time is relative.

[StarMountainKid]

Cool idea, lightly. Edit: In Zen, the world is created anew moment by moment. This way we are not burdened by the past.

Edited April 5, 2013 by StarMountainKid

[Mr Walker]

When you speak of a computer capable of calculating the outcome of large chaotic systems, the needed computers become far beyond what is even theoretically imaginable -- things on the scale of multiples of the entire universe all calculating together.

What big computers do is model, which involves making radically simplifying assumptions, and, interestingly enough, when done right these procedures get good results. They are however far short of producing anything approaching certainty. They are also best for macro-systems, like the weather or the evolution of galaxies. When you start getting into things closer to the atomic level, whole new forms of uncertainty appear.

Nothing is unimaginable, and if we can imagine it, given time we can achieve it. No, I am not really talking about modelling as we know it, but inputting every variable possible, to give an avccurate and detailed forecast. which will be what happens. The only problem is how we can KNOW each variable. Inputting them and calculating them is quite feasible, even if there are trillions of them. It is the unknown/unknowable which makes the process problematic, not the number of potential variables.

Chaos theory as we know it at present is really talking about the interconnections and responses of systems. So the flapping of a butterflies wings may have a direct physical cause/connection to a tropical storm (as a far fetched hypothetical example) But the connection(s) in chaos theory IS/ARE real and measurable. The problem atm is that it appears chaotic because we do not have the detailed systems knowledge to compute and predict cause and effect.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Mr Walker

[MR.Blueprint]

Time and distance are relative.

It would take about a day for a person to walk ten miles.

To an ant that same trip would be a generational trip, if it was walking.

To an immortal, it would take no time to walk it. This is why god can travel at the speed of thought, maybe.

All three examples experence time and distance differently.

I was taught in church that god doesn't experance time.

time and space is the same thing

the universe is god

[Mr Walker]

This was the point I was trying to make. The only difference is, I was wondering if our human consciousness of the rate of time elapsing is an accurate representation of the rate of time external to our consciousness.

If, as I posit, the past, present and future already exist, everything has already happened, and it is our human consciousness that creates for us our prsence in the present moment and our psychological experience of the rate of time elapsing.

Thats a fair belief position. I don't hold it because it doesn't fit the observable facts /knowledge we have, and also it is a dead end in practical terms. It is more a philosophical metaphysical view which then allows one to contemplate further possibilities which would apply in such a scenario.So, Time is constant within our present circumstances But the ability of pur mind to think at differen rates makes time appear to slow down or speed up to us as human beings Alos because we live along a linear time line we are consditioned to think about time in certain w ays One has to take ourselves out of the equation, to actually see how time really is.

The future does not yet exist. That is a simple physical impossibilty, given everything we know about the nature of the universe Things progress or change due to other natural laws. Something cannot die until it has been born, or lived, for example. A rock, once eroded into particles, cannot exist still as a rock . A man cannot ever enter the same river, twice. There IS a sequential and linear flow of time which connects with, and interacts with, all other natural processes.

The human mind is capable of transcending time, because of its own properties. For example, it can look into the past and look into potential futures. This sometimes confuses us about the nature of time. We can look back beyond our birth via photos movies etc. We can look forward to our death, and even beyond, using the abilities of our mind.

[StarMountainKid]

The future does not yet exist. That is a simple physical impossibilty, given everything we know about the nature of the universe Things progress or change due to other natural laws. Something cannot die until it has been born, or lived, for example. A rock, once eroded into particles, cannot exist still as a rock . A man cannot ever enter the same river, twice. There IS a sequential and linear flow of time which connects with, and interacts with, all other natural processes.

How do we know the future does not yet exist? The mathematician Kurt Godel considered the existence of the future as being real. He thought all time and all space exists. He said something like, if we consider space-time as an inseparable continuum, if we admit all space exists then we must admit all time exists as well.

I don't think this is a physical impossibility. In fact I think it is more likely. What determines the probabilities of events occurring on the quantum scale? No one knows, but this problem is easy to solve if the future already exists and probabilities on this scale have already been determined beforehand.

You are right that we are conditioned to think about time in a certain way and that we have to take ourselves out of the equation to actually see how time really is. If this were possible I think we may observe time in a quite different manner. Our psychological view of time I consider unreliable as it is a creation of the brain/mind. It is subjective.

I think it is too easy and too convenient to apply our human psychological experiences to the universe at large. There are too many unexpected counter-intuitive aspects out there for me to be comfortable applying my limited conscious experience as a description of Reality.

[Mr Walker]

How do we know the future does not yet exist? The mathematician Kurt Godel considered the existence of the future as being real. He thought all time and all space exists. He said something like, if we consider space-time as an inseparable continuum, if we admit all space exists then we must admit all time exists as well.

