Re: God as collective consciousness

Dick wrote:
On 14 Jul 2006 04:41:03 -0700, "Nick Keighley"
<nick_keighley_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dick wrote:
On 13 Jul 2006 07:14:01 -0700, "Nick Keighley"
<nick_keighley_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Basty Castellio wrote:

I think our fundamental view of the world is so divergent we cannot
meaningfully communicate. So, one last post.

Or time or hope - must they exist?

why on earth did you put time in there? Time is a phyically measureable
property of the material universe.

Are you sure time exists?

obviously. Who is going to win the 3:30 at Haydock? How come you don't
compose your replies before I compose my messages (and if you do, how
come I see them in chronological order?)

Your asking how we coordinate our actions?

no. Where did the words "comminicate" and "actions" appear in any of my

posts? If you re-read (or read) what I wrote; I said "Who is ***going
to*** win
the 3:30 at Haydock?". This uses the future tense. I'm asking you to
tell
me the outcome of a future event. If you are unable to do this then I
submit
that the concepts of past and future are not an illusion or mental
construction
but real physical limitations. And hence time exists.

I don't need anything to
see the winner of a race if I am standing at the finish line.
However, time instruments are very convenient.

Have you ever looked at a clock innards?

have you?

What is happening is a

and there are regulatary mechanisms to ensure the nergy is released at
a
constant rate, despite the tension in the spring changeing as it
uncoils.

A counter
monitors the increments. The counter is connected to a display. By
setting the counter to 0 and simultaneously setting other clocks to 0,
every instrument is calibrated so you and I can go our separate ways
until we agree to return to a position when the counter reaches an
agreed count.

Anticipating your message

probably a bad idea...

supposes "time" is something real that can
be moved forward and backward. If time exist it clearly cannot be
manipulated.

I don't believe (classical non-relativistic) time can be manipulated
forwards
and backwards. I've no idea why you anticipated me saying this.

<snip>

I may have two books, same number of pages. I
may read on and finish today, the other may take days to finish. The
first I praise and share with friends, the other I forget.

Was time the same?
yes

How do you account for your inner experience of "time flying or
dragging?" We don't ever say "that is a short inch."

You've obviously never walked round to a new girl friend's (substitute
appropriatly) house or walked home when its raining. If you take a
wrong
turning its always twice as far on the way back. Our perception of time
is
not a reliable guide (though it can be trained to better).

We can't perceive thousandths of an inch or ultraviolet radiation, so
we
use instruments. I don't see the problem.

<snip>

All timing devices of which I am aware are based on incremental
release of energy with a counter. Where is the time?

the energy is released at a steady rate. This is used to measure time.
I don't understand why measure of distance is comprehensible whilts
time seems to be some sort of problem. Distance relies on rulers.
Perception of distance varies. But distance (at non-relativistic
speeds) is well defined.

I don't follow your meaning in the above paragraph. It seems we are
agreeing that distance is constant at non-relativistic speeds. I
wonder why you say "perception of distance varies?"

see examples above

Human experience of the external world is always lagging. The
receptors do not present an experience until the energy triggering the
sensory system reaches the brain. Auto accidents are the result,
sometimes, because of response lag. We always are witnessing a passed
event. Where is the past stored in the universe? Where is the
future? Both are in our brain.

why does the past need "storing". And the future hasn't happened. Where
is distance stored?

Somewhere in the body, presumable in the brain, each frame is stored.

I don't accept this presumption. Not even for "the sake of the
argument".
If you make suppositions about mental activity they have to be
superficially
plausible.

Until the inputs are coordinated a frame cannot exist.

I do not agree.

Even if nerve
transmission was constant, distance from a toe is longer than from the
eye to the brain.

?

If there was immediate movement from the eye to the
brain, an obstacle would be seen before the pain was felt. It is only
speculation, but I suspect the brain stores in memory the synchronized
information.

I don't agree

Emotional events are known to generate memories of prior
emotional events. Smells bring recall of associated events, et
cetera.

How do you experience the world? Only through sensations. We assume
that there is a physical world associated with the sensors.

this is the fundamental materialist (properly phyicalist) axiom. I
accept there is
a real world out there and my senses, though imperfect, tell me
something
meaningful about it. Any other axiom is dressed up solipsism.

I agree
the results are pretty believable, but if one is trying to allow an
openness to possibilities, it is a reasonable practice to look for
alternatives.

*reasonable* alternatives

A flat world concept worked well for a long time.

no it didn't. Any mariner with reasonable eye sight would quickly
realise
something odd was going on.

It
certainly agreed with what we experienced. Same for the sun rotating
around the earth. The discovery that the atom was constructed from
bits and pieces was a surprise.

so we discover new things. What new thing are you talking about?

I don't want to persuade anyone, just share possibilities. Sometimes
the "unbelievable" is later believable. Do you believe in "curved
space," "string theory", "singularities", "evolution," "ID?"

not ID. String theory is a bit ropey.

Discovery starts with imagination doesn't it?

but not every wild idea comes to anything.


--
Nick keighley

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: space time
    ... The definition "A light-year is the distance light travels in 1 year" ... a world used to using the sun for so many other events in their lives. ... a light would travel in one earth orbit. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: space time
    ... The definition "A light-year is the distance light travels in 1 year" ... a world used to using the sun for so many other events in their lives. ... a light would travel in one earth orbit. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Big Bang & Variable Light Speed
    ... This is the first instance of "conformal time" in this thread. ... So "dt" can have a different meaning in different line elements, because its meaning depends on the line element in question. ... because speed is defined as (distance traveled)/. ... coordinate differences. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Project Genesis Revised
    ... Nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the earth ... We compare the mass of the earth to the mass of the sun, ... Let the distance between them be r. ... n is the planet number and r is its distance from the sun. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: space time
    ... The definition "A light-year is the distance light travels in 1 year" ... a world used to using the sun for so many other events in their lives. ... a light would travel in one earth orbit. ...
    (talk.origins)