Dear LizR, Very good points that you make, but they are peripheral!!!! What I am trying to draw attention is: How did the "order" and the "relating" come to pass? (in the last sentence you wrote.)
Is is just sitting there, in eternity, and our consciousness somehow is a reflection of this "order" and "relating"? I would buy this explanation iff we have an account of why those particular orders and relations are considered and not all the infinitely many others. Like I have written previously, I am past the point of buying the idea that there is a Reality out there independent of us that we passively come to experience. I am tired of explanations that ask us to believe that change is an illusion that somehow persists. Can we try a different set of concepts? On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 7:28 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 27 January 2014 12:48, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> : >> "the idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong. >> I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we're the >> victims of a confidence trick..." >> >> What other implication does Hoyle's phrasing have? His entire >> discussion of the pigeon holes is to point out that there is no a priori >> order of the holes, it is a subjective delusion that we obtain because of >> our inability to see the whole lot. >> > > His implication seems to me to be that the subjective experience of time > can be explained as a phenomenon caused by the order of the pigeon holes, > together with certain rules linking them together. The rules are basically > equivalent to thermodynamics (unsurprisingly, we wouldn't get consciousness > in a universe without an entropy gradient). As one of his characters > explains... > > John went on, 'All right, let's come now to the contents of the pigeon > holes. Suppose you choose one of them, say the 137th. You find in it a > story, as you might find one of those little slips of paper in a Christmas > cracker <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_cracker>. But you also > find statments about the stories you'll find in other pigeon holes. You > decide to check up on whether these statements about the stories in the > other pigeon holes are right or not. To your surprise you find the > statments made about earlier pigeon holes, the 136th, the 135th, and so on, > are substantially correct. But when you compare with the pigeon holes on > the other side, the 138th, the 139th,...you find things aren't so good. You > find a lot of contradictions and discrepancies. This turns out to be the > same wherever you happen to look, in every pigeon hole. The statements made > about pigeon holes on the other side are at best diffuse and at the worst > just plain wrong. Now let's translate this parable into the time problem. > We'll call the particular pigeon hole, the one you happen to be examining, > the present. The earlier pigeon holes, the ones for which you find > substantially correct statements, we call the past. The later pigeon holes, > the ones for which there isn't too much in the way of correct statments, > we'll call the future. Let me go on a bit further. What I want to suggest > is that the actual world is very much like this. Instead of pigeon holes we > talk about states.' > > Note that the description he gives of the 137th hole applies to *all* the > holes - so the present is whichever hole you happen to look in. From the > subjective, "inside" view, all moments are the present when they're being > experienced, and we only experience a flow of time because of their > contents (a fact which Memento guy illustrates nicely, of course). > > This is a description of a capsule theory of identity. Hoyle introduces a > flashlight, but then shows that the order in which the flashlight is used > is irrelevant - the 1st person view from inside the pigeon-holes is of > continuous subjective experience. In fact, the existence or nonexistence of > the flashlight is irrelevant to the subjective experience. The flashlight > was introduced so the characters could think about "sampling" each pigeon > hole, as though they could somehow stand outside time - take the "bird's > eye view". But of course in reality they can only take the internal, > "frog's eye view". > > Hence, imho, Hoyle is saying that it is the order of the boxes and the > laws relating their contents that gives rise to the subjective experience > of time. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 [email protected] http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