I don't think this is a physical impossibility. In fact I think it is more likely. What determines the probabilities of events occurring on the quantum scale? No one knows, but this problem is easy to solve if the future already exists and probabilities on this scale have already been determined beforehand.

You are right that we are conditioned to think about time in a certain way and that we have to take ourselves out of the equation to actually see how time really is. If this were possible I think we may observe time in a quite different manner. Our psychological view of time I consider unreliable as it is a creation of the brain/mind. It is subjective.

I think it is too easy and too convenient to apply our human psychological experiences to the universe at large. There are too many unexpected counter-intuitive aspects out there for me to be comfortable applying my limited conscious experience as a description of Reality.

We know the future is non existent yet, in a singular dimensional universe, because there are a multitude of potential futures possible, never just one, and so one fixed future cannot exist.

In a multi verse there can be many futures but you or i will only know and experience the one which firms up out of many different potentials and so, still, for us there is no fixed future at this moment in time.

Eexistence only solidifies into physical reality as we reach it. For example. Tomorrow my house is likely to still be here without a lot of discernable change, even though the paint will have faded a little and the roof will have rusted a trifle.

But as to the details of tommorrow, and how they connect to me, there are numnerous alternate potentials as to how I will spend each second of tomorrow. At the moment every one of those potentials exists and may come to pass, depending on circumstance, my decisions, and my interactions with my universe.

Only as I enter the specific time of tomorrow, say 10 am will a singular present evolve out of a multitude of potentials Evn a nano second before 10.am i have the ability to chose between many potentials or alter the future.

Depending on my choices and other factors, that will then become a fixed past. Like the future there were many potential pasts (and presents) but only one came to physical reality within our universe The trap in our thinking is that, because we look back and see a fixed past, we are tempted to think that the present and the future must be a sequantial fixed line, and that thus the future must be as rigid as the past. This is false because in reality the past never was fixed until it became the past ( At one point every moment in the past was an unrealised/non existent future to our selves, to other beings, and to the universe)

Our future is not fixed at all and thus does not exist, and can not be known.

[StarMountainKid]

Even with a fixed future we have free will and we can change our minds from moment to moment, making choices that alter future events. The only difference is, our freely chosen decisions have already happened.

This can only be true if time is a real dimension. All three spatial dimensions are perpendicular to each other. The time dimension is perpendicular to the three spatial dimensions.

Each singular spatial dimension is a line that has two degrees of freedom: movement back and forth. D-1 movement is back and forth. Add D-2 dimension and now we can move up and down as well. Add D-3 dimension and now we can move side to side, too. We can now move in any of these directions because these three spatial dimensions are united. Still, we can only move back and forth in any one of these dimensions when they are considered separately.

Each spatial dimension can be considered as a one-dimensional space conjoined with the other spatial dimensions. Here we must add another dimension to enable the possibility of movement in the spatial dimensions. When we move in the spatial dimensions we are also moving in another dimension which we call the time dimension. It takes time to move. The time dimension is an essential addition to the spatial dimensions. Remove the time dimension and we cannot move at all.

Now, if we admit that the spatial dimensions exist and the time dimension exists that allows movement as a unity, what conclusion may we come to? If we could remove ourselves from these four dimensions and move to some higher dimension, look down upon them, what would we see? We would see the entirety of space and time laid out before us at once. We would see all space and all time simultaneously.

We would not be viewing space as we do now, the space within a room, or be viewing time as we do now, but we would be viewing space and time differently, as a unified dimensional entity. It's difficult or impossible to imagine this perspective as we cannot 'see' time, but from our higher dimensional viewpoint space and time would be a unified four-dimensional manifold that we could 'see' as a unity.

From this viewpoint, if we can see all of space we can also see all of time. If we were to look at a desk, for example, we would simultaneously see every past and future owner of that desk, everything they had or will do at that desk, and that desk in every position of space and time it had ever occupied or ever will occupy.

This scenario I think is a possible representation of Reality. I think concluding what Reality is derived from our limited human perspective, or projecting Reality from same is a pretentious conclusion and psychologically subjective.

[Mr Walker]

Even with a fixed future we have free will and we can change our minds from moment to moment, making choices that alter future events. The only difference is, our freely chosen decisions have already happened.

This can only be true if time is a real dimension. All three spatial dimensions are perpendicular to each other. The time dimension is perpendicular to the three spatial dimensions.

Each singular spatial dimension is a line that has two degrees of freedom: movement back and forth. D-1 movement is back and forth. Add D-2 dimension and now we can move up and down as well. Add D-3 dimension and now we can move side to side, too. We can now move in any of these directions because these three spatial dimensions are united. Still, we can only move back and forth in any one of these dimensions when they are considered separately.

