http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,937913,00.html

    I may be a woman, but I don't necessarily have a completely female brain.


    There is no need for you to say such things.


    Because things don't go the way I wanted them to! Ever heard of unrealistic expectations and vanity?!


    The discussion here was nice for a while, but then it started to go into issues I've been over a thousand times. Frankly, I'm not up for yet another discussion of realism vs. constructivism and so on, I've been in those too many times so far.
    And I am not a very patient person, I'm sorry.
     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    PJ

    Then I shall have you explain how they exist in a static universe? Please, present how three-dimensional staticness can produce these things?


    I'm not sure what you're asking here but I'll try and make this as simple as possible.

    Tap a pencil on your knee in a consistent fashion - you have just created a clock; ie. time. Now please explain how this newly created time function can influence anything? Answer: It doesn't.
     
  12. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Satyr:

    That is quite okay. Take your time. And yes, any points I can make here I shall.

    It is both an intriguing way to deal with things, as well as a wise one. The interconnections are there to be found and used!

    I would actually argue that our participation is what biases us, as a whole, to what seems to be the fallacious concept of philosophical libertarianism and its support of free will. It is actually an accomplishment of philosophy to go beyond that naive point of view. I'd also see little reason to suggest that temporality would necessitate us having an inaccurate view of things. We need not be eternal and infinite to be certain of determinism in that we are experiencing our determinism all ready.

    Hmm. This brings to mind something I would affirm to be true: It seems that all possibility must inhere in existence ad eterniam. That is to say, anything which is possible, would be possible forever, but whether or not it manifest depends on the conditions being actually met in existence. However, when one takes into consideration an eternal period of time, then we see that not only would, by necessity, anything which is possible have occurred, but have occurred, no matter how remote, an infinite series of times over.

    Yes, chaos would seem to be rooted in our incapacity to take in as much information - and all tyeps of information - as would be needed. However, we must also consider that so far, mankind's mind outweighs his artificial computer power in manyway, including even computation of information. Sensory stimuli, for instance, would translate to incredible amounts of data flowing constantly and being processed just the same. Various other things do such.

    Not necessarily more intelligent, but possibly with more computing power. So far, I would not proclaim that any computer has even an ounce of intelligence, just raw computation power.

    What else?

    The air of irrefutability of these statements would seem to point towards a more existence-wide validity. Moreover, it would seem that at least part of our physical laws - which themselves bolster the claims of logic - ought to continue on outside of our universe also, as the nature of energy's eternity would seem to necessitate an outside of our universe source for the energy present here.

    Yes, my statement would be wrong. But this is not the case.

    Well let us move from the temporal to the spatial for the moment: Can we not speak of a rock? Or a tree? Or a banana? THat is to say, though obviously all of those things are composed of an infinite series of parts, and have come into being and will come out of being, as is their fate, we can speak still of there being a "one". Moreover, when we reduce their parts, we come not only to have "one" but one-infinity or every number. A number need not to be considered an absolute like temporal or spatial infinity - unless you wish to give it some sort of Platonic form status - but, in actuality, it seems to demand a sense of its temporality by the fact that it does not encompase all things.

    Now, is it truly an approximation? Or a reality? We are not truly approximating when we say "there is one apple", but declaring a fact which is precise. Nor are we approximating when we say "it is composed of an infinite series of infinitely small parts".

    Despite the construction and destruction to the two-extremes of infinity, one - and two, and three, and four, ad infinitum - all represent various levels of counting on a finite scale. A true one might well be an single infinitely small point in time or space, and a true two composed of two of these, et cetera. The things which would not be irreducible.

    Let us also remember that all flux requires the substantiality of what is being in flux. In order for something to change, it must procede through an infinite series of static points.

    More to come soon.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2005
  13. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Satyr:

    We shoulud get back to this subtopic in our conversation once we debate the notion of what a number ought to properly be conceived of. I think in my last few paragraphs of responses, I offer my assertions for what I think proper.

    Granted.

    Because the definition of "two" is to have two one's together. The one's themselves are not "less complete" because they are incapable of creating two individually, but rather, they are completely and utterly complete for oneness, but when employed outside of oneness - to make two - they are not.

    Here is an idea that just came to me when pondering this: One can view "one" as either the whole of all things - the infinitely large - or as the smallest individual thing - the infinitely small. This connection betwixt the two infinities, for some reason or another, I find rather fascinating.

    Another interesting thing: Your idea of "never becoming" seems to fit very much in line with the very notion that any temporal thing could never reach either end of infinity.

    So basically, a non-moment is the temporal manifestation of nothingness, as it were?

    Do you think so? I would rather say that it would seem far more linked with how we must approach truth, I.E., through reason. Rather than common processes resulting from a collective unconscious, we look for what works and works the best, and then do so.

    Each segment of the chain shattered by attachment to nothing. Interesting.

    I think I shall wax poetic, as I am so inspired:

    A clean white canvas
    Is the only thing fitting
    For the artist's brush

    I eagerly await reading it.

