Minds and Events

[downbeatplumb]

Belief in god hampers the search for knowledge. If the answer is god can do anything by magic then looking for how stuff really happened is pointless.

While in theory this is true, I don't think that in actual practice it has that much of a stifling effect.

It takes all kinds to make a world.  Not everybody is on a search for knowledge.  Some just want to live their lives.

True for the majority but then you have to look at the advances made when religion is supreme to when it isn't and the difference is obvious. Partly due to the above and partly due to the ruling religion actively discouraging progress.

[bennyboy]

While in theory this is true, I don't think that in actual practice it has that much of a stifling effect.

It takes all kinds to make a world.  Not everybody is on a search for knowledge.  Some just want to live their lives.

I'd add this: most of our lives, as we live them daily, consist of symbolic representations of reality, i.e. myths, anyway. "Mom" as I think of her really isn't that much more representative of reality than the God idea. In fact, everyone could be spoken of as something like: "The compassionate one who nurtures" or "the many unwise ones who stop in the middle of a turn lane, blocking everyone" etc. For the most part, when we interact with humanity, it's on a mythological level rather than a real physical one.

Even if I fight, it's not "This boy chooses to fight this man," it's "That evil piece of shit must be taught the rules of my world."

We say that the Greek gods are archetypes of various aspects of humanity. However, you could say that each of us is a conglomeration of eternal ideas that rise and fall with each generation.

Hmmm. . . as usual, more words than I'd intended. But I'd say that the religious perspective really isn't that far from a secular perspective, except only for the God idea.

[Arkilogue]

While in theory this is true, I don't think that in actual practice it has that much of a stifling effect.

It takes all kinds to make a world.  Not everybody is on a search for knowledge.  Some just want to live their lives.

I'd add this: most of our lives, as we live them daily, consist of symbolic representations of reality, i.e. myths, anyway.  "Mom" as I think of her really isn't that much more representative of reality than the God idea.  In fact, everyone could be spoken of as something like: "The compassionate one who nurtures" or "the many unwise ones who stop in the middle of a turn lane, blocking everyone" etc.  For the most part, when we interact with humanity, it's on a mythological level rather than a real physical one.

Even if I fight, it's not "This boy chooses to fight this man," it's "That evil piece of shit must be taught the rules of my world."

We say that the Greek gods are archetypes of various aspects of humanity.  However, you could say that each of us is a conglomeration of eternal ideas that rise and fall with each generation.

Hmmm. . . as usual, more words than I'd intended.  But I'd say that the religious perspective really isn't that far from a secular perspective, except only for the God idea.

Are you saying the there are naturally occurring Archetypes inherent in Man that sometimes express themselves religiously, sometime through "secular" forms?

The "Hues of Man" perhaps?

[fdesilva]

Time like separated events.
 
These are events that are separated in space and time such that there is sufficient time for a beam of light from one event to have reached the second event.
 
Space-like separated events.
 
These are events that are separated in space and time such that light from any one event can never reach any of the other events. Thus simultaneous events are space-like separated. That is even 2 event occurring 0.0001 mm from each other in the same instant will be space-like separated.

Can never reach any of the other events?  You have a funny definition of what it means to be spatially separated.  Relativity redefines simultaneity effectively eliminating the traditional concept.  Thus, simultaneous events are not space-like separated, they are defined by relative motion.

In regards to the above
Simultaneous events are space-like separated, this is not hard to see as consider 2 events A and B .0001mm from each other.  Light from A cannot reach B or B to A do you agree?
This is not something I am stating for the first time here it is a well accepted fact from physics.

 
3 Pivotal Argument
 
P1. Thus the events of U at a given instant is space-like separated.
P2. Perception connects these events.

Perception doesn't literally connect these events, it builds a representation of space in which two events are occurring.  As this representation isn't bound by the laws of space-time, it can be manipulated in real time to be whatever is required to represent multiple perceptions.

It is a representation of something outside of the brain yes, however it is build from events is it not? If so how are these events distributed in an instant in time?

P3. Special relativity states that nothing physical (material) can connect space-like separated events.
C1. Therefore perception as it connects space-like separated events of U, cannot be physical. That is it is non physical or dualistic.

As noted, perception is a representation of the percipii, not the actual space-like separated events, therefore it is not bound by the laws of relativity.  The pivotal argument fails.  Moreover, the eye and the brains processing of U occur with a high degree of parallelism, which can create the appearance of simultaneity by generating near simultaneous results which are then incorporated into one representation of U.
In regards to the above
Again what is the representation built of in a given instant in time?

[robvalue]

Why should I care about any of this?

I'll just repeat this question. It seems to be a stumbling block for a lot of people.

[Angrboda]

As noted, perception is a representation of the percipii, not the actual space-like separated events, therefore it is not bound by the laws of relativity.  The pivotal argument fails.  Moreover, the eye and the brains processing of U occur with a high degree of parallelism, which can create the appearance of simultaneity by generating near simultaneous results which are then incorporated into one representation of U.
In regards to the above
Again what is the representation built of in a given instant in time?

The representation isn't built in an instant and uses parallelism, as noted.

[fdesilva]

As noted, perception is a representation of the percipii, not the actual space-like separated events, therefore it is not bound by the laws of relativity.  The pivotal argument fails.  Moreover, the eye and the brains processing of U occur with a high degree of parallelism, which can create the appearance of simultaneity by generating near simultaneous results which are then incorporated into one representation of U.
In regards to the above
Again what is the representation built of in a given instant in time?

The representation isn't built in an instant and uses parallelism, as noted.

My question is not on how long it takes to make the representation, but rather at a given instance what are the event pertaining to it?
To put t another way the representation must exist at a given instant for it to exist at all right?
For example does what happened I sec ago exist now ? no what is to happen in a second from now exist now ? no
So you should be able to map out the events pertaining to the representation from instant to instant right?

[Pat Mustard]

No matter; never mind... True.

Never mind; no matter... False.

Ah the great philosopher Homercles. I have long admired his work.

[robvalue]

Why should I care about any of this?

I'll just repeat this question. It seems to be a stumbling block for a lot of people.

I'll just assume there is no need for me to care about any of this at all then.

[fdesilva]

No matter; never mind... True.

Never mind; no matter... False.



But if the Big Bang was the creation of a Mind then
Never mind; no matter becomes true.

Ah the great philosopher Homercles. I have long admired his work.