Each spatial dimension can be considered as a one-dimensional space conjoined with the other spatial dimensions. Here we must add another dimension to enable the possibility of movement in the spatial dimensions. When we move in the spatial dimensions we are also moving in another dimension which we call the time dimension. It takes time to move. The time dimension is an essential addition to the spatial dimensions. Remove the time dimension and we cannot move at all.

Now, if we admit that the spatial dimensions exist and the time dimension exists that allows movement as a unity, what conclusion may we come to? If we could remove ourselves from these four dimensions and move to some higher dimension, look down upon them, what would we see? We would see the entirety of space and time laid out before us at once. We would see all space and all time simultaneously.

We would not be viewing space as we do now, the space within a room, or be viewing time as we do now, but we would be viewing space and time differently, as a unified dimensional entity. It's difficult or impossible to imagine this perspective as we cannot 'see' time, but from our higher dimensional viewpoint space and time would be a unified four-dimensional manifold that we could 'see' as a unity.

From this viewpoint, if we can see all of space we can also see all of time. If we were to look at a desk, for example, we would simultaneously see every past and future owner of that desk, everything they had or will do at that desk, and that desk in every position of space and time it had ever occupied or ever will occupy.

This scenario I think is a possible representation of Reality. I think concluding what Reality is derived from our limited human perspective, or projecting Reality from same is a pretentious conclusion and psychologically subjective.

Your model only applies to PAST movements (past being everything that has happened so far. ) That includes both time and space. Neither our future movements in space, nor our future movements in time, exist yet. Actually the very future existence of both time and space, while very probable, is not guaranteed. Something could cause both to end in the next mome.....

Reality exists outside of us although we are a part of that reality like a rock. It just happens that our minds can perceive and consider the nature of reality, whereas a rock or a dog cannot. It is important in such consideration tha twe use logic and observation to ascertain the nature of eality and thus our place within it. Our brains, and thus our minds,(which are entirely a product/ construct of our brains) are an evolved consequence of the passage of time. They fit into their position in linear time because of the contextual developments and environments which occured before they evolved, and as they evolved. They have incredible and unique properties and abilites, but still they are physical things, and an integrated part of the physical universe, and of time.

To take your final argument and extend it , then EVERYTHING is subjective and "non real." That includes evolution, our history, and the nature of existence itself. That is a belief system which runs counter to all the evidences. As a belief I respect it, but I see no difference between it and creationism.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Mr Walker

[StarMountainKid]

Reality exists outside of us although we are a part of that reality like a rock. It just happens that our minds can perceive and consider the nature of reality, whereas a rock or a dog cannot. It is important in such consideration tha twe use logic and observation to ascertain the nature of eality and thus our place within it. Our brains, and thus our minds,(which are entirely a product/ construct of our brains) are an evolved consequence of the passage of time. They fit into their position in linear time because of the contextual developments and environments which occured before they evolved, and as they evolved. They have incredible and unique properties and abilites, but still they are physical things, and an integrated part of the physical universe, and of time.

I agree with what you say except for the bold (mine). I think we are conscious of a simulation of Reality that our mind creates for itself. Using our intelligence we do have a greater understanding of the universe than we can perceive with only our five senses. Our mathematical understanding of how the universe behaves, as you say, is a result of being an integrated part of the physical universe.

There is the psychological arrow of time, the thermodynamic arrow of time (entropy) and the cosmological arrow of time (the expansion of the universe). The last two demonstrate that there exists a real past, even if we consider the past a series of previous present moments.

The psychological arrow of time as memory is a construct of the mind, and our consciousness of linear time, cause and effect, the future as not as yet realized, is a consequence, as you say, of our evolutionary history. Our consciousness is stuck in the present moment, moving toward the future, so to say.

We rely on our consciousness to model the behavior of the universe at large, but as our conscious is limited by its own selective awareness, our perceptions of the nature of time, as this is what we are discussing, are subjective.

We have only our subjective model of time to rely on as the reality of the nature of time. I think admitting to this is a good place to begin when we attempt to define what time itself may be or may not be.

Edited April 8, 2013 by StarMountainKid

[Mr Walker]

I agree with what you say except for the bold (mine). I think we are conscious of a simulation of Reality that our mind creates for itself. Using our intelligence we do have a greater understanding of the universe than we can perceive with only our five senses. Our mathematical understanding of how the universe behaves, as you say, is a result of being an integrated part of the physical universe.

There is the psychological arrow of time, the thermodynamic arrow of time (entropy) and the cosmological arrow of time (the expansion of the universe). The last two demonstrate that there exists a real past, even if we consider the past a series of previous present moments.

