I'm beginning to think the difference between the more or less empty box wired to the web and a pc with its own programmes yet capable of wiring up too might fit rather well with modelling human thought - though the metaphor would need some stretching.
On 7 Feb, 02:28, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > *** keeps looking for that young lady named Bright *** > > On Feb 6, 3:35 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To do that experiment properly Gabby, you should have friends stage a > > table tennis match on the platform too. These days in London, special > > relativity has been destroyed by people insisting on having 5 course > > dinners served on the Tube, making it impossible to walk the length. > > Perhaps the depression will curb this habit and renormalise our > > universe? > > > Instead of smoking pot inside a warm room heated with a stove, maybe > > we should consider ourselves inside the plasma needing to reach out > > without collapsing everything? After all, we fly evacuated lead > > balloons. I have lost much trust of my fellows and am rarely present > > wherever I am, wandering off because of boredom, rather like a child > > in class. These days, undergraduates vacate on a bodily basis (which > > was OK when you could just fail the silly turds) and yet beg to be > > remembered as present, unable to recall anything pertinent from the > > class they should have been in or whatever better life they vacated > > to, in which grandmothers have more lives than any cat. Loitering > > somewhere is the government grant that pays the wages of teachers, now > > as the key variable. Our languages seem not to help us with what we > > can see through as wrong and we seem to need some kind of control on > > thinking and argument in order not just to be the loudest voice or the > > one conning the audience best. Science is the only 'voice' I see > > doing this, though it is easily subsumed to such rot. Science is > > inside the plasma and easily defeated by touching it to earth. I > > doubt many have been there. > > On 6 Feb, 18:23, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Funny, my son and I sometimes do these Einsteinian linear time travels > > > on the underground train. It only works with the new trains where you > > > can walk through though. We get in at the back end of the train. When > > > the train starts we start walking through the train, past the other > > > travellers, to the beginning of the train. When you're there as the > > > train arrives at the next station and you turn back and see how much > > > extra time you made, then this feels relatively cool. > > > > On 6 Feb., 16:13, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You can be a Cartesian thinker and grasp this sort of thing, as long as > > > > you > > > > are willing to allow fluidity between the "hard" universe and the soft. > > > > When > > > > I first grasped the meaning of Einstein's famous equation, or rather the > > > > inverse of the meaning, my tender young ten year old mind was thrilled! > > > > We > > > > were all nothing more than slow energy, a thought that tickled me to no > > > > end. > > > > Now, several decades later, scientists have actually created those > > > > quantum > > > > states, both slowing light to less than C, and accelerating matter to > > > > near > > > > C, and I'm sure there was some Cartesian thinkers not too unlike myself > > > > among the group. ;) > > > > > Just because we prefer a certain linear type of expression, doesn't > > > > mean we > > > > aren't capable of flights of imagination, and marrying the two when the > > > > potential for scientific advancement is seen. My ten year old self's > > > > imagination is what led to my love of quantum mechanics...my Cartesian > > > > thought processes are what help me separate science from "The Secret". > > > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:03 AM, archytas <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > The physical is more problematic in science than most seem to think. > > > > > Matter is somewhat done away with in E = MC2 - which makes it just a > > > > > form of energy. There are thoughts, but this doesn't entail thinkers > > > > > and certainly not the isolated Cartesian type. > > > > > > On 6 Feb, 14:13, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > We agree that thinking exists. Is it physical? > > > > > > > Interesting thought orn. Are there physically identifiable aspects > > > > > > of > > > > > > thought, like brain waves? > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 8:34 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Oh, yes dear Neil…I have always agreed with the appearance of > > > > > > > differing physical things. In fact, a deep metaphysical analysis > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > result in clear differentiation here. We as human beings do know > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > vital energy. We feel the heat of our metabolism. We feel our > > > > > > > vitality > > > > > > > as urges to unite arise. > > > > > > > > We also do know how we are similar in our daily discourses and > > > > > > > analyses. We treat appearances as things. Yes, physical things. We > > > > > > > tacitly agree upon this, did you call it an approximation?…not > > > > > > > sure. > > > > > > > But we do have agreements when it comes to the earth and stuff we > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > touch. > > > > > > > > Now moving into more rarified areas, and those that our words only > > > > > > > point towards, we do feel love and have associated moralities. > > > > > > > Physical? Not in the more common meaning, yet another well known > > > > > > > realm > > > > > > > of ours. > > > > > > > > And, of course we think! This forum is a great example of that. We > > > > > > > agree that thinking exists. Is it physical? Clearly not in the > > > > > > > exact > > > > > > > same way that a tree is physical, or a rock is. In fact, we can > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > be aware without thoughts! I know, for some this may not be in > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > arsenal of being. Yet, it is in the same realm. > > > > > > > > Now, how do we know all of these realms and keep them straight > > > > > > > and be > > > > > > > able to function? Without wishing to go into deep explanation, I > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > posit a term…merely a word/concept, a spiritual realm. That which > > > > > > > unifies all. > > > > > > > > All of the 5 above can be found to manifest within our physical > > > > > > > body. > > > > > > > All of them can be found to manifest within our living/being. And, > > > > > > > just what else is there?…when one is discussing physicality? For > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > reason, I have purposely left out the absolute. > > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 5:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Understanding where science fits in – metaphysically, > > > > > > > > epistemologically, morally, aesthetically and otherwise – is our > > > > > > > > culture's characteristic philosophical problem; we've been > > > > > > > > working on > > > > > > > > it since Descartes. The hardest part is to reconcile a > > > > > > > > physicalistic > > > > > > > > ontology with the apparently ineliminable multiplicity of > > > > > > > > discourses > > > > > > > > that we require when we try to say how things are. Some hold > > > > > > > > we're > > > > > > > > suffering from pluralism, nihilism, solipsism, relativism, > > > > > > > > idealism, > > > > > > > > deconstructionism and other symptoms of the "French disease". I > > > > > plead > > > > > > > > not guilty. It seems to me that scientific Structural Realism is > > > > > quite > > > > > > > > compatible with the view that events fall into revealing and > > > > > > > > reliable > > > > > > > > patterns not just at the level of micro structure but at many > > > > > > > > different orders of aggregation of matter. The heterogeneity of > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > discourse would then correspond to the heterogeneity of levels > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > which the world is organised, and both might well prove > > > > > > > > irreducible. > > > > > > > > We forget too easily that many of our techniques rely on > > > > > > > > approximation. > > > > > > > > Everything could be physical, but we hold there are many > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > kinds of physical things. Some are protons; some are > > > > > > > > constellations; > > > > > > > > some are trees or cats; and some are butchers, bakers or > > > > > candlesticks. > > > > > > > > There are the proprietary generalisations we use to explain > > > > > > > > behaviour > > > > > > > > and each such generalisation has a proprietary vocabulary to > > > > > > > > express > > > > > > > > it. Nothing can happen except what the laws of physics permit; > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > much goes on that the laws of physics do not talk about. There > > > > > > > > may, > > > > > > > > as Orn asserts, be divine stuff and experience. I am crude > > > > > > > > enough to > > > > > > > > believe the world could do with some buckets of this and that > > > > > > > > better > > > > > > > > organisation of our material being could help in bringing about > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > conditions necessary. My friend might look at this the other > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > round, though I'm by no means sure he does. My contention is > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > science requires fellowship and a guard against the libidinal > > > > > > > > economy > > > > > > > > as surely as we need magnets to guard against out plasma > > > > > > > > touching > > > > > > > > anything outside the torus from which we hope to derive fusion > > > > > > > > power.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