    Whilst I have not yet commented on that essay, some of your conclusions are similar to mind, specifically as regards this "bad-boy effect". Quite brilliantly put, I must say, too.

    I stay away from that area of the forums precisely because of him. I have no time for people who must prattle off absurdities.

    I think I recall seeing you back as The Wanderer several times. Both names I like.

    Indeed, it is.

    Hmm! Very well thought out and quite true, it would seem! A vague and clouded proto-reasoning which, through personal ineptitude or perosnal indifference, developed to still be able to get something out of that information, would indeed seem a proper way to conceptualize intuition. It also seems very fitting for the female character in many instances, yes. Women are ever so prone to such things which, quite often, lead to their suffering.

    Yes. The information would be far too much if we had to evaluate each instance without any sort of generalization.

    Yes.

    Exceedingly well put.

    Satyr, I am finding I rather like you! To say the least, you're quite the fascinating chap. Expect me to comment in the Human area about your Feminization of Man essay sometime soon, or perhaps in PM should I not want to get annoyed by Medicine Woman and Buddha1.

    However, it would be best not to attack Water so violently. There was a level of anger present in your words that seemed unnecessary.

    (Q):

    I have created the -measurement- of time through doing this. That is, I could judge how long ago a specific thing was through reference to the pencil strikings. I have, however, not "created time", as it were. Were a fourth dimension of time to not facillitate that capacity to move, however would I be able to do so?
     
  14. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    Prince_James

    All insight must have some practical applicability or else it is useless and mere mind-candy.

    The practice of incessantly talking about metaphysical or existential issues without drawing immediate, everyday conclusions is an academicians bane.

    Philosophy, these days, has been relegated to historicizing, where one repeats what another thought and then takes a position on it. No personal ramifications are pondered, no personal opinion tolerated.

    Yes. “Free-Will” is one of those mind-candy concepts many like to work around in their mental-mouth, over and over again so as to alleviate their anxiety concerning their existence.
    “God” is another.

    Perhaps not “inaccurate”, since any inaccuracy would have had existential repercussions, but simplified and partial.
    We know enough to keep us alive within a certain environment; a specific temporal conglomeration.

    Yes. If we exclude from this infinite possibility that of the absolute - if the absolute were possible it would have already occurred and so made existence unnecessary.

    We might think of the hypothetical Big Crunch/Big Bang as the closest approximation of the absolute.

    But this infinite possibility also points to an infinite recurrence, as Nietzsche said, and to a resurrection, as it is symbolized in religious dogma.
    Christ is resurrected, as is nature in spring. But so is the soul in Hinduism where Nirvana, the end, is sought after if one remains disciplined and worthy of ones own end.

    Presently yes, the human brain is the highest computing instrument known to man.

    This does not mean this will be true in the future. If anything technology allows for the speeding up and the more efficient evolution and progress of computing power.

    In such a case man becomes an intermediary evolutionary stage which brings about a new, more advanced consciousness, just as the cell brings about the human being.

    I believe much existential anxiety, concerning this possibility, is found in many modern art forms.
    In movies, for example, this mechanization and subjugation of man to a machine has been expressed in many ways.
    Society is the first stage towards this mechanization. Society, itself, a machine-like entity which enables technology and then becomes dependant upon it - the individual mind turning into an insignificant, replaceable, indistinct, cog.

    Presently yes.
    But there is a school of thought which can explain intelligence as a process of multiple mental “agents” working together to create consciousness and intelligence.

    Well, I can’t really tell.
    I rarely dwell on the sources of my information. I sort-of integrate information and then organize it and expand upon it in my brain.

    I would guess that everything I’ve ever read or heard or experienced or discovered on my own, participates in my reasoning.

    I dislike dwelling upon particular sources, discussing about what they’ve said and if I agree with them or not. I prefer to add them into a mix, a primordial mix, out of which something else can evolve out of, through the combination of multiple particles.
    What referencing I do is when I remember a source and can see how my thinking has been affected by it and offering an acknowledgement to it.

    You could find influences in me from Plato, Aristotle, Russell, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kant, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, and every science manual, philosophical document, religious dogma or science documentary I’ve ever read or watched or heard about.
    Add to that my own personal musings and experiences and you have the source of all my opinions.

    Are you talking about multiple-universes that co-exist next to each other like membranes?
    If not what would constitute an outside?

    Yes but what is can only be known within an ambiguous spatial/temporal context.

    The apple is a congruence of particles, in a particular form, and in accordance to a pre-existing formula of Becoming.
    But it soon deteriorates and becomes mush and then is reabsorbed into the continuum.

    That is reality must constantly be re-evaluated. Although that some parts hold true over longer periods of time or some patterns remain consistent and predictable over a certain spatial/temporal period, enables the possibility for life.
    When we say “there is one apple” we are generalizing unknowable instances of space/time into a unity of predictable, consistency. We call it our logic, our reality.

    The apple becomes useful to us only within that instance of its Becoming, as it follows its own ephemeral Becoming.
    Its parts can be integrated and understood by us only because its Becoming and ours have reached a temporal/spatial congruence, an agreement.