The psychological arrow of time as memory is a construct of the mind, and our consciousness of linear time, cause and effect, the future as not as yet realized, is a consequence, as you say, of our evolutionary history. Our consciousness is stuck in the present moment, moving toward the future, so to say.

We rely on our consciousness to model the behavior of the universe at large, but as our conscious is limited by its own selective awareness, our perceptions of the nature of time, as this is what we are discussing, are subjective.

We have only our subjective model of time to rely on as the reality of the nature of time. I think admitting to this is a good place to begin when we attempt to define what time itself may be or may not be.

Two comments. If we can rely on our mind to identify the two arrows of time which are the "real " past, then why not rely on our mind to identify the subjective nautre of time There simply is no reason to think we exist in a reality of our own construction if two of the independent forms of time we identify are real. We can also identify and allow for, and even manipulate, our mind's subjective interpretation of time. (At which point, by the way, it is no longer subjective because we are treating it objectively.)

So, If our consciousness is limited by selective awareness, and all we know is a construct of our consciousness, how can we be sure of anything; including entropy, and our past existence? Where did our consciousness come from, if it is not a product of our evolved interconnection to a fixed external reality ?

Connected to my previous post. If our reality is a construct or perception of our mind, then how do we know what to eat. And why do we live if we eat certain foods and die if we eat others? Why do we even need food to sustain us, if our connection to reality is mere perception.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Mr Walker

[StarMountainKid]

Consciousness is limited and selective, yet adequate for our survival and intelligent enough to accomplish great things in science. There is much more we do not at present understand, and there will be new discoveries in the future enabling a more comprehensive understanding of reality.

However, I think there are fundamental aspects of reality our conscious intelligence may never be capable of grasping, because they lie in a different realm than our evolved consciousness can understand, or the mathematics defining them are too complex for us to discover or decipher, or the mathematics we are familiar with is inadequate to describe. I believe this is the roadblock to a complete description of string theory, for instance.

Our subjective or objective consciousness is adequate to reveal the reality inherent in itself. In other words, we can only understand in ways the mind is constructed to understand. I don't know what time is, if it is anything at all, and from what I've read no one really understands time.

There are many theories out there, but no final answer. I think we can generalize and say this about space as well. What is a dimension, either spatial or temporal? We can describe behavior, but we cannot describe the thing itself. I think the thing itself will always remain undefinable for us, something ever elusive because it is beyond our human capacity to define.

[Mr Walker]

Consciousness is limited and selective, yet adequate for our survival and intelligent enough to accomplish great things in science. There is much more we do not at present understand, and there will be new discoveries in the future enabling a more comprehensive understanding of reality.

However, I think there are fundamental aspects of reality our conscious intelligence may never be capable of grasping, because they lie in a different realm than our evolved consciousness can understand, or the mathematics defining them are too complex for us to discover or decipher, or the mathematics we are familiar with is inadequate to describe. I believe this is the roadblock to a complete description of string theory, for instance.

Our subjective or objective consciousness is adequate to reveal the reality inherent in itself. In other words, we can only understand in ways the mind is constructed to understand. I don't know what time is, if it is anything at all, and from what I've read no one really understands time.

There are many theories out there, but no final answer. I think we can generalize and say this about space as well. What is a dimension, either spatial or temporal? We can describe behavior, but we cannot describe the thing itself. I think the thing itself will always remain undefinable for us, something ever elusive because it is beyond our human capacity to define.

Ok I can understand and appreciate this POV and where it comes from I respect yor position but I cant agree with it because basically i am a logical empiricist. I dont believe in things "beyond".

I dont believe there is anything beyond the ability of humanity to understand or comprehend, for example, especially using computing powers billions of times more capapble than the human mind to help us.

Our knowledge will eventually give us technologies capable of understanding and emulating any paranormal or supernatural abilities we observe or imagine today, and give us more power than any god we have ever dreamed of or encountered. As long as we develop the wisdoms necessary to survive our application of these powers and knowledge.

Time is not hard to understand, either as a concept or a reality. Nor is infinity, nothingness etc. One can "see" these things as well as undersand them intellectuallyand concetually/symbolically. One can even experience them as a part of being human. We have all been dead and know exaclty what tha tis like We have all lived and know what that is like We live in a reality and know and understand what that is like. We have a mind in a body, both of which we can understand, operate, and utilise very efficiently, if we can be bothered to take the time to learn to do so..

We can travel the universe and even enter other universes, by extending our consciousness via the universal consciousness; and travel into the past, or into the minds of others. We can even enter into future potential existences and compare and evaluate them, in order to chose which one (s) we prefer to work towards and wich we seek to avoid.

Not everyone has learned how to do this, or wants to be able to do it, or takes the time, energy, effort and discipline to learn how to, but it is a part of a natural human ability, and has been for many many millenia, probably since we learned how to think and speak.

