Thought is independent of time

How would I unevent it?

That is correct. Nowhere is a word by itself. Nowhere in particular is a word set inferring a particular meaning.

I have said repeatedly that consciousness transcends space and time. It is the later. The former is a turn of phrase which you have obviously considered out of turn, to expand our sampling area when we consider our current circumstance. It has worked for me to gain a sense of greater proportion.

Nothing is beyond ubiquitous intent. It is expressed diversely.

I didn't give but the portion of the quote I gave and it is from that perspective that I find your familiar voice.

Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles must either violate the principle of locality or allow superluminal communication.

I may refer to my relations with you regardless of distance.

It may called on again at any time.

 

thedope:

It has not been suggested that you could.

lol The particular meaning being nowhere? If not, where? You won't get out of this one thedope. :-D

I am of the general opinion that our heads are big enough for us.

Is this a sheer cover for a very particular parsimony, expressed through no mean pedantry to evoke something other than tedium in I, your loyal subject? :-D Or is it all up in the air? Not to paint you as a ballooning buffoon, but any so-called 'ubiquity' of intent is yours alone to proffer in the absence of an all-pervading consciousness.

lol My voice in Newtons or vice versa? Either way, this is a matter for our ardent psychical researchers! Quickly! Time is of the essence!

Yes, that quote again from the wiki page on the principle of locality, as an anwer to my question? Where is spacetime transcended by consciousness?

I did not have relations with that dope!

Oh? You know what it is? Rumplestil...I mean, you were saying?

 

We're still waiting....

 

Lol.... And the Oscar for spurious statement in a supporting role goes to.... Thedope.

Absolute unmitigated unadulterated complete pure hogwash.

 

Yet you still haven't provided crap except for juvenile insults.

 

That particular event has vented it's last.

I threw the rock but I was aiming for nowhere in particular.

It is not the size that matters but correct proportions. I have already conceded that you have a big head.

Well that singular intent is to be. Things at rest tend to stay at rest. Things in motion tend to stay in motion.

Could have been a quote from Dejavu in the sense that I have heard similar sentiments expressed by you. As this statement is of the same ilk. You would have the thought be material and material thought but say that only material thinks, however some thoughts are immaterial.
We are the measure of every experiment.

That would be everywhere or (nowhere in particular.) The word transcend means to go beyond the perception of. Have you ever heard the phrase I don't know where the time went? Or, I forgot where I was?

These records might come out mr. president.

Knowing names I would eventually come upon it. Nothing is hidden.

 

Thank you for your exceptional regard of my thoughts!

 

OK then, let us try this instead.


Your statement "nowhere is a word by itself" is self-evident. What you mean to say (I think) is that nowhere is not synonymous with nowhere in particular.

Of course, it is synonymous. Nowhere means literally not anywhere: it is a portmanteau word comprised of those two individual words. Nowhere in particular means the same thing: whatever is being discussed cannot be located at any or all particular points. Hence, it is nowhere, as well as being nowhere in particular.

Accordingly, your proposition is, with respect, lexicologically, etymologically and just plain logically indefensible.

It isn't necessary for me to "offer an alternative" because thought isn't independent of time. It's that simple.

 

thedope:

Which one?

I'd like to say nice try. :-D

lol It's a fair sized head. About its proportions though, are you suggesting they need correcting?! If so, this might come down to a game of conkers!

What's at rest?

Here's a voice that could not have come from you, Zarathustras.

"He who shot the doctrine of 'will to existence' at truth certainly did not hit the truth: this will - does not exist!
For what does not exist cannot will; but that which is in existence, how could it still want to come into existence?
Only where life is, there is also will: not will to live, but - so I teach you - will to power!"

One might say:- "But Zarathustra, I do still want to come into existence, I haven't stopped coming into it!" Zarathustra would then laugh, and say, "Yes, you've never stopped, though it is not existence you want to come into, but more, your kind of existence. Existence itself accomodated you in this before you knew it! Is your will to live? Look alive! Your will is your own!"

All thought is embodied. Tastyweat says quantum entanglement disagrees with me, but never got back to me when I asked him how. :-D You say there are no idle thoughts thedope, but who knows what you really think when you'd have thought itself do the thinking! lol Beings are never immaterial. Yes, we are the measure of our experimentation.

Consciousness doesn't go beyond perception. Everywhere is not nowhere in particular, but everywhere in particular. Would it be wrong of me to say you are wrong-headed? :-D

Once upon a time we never.

lol Would you know when you hit upon it though? Where is nothing that it may be hidden? :-D Knowledge is always perceived.

 

What I meant to say was nowhere is a single word and nowhere in particular is a word set with an added nuance to the appreciation of nowhere. Yes nowhere means nowhere at all and nowhere in particular is nuanced in shall I say it, a particular way. Nowhere in particular can mean without destination. Not that I was going nowhere but nowhere in particular.

What proposition is that?

I never said it wasn't. I said consciousness transcends time, transcend meaning to go beyond the perception of.

 

An admission of a lack of clarity on your part.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. The proposition that you were advancing that "nowhere" was different to "nowhere in particular" and which I said was incorrect. You have at least explained yourself, but this merely compounds your desperate descent into meaningless semantical illusions.

Another example of your refusal to stay on topic. The topic is thought, not consciousness.

 

No a gnats head on a donkey would be disproportionate.

A euphemism.

Your right about me not going near such a flat footed account of what I am talking about. Intent is the psyches analogue for gravity. Desire is the psyches analogue for the propensity of matter to congregate. Creation is a law without opposite.

 

I can certainly expand where there are questions.

Don't accuse and you may have more options in understanding. The proposition I advanced was the one I advanced not the one you suspected me of. As to being desperate I am anything but at the moment. I am patient.
Another nuanced word set is nowhere near.

My statement stands regardless. Thought transcends time. Sometimes we can't find the time.

 

Ah. So now thought and consciousness are synonymous? respectfully, no.


And they transcend time? How can time (which has no capacity to perceive) be transcended, in the sense of having something exist beyond its perception?

 

Respectfully thought is an activity of consciousness.

We can remember things that happened at another time. Our consciousness has the capacity to perceive potential events as well.

 

thedope:

:-D

To the appreciation of nowhere! Your toast to somewhere I suppose in light of a nuance. I said you weren't getting out of this, but you had nowhere to get out of to begin with