    A number can only be approximated, in my opinion. Or else we are referring to an impossible absolute.

    A number represents a noumenon space/time point which is indefinable, infinitely reducible and incomplete, or it can represent a community of space/time congruence’s following a pattern, such as an apple or a human being or a rock.

    Then there are two conceptions of ONE.
    The first is that of a unity of space/time into a recognizable, predictable pattern.
    The second is that of the conception of Oneness: an absolute, completeness.

    Yes. That’s what I referred to before.

    The notion of One-ness refers to an absolute, in which case two becomes a contradiction.

    Yes. So a moment is that which can never be and a non-moment is that which always is but can never be experienced or known.

    I believe that it might be possible to have a collective unconscious, as a genetic remnant of common ancestry and common Becoming patters - shared pasts.

    Poetic is what I constantly…..wax.

    Art is the only way the indescribable can be expressed.

    Well it usually takes me months, so don’t wait too eagerly.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And you were always this alias?
    Which part of the world do you exist in?
    Britain?

    A woman’s “suffering“ is due to her natural role as carrier of offspring.
    This role necessitates a certain psychological disposition and a heightened dependence on others. It also makes it unnecessary for other traits to be nurtured and sharpened.

    Her talents in practical reasoning and her social genius speak to her natural role.
    A woman prefers relationships and practical information.
    Abstractions leave her disinterested.

    I rather like me, as well.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I have found that your measured, respectful, insightful, serious disposition refreshing.
    Especially when compared to the rest of this Forum.

    As for commenting in the other thread: it is risky.
    Getting the flies attention is a recipe for disaster. You will soon find a thread derailed by adolescent, feminine banter and social mind-games.

    Which brings me to this:

    Water participates as a bit-player in a sciforum social sub-group. Her presence in any thread can attract unwanted, distracting attention – especially when her participation here adds nothing else but her own sense of disinterest.

    You must understand that there’s a sub-group of members here who feed off of each others negative reactions and each others attentions. It is part of a cycle of inter-dependence with some fascinating sociological, post-modern anthropological manifestations, which intrigue me as a phenomenon of modern life - a social phenomenon that exposes that sense of being lost and not possessing identity.
    When ones sense of identity comes from how others react to you then any attention, negative or positive, is an acknowledgment of your existence and value.
    The internet phenomenon of “Trolling” is a symptom of post-modern anxieties and loss of identity.
    Here “tricking” the other with multiple aliases or pretended disagreement or with false opinions becomes a source of self-worth.
    The ease with which one can pretend here on the faceless internet and the non-existent repercussion to ones behavior, makes some exceedingly “brave”, and willing to exhibit their hatred and insecurities and vengeance upon the other who they are protected form due to distance and anonymity.
    The others reaction, becomes the psychological food some feed on, as a way of overcoming their sense of insignificance and weakness.

    It’s like me going to a theatre and then standing up, walking on stage and declaring how bad the play was and how bored I am - all this while the play is still going on.
    If the play is bad or you are bored by it, then simply walk out and stay away.
    You getting up to declare your disapproval points to other motives.

    Any participation of this sub-group within a thread is a recipe for disaster. The topic inevitably will lead to psychoanalysis of the opinion-maker, in an endless cycle of trying to create a reaction off of which one feeds, to personal attacks, which mean to disprove a position by discrediting the position-maker or position-holder, to ambiguous word-play and verbal acrobatics where one tries to discredit the other and prove his/her superiority with witticisms, while claims of disinterest will prevail as the preferred method of defence – notice how water proclaims her "disinterest" as a starting volley.

    She wants us to know beforehand that whatever opinions are expressed and whatever she exposes about herself through her participation, she remains aloof to it. Nobody can hurt her.
    Our opinions have no effect on her reality.

    She says she doesn’t care and then acts as if she does.
    Furthermore she wants to convey her equality, if not her superiority, by insinuating that she’s thought of all this before, she’s been through this, she knows all this. She doesn’t comment, avoiding proving how much she’s understood or not, by feigning disinterest in the proceedings.

    Now being one of those that has realized the honesty of action as opposed to words, I’m inclined not to take her words seriously. It’s one of those feminine tools of social concealment.
    The body always, always, speaks in ways the brain cannot control and gives itself away even while the mouth is pretending otherwise.

    Don’t get me wrong I’ve found water to be intelligent and willing and she is welcomed in any discussion, but only if she abandons her insecurities about being exposed or being judged by others.
     
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    I have, however, not "created time", as it were.

    Yes, you did, however rudimentary, you created a way of measurement. In no way does that form of measurement actually influence anything, it simply measures events.

    Were a fourth dimension of time to not facillitate that capacity to move, however would I be able to do so?

    You've got it backwards. Time does not create the capacity to move, it simply measures it.
     
  16. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Q,


    I agree with you.

    And in similar manner, can we say that counting, that is, the system of natural numbers, does not create the capacity of objects to exist, it simply measures them (that is, measures how many of them are there)?
     

Share This Page