[StarMountainKid]

I dont believe there is anything beyond the ability of humanity to understand or comprehend, for example, especially using computing powers billions of times more capapble than the human mind to help us.

One problem I think we may never comprehend is as follows: Let us say we are forever trapped inside a clock. We observe its wheels and gears and determine their behavior. However, not being able to get out of the interior of the clock to see the clock itself, we will never know the purpose of all the wheels and gears. (Here I define "purpose" as the clock face itself and what it represents, the telling of time, and not in a metaphysical sense.) I think our relationship with the universe is like this.

Another example would be an understanding of consciousness itself. The portion of consciousness trying to understand consciousness must lie external to that consciousness it is trying to understand. This would seem to me to result in an incomplete understanding. Who will understand that part of consciousness that is trying to understand itself?

We can correctly model the physical universe using mathematics and understand the mathematics involved, but this will always be an incomplete understanding for us, only a representation or interpretation of reality. This model always models behavior, but not what is behaving ("the thing itself"). In order to understand what is behaving we must define this "thing itself" by comparing it to some other "thing itself".

I think this is similar to the clock problem. We can come to an understanding of the mechanism, then analyze the metal of the wheels, then the metal's molecular structure, its atomic structure, the nature of atoms and the elementary particles and fields and the laws that determine their behavior, but now we come to a roadblock. How do we define what these particles are as themselves?

Mathematics will be useless here, as a mathematical description is incapable of defining "what is". This kind of description is external to the nature of mathematics. What other form of knowledge can we use to describe this "what is", this "suchness"?

I think we can have knowledge only when we can define it in complimentary terms. To have knowledge of something we must be able to relate that knowledge to some other knowledge. This is a self-limiting procedure. There may be kinds of information that are fundamental to the structure of reality that are incompatible with the method the human mind uses to process information.

Another situation may arise when using super computers to gain knowledge the human mind is incapable of discovering by itself. What happens when this super computer discovers mathematical descriptions of the physical universe that are beyond the human mind to comprehend? Would not this be a necessary goal of such a computer?These super computers may contrive methods of perception that are incomprehensible to the human intellect. We will never know if the data the computer produces are in fact correct?

Are only the solutions the human mind can comprehend a legitimate and complete descriptions of reality?

[Mr Walker]

One problem I think we may never comprehend is as follows: Let us say we are forever trapped inside a clock. We observe its wheels and gears and determine their behavior. However, not being able to get out of the interior of the clock to see the clock itself, we will never know the purpose of all the wheels and gears. (Here I define "purpose" as the clock face itself and what it represents, the telling of time, and not in a metaphysical sense.) I think our relationship with the universe is like this.

Another example would be an understanding of consciousness itself. The portion of consciousness trying to understand consciousness must lie external to that consciousness it is trying to understand. This would seem to me to result in an incomplete understanding. Who will understand that part of consciousness that is trying to understand itself?

We can correctly model the physical universe using mathematics and understand the mathematics involved, but this will always be an incomplete understanding for us, only a representation or interpretation of reality. This model always models behavior, but not what is behaving ("the thing itself"). In order to understand what is behaving we must define this "thing itself" by comparing it to some other "thing itself".

I think this is similar to the clock problem. We can come to an understanding of the mechanism, then analyze the metal of the wheels, then the metal's molecular structure, its atomic structure, the nature of atoms and the elementary particles and fields and the laws that determine their behavior, but now we come to a roadblock. How do we define what these particles are as themselves?

Mathematics will be useless here, as a mathematical description is incapable of defining "what is". This kind of description is external to the nature of mathematics. What other form of knowledge can we use to describe this "what is", this "suchness"?

I think we can have knowledge only when we can define it in complimentary terms. To have knowledge of something we must be able to relate that knowledge to some other knowledge. This is a self-limiting procedure. There may be kinds of information that are fundamental to the structure of reality that are incompatible with the method the human mind uses to process information.

Another situation may arise when using super computers to gain knowledge the human mind is incapable of discovering by itself. What happens when this super computer discovers mathematical descriptions of the physical universe that are beyond the human mind to comprehend? Would not this be a necessary goal of such a computer?These super computers may contrive methods of perception that are incomprehensible to the human intellect. We will never know if the data the computer produces are in fact correct?

Are only the solutions the human mind can comprehend a legitimate and complete descriptions of reality?

OK lets say we appear to exist within a clock/finite universeeven thoughthere is no empirical evidence to suggest this is so.

That does not mean that human writers and philosophers cannot imagine a differnt scenario. It doesnt mean that human scientists cant test all scenarios. Being apparently existent within a clock does not stop us from searching for a way out or a greater truth and ubnderstandiing. For example we once believed our universe was bounded by the "spherical" limits of expansion after the big bang We now find that there are multiple branes a potential multiverse and that wormholes exist between our local universe and other "universes" So we already know that the limits of the clock within which we live, are not the limits of our understanding our knowledge or our abilty to transcend So we can see and operate outside the clock as our knowledge grows commensurate withour imagination and ability to extrapolate

Like wise it is a fallacy to believe that our questioning consciousness must exist outside the full spectrum of our consciousness.

The portion of consciousness trying to understand consciousness must lie external to that consciousness it is trying to understand.

Why would you think this to be so?

Rather we exmine the nature of our consciousness using a whole range of tools which exist within the total tool box which is our consciousness. And so neurology and other tools including an understanding of the constructionof human language, allow us to understand, pull apart and reconstruct all the basic elements of that which form our consciousness from; language, conceptual development, to the role of neurons and synapses in the creation and storage of memory and thought.

Consciousness is clearly an organic/ electrical product of the mind which has evolved via ineraction with external environmentla stimuli into a self aware stream of consciousness. This is only made possible by our abilty with language in mental and oral forms Human thought IS basically internal human languge.

There are two answers to your question of how we know what is One is to use science to determine the physical nature of evertything/any singular thing in the universe (including the nature of the various elements of consciousness)

The second is to use our minds to categorise, catalogue, compare and contrast etc., things, to develop hierachical and comparative understanongs of those individual elements Then we can put them together at a systems level as we now do with many things in many disciplines Eg once we understand the individual elaments of an ecosystem and the connections betwen them, we can consrtuct a correct intellectual understanidng of an ecosystem at systems level and manipulate it.

Once we understand the role of neurons in the storage of memory; abd synapses in the organic processing of thought, we can not only understand our own thoughts and minds, but alter and improve these, add to them and create artificial ones. We can also do things like transfer consciousness memory etc. from one organic host to another, or to a capable artificial intelligence.

At the moment humans are the only entities we know for certain have the potential ability to determine the nature of reality. I am certain we can and always have done this but now, given an expanding physical data base of knowledge, and thus an enhance abilty to use and compare that data and to extrpolate from it more accurately, we do it with increasing success.

You may, very legitimately, be less certain of this.

Ps you might be right about maths. I completed pre university maths and a university statistics course, but mathematical modelling or thinking in mathematical terms is not my forte. My understanding of reality is based on sensory input and intellectual understanding. Ie reflective thought using many forms of intelligence.

Observingcarefully and reflectively and then using the mind to think long and carefully, has always supplied me with accurate answers.

It also helps to read a lot, and very widely so one becomes familiar with the ideas, and opinions and findings, of experts in all sorts of fields One doesnt have to be an expert to know everything an expert knows in today's information age. Just read a lot, and very quickly, and continue to expand and connect all this knowledge into one coherent system of knowledge. Eventually you find that knowledge and expertise in one discipline of knowledge links to and transfers to other areas, creating a more holistic knowledge and understanding of; self, universe, and the connections between all things.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Mr Walker

[StarMountainKid]

As interesting as the present discussion is, it has meandered away from the OP's topic.

rel·a·tive

Adjective

Considered in relation or in proportion to something else:

One reason I think time is a dimension as space is dimensional is that they are an inseparable whole. It seems to me time is in relation or proportional to space and vice verse. In time dilation, for example, not only is time relative from one frame of reference to another, space is relative from one frame of reference to another as well.

When time slows down the movement of matter in space slows down also relative to a different frame of reference. This is a real phenomenon. The rate of time elapsing determines the rate of movement in space. If time is not a real dimension, what determines this difference in rate of change in space?

When psychological time slows down in the experiencer's mind however, the rate of movement in space occurs only in that observer's mind, and therefore is not a real physical phenomenon external to the observer. In this situation time is relative, but only within consciousness.

I think this gives a hint as to why time is considered by some to be non-existent. We are most familiar with psychological time which is created by and confined within the mind. Our ability to mentally slow down and speed up our perception of the duration of time elapsing is an example of how we experience time internally, which may not be a correct representation of the reality of the nature of time external to our consciousness.

We also experience entropic time, but this is I think a manifestation of dimensional time.

[danielost]

Keep going on the above discussion. I am injoying it.

[StarMountainKid]

That does not mean that human writers and philosophers cannot imagine a differnt scenario. It doesnt mean that human scientists cant test all scenarios. Being apparently existent within a clock does not stop us from searching for a way out or a greater truth and ubnderstandiing. For example we once believed our universe was bounded by the "spherical" limits of expansion after the big bang We now find that there are multiple branes a potential multiverse and that wormholes exist between our local universe and other "universes" So we already know that the limits of the clock within which we live, are not the limits of our understanding our knowledge or our abilty to transcend So we can see and operate outside the clock as our knowledge grows commensurate withour imagination and ability to extrapolate

I think our knowledge of branes, a potential multi-verse and wormholes and whatever else we may discover are all still within the clock. It may be a very big clock, but all this is only the mechanism of the clock. I think to transcend this we would have to look at the clock from the 'outside'.

There may not be an 'outside', though. There may just exist the mechanism. In this sense, we may be able to understand fully how the mechanism behaves, but still be unable to define what the mechanism is.

The portion of consciousness trying to understand consciousness must lie external to that consciousness it is trying to understand.

Why would you think this to be so?

Rather we exmine the nature of our consciousness using a whole range of tools which exist within the total tool box which is our consciousness. And so neurology and other tools including an understanding of the constructionof human language, allow us to understand, pull apart and reconstruct all the basic elements of that which form our consciousness from; language, conceptual development, to the role of neurons and synapses in the creation and storage of memory and thought

All this is a sort of mechanism of a clock, also. Our experience of consciousness may lie 'outside' the mechanism that creates consciousness. Is our awareness a physical phenomenon, or does it exist not in the realm of physics or the physical universe?

Our feeling of consciousness itself perhaps transcends the mechanism. We can study this mechanism of the brain from 'outside' by our consciousness. However, our consciousness exists within the clock-works of the universe. We have no way of experiencing the universe- clock itself through our consciousness (if there exists something more than just the mechanism, i.e. the clock itself).

The portion of consciousness trying to understand consciousness must lie external to that consciousness it is trying to understand.

I say this because consciousness is such an ethereal entity. Can our 'feeling' of conscious awareness analyze itself?

[Mr Walker]

[/size]

I think our knowledge of branes, a potential multi-verse and wormholes and whatever else we may discover are all still within the clock. It may be a very big clock, but all this is only the mechanism of the clock. I think to transcend this we would have to look at the clock from the 'outside'.

There may not be an 'outside', though. There may just exist the mechanism. In this sense, we may be able to understand fully how the mechanism behaves, but still be unable to define what the mechanism is.

[/size]

All this is a sort of mechanism of a clock, also. Our experience of consciousness may lie 'outside' the mechanism that creates consciousness. Is our awareness a physical phenomenon, or does it exist not in the realm of physics or the physical universe?

Our feeling of consciousness itself perhaps transcends the mechanism. We can study this mechanism of the brain from 'outside' by our consciousness. However, our consciousness exists within the clock-works of the universe. We have no way of experiencing the universe- clock itself through our consciousness (if there exists something more than just the mechanism, i.e. the clock itself).

[/size]

I say this because consciousness is such an ethereal entity. Can our 'feeling' of conscious awareness analyze itself?

In brief our consciousness is entirely a physical entity. It can be studied, understood, constructed and deconstructed. It can be replicated, damaged, repaired and reproduced. It can be stored transferred etc.

Yes our consciousness can effectively study and come to undestand both the nature and the qualities of itself.

Just because a mind exists within a box does not prevent it from imagining, extrapolating and studying (using logic and other tools) th t which exists outside of the box.

Humans have been doing this for at least 100,000 years. We exist with an ever expanding bubble On the rim of the bubble is the interface between the known and the unknown. Within the bubble is our knowledge base. Outside the bubble is the unknown. But we keep transcending and expanding the bubble, sending feelers out, using data from within to extrapolate without and so on and so the bubble continues to expand swalloing up that which was unknown and making it known.

Eventually, the bubble of human knowledge and understanding will encompass everything that is. If we survive long enough, given our nature and abilities this is inevitable.

Ps there is NOTHING etheral or metaphysical about the nature of cosciousness. It is a very physical concrete and real physical function consisting of basic chemical and electrical physical processes and a system based operation of those elements. Indeed it is very much like a clock. It ticks because the individual components come together in a way to make (or allow) the whole work. When functioning properly, it can not do anything else but work as it is evolved to do. Just like a clock

Edited April 19, 2013 by Mr Walker

[StarMountainKid]

Ps there is NOTHING etheral or metaphysical about the nature of cosciousness. It is a very physical concrete and real physical function consisting of basic chemical and electrical physical processes and a system based operation of those elements. Indeed it is very much like a clock. It ticks because the individual components come together in a way to make (or allow) the whole work. When functioning properly, it can not do anything else but work as it is evolved to do. Just like a clock

Yes, I agree that consciousness is a very physical concrete and real physical function consisting of basic chemical and electrical physical prpcesses. However, the personal experience of consciousness is not the mechanism of consciousness. The mechanism produces our experience of consciousness, but what is this experience?

When you sit in a room and look around the room is physical, the brain producing consciousness is physical, but is the experience itself a physical entity? Can this experience be quantified and reduced to a mathematical equation? Can it be defined by an interpretation of the laws of physics?

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world Be cheerful Strive to be happy

Great advice!

Edited April 19, 2013 by StarMountainKid

[Frank Merton]

I refuse to thump Buddhist scripture (the Pali canon and assorted Sutras as bad taste for a Buddhist to do, although I've been known to thump the Bible when it serves me).

I now cannot refrain, in the context of what I've just been reading, from quoting a couple of extremely famous Taoist passages that have to do with time and being. The connection may take some thought to find.

“If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.” “When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be”

[White Crane Feather]

The enigma of qualia is interesting to think about. What I think most people miss (especially reductionists) entirely Is the phenomenon of transcendence. It may be that the brain produces conciousness rather than receives it, but in the end it produces something totally distinct and transcendent of the sum of its parts.

For example. I have a singular self aware conciousness, but in a crowd a new dynamic arises. I am no longer just me, I am part of a whole and that whole transcends the capabilities and awareness of the individual. It's a new conciousness with its own dynamics. Link all our brains through technology ( like the Borg) and a new transcedent entity is born.

Think about what this means. Every Planck space is a nuron capable of holding one single piece of information. All Planck spaces put together and the potential pathways in 3 dimensions form a Nural network of intense proportions. Then if string theory is correct there are the. 7 more Planck size dimentions to carry different kinds of spins or orbits on each piece of information. Qulia may exist everywhere at once..

[danielost]

The idea of me is only a small portion of a person. The majority of what makes us us is hidden from us until we need it or dream.

[Mr Walker]

Yes, I agree that consciousness is a very physical concrete and real physical function consisting of basic chemical and electrical physical prpcesses. However, the personal experience of consciousness is not the mechanism of consciousness. The mechanism produces our experience of consciousness, but what is this experience?

When you sit in a room and look around the room is physical, the brain producing consciousness is physical, but is the experience itself a physical entity? Can this experience be quantified and reduced to a mathematical equation? Can it be defined by an interpretation of the laws of physics?

Great advice!

In my knowledge and understanding of the science, then yes, the experience itself is a physical entity, just as an electrical current is a physical entity. it can be recorded measured etc. For example, love is an emotional and inrtellectual experience Both the emotional and intellectual properties of love are purely physical and real properties made possible by the nature of our body/brain interface. And so, in practice and reality , yes to your last set of questions.

The desiderata has motivated me all my life

[StarMountainKid]

In my knowledge and understanding of the science, then yes, the experience itself is a physical entity, just as an electrical current is a physical entity. it can be recorded measured etc. For example, love is an emotional and inrtellectual experience Both the emotional and intellectual properties of love are purely physical and real properties made possible by the nature of our body/brain interface. And so, in practice and reality , yes to your last set of questions.

My view is that the experience of consciousness itself is not a physical entity. Take color, for example. If we know all the physical properties of light waves, and understand the physical operations of the eye when a photon strikes the retina, and understand how the electro-chemecal processes within the brain respond to this stimuli, all this knowledge does not reveal the color red we experience in our consciousness.

[Mr Walker]

My view is that the experience of consciousness itself is not a physical entity. Take color, for example. If we know all the physical properties of light waves, and understand the physical operations of the eye when a photon strikes the retina, and understand how the electro-chemecal processes within the brain respond to this stimuli, all this knowledge does not reveal the color red we experience in our consciousness.

Colour is a physical property like solidity or the state of matter is a physical property. Light waves are physical entities. Our rods and cones are physical receivers of light. How is colour, then, NOT a physical property. For example I am physically colour blind in reds and greens. This is so because of physical/biological flaws in my vision, not from any problem with perception or consciousness of colour. "Red" is the english label word for a physical property of colour which humans see because it exists.

The colour red which i experience in my consciousness is a signal recieved by my eyes, with a name and memory stored on one singular neuron in my brain, that allows me to recognise, catalogue, and compare- cross reference it, with what other humans call red. I (my neuron storage and memory system) do the same for an apple or for paris hilton. So when I ask for a red apple, a shop keeper can pick one out and give it to me. Both the colour and the apple are physical, and so can be physically identified by any human speaking the same language. Luckily my colour blndness is only at the extreme ends of the colour tones, so that i can tell a red and green apple (and have no problem with traffic lights) but some green and red trousers do look brown to me leading to some fashion clashes.

If I was not colour blind, i would see the colour red exactly as other humans do, because I would be seeing a unique and physical property which alll humans see the same if their vision is physically operating as it should. What you are saying is comparable to saying that our sense of touch cannot establish the objective solidity of an object we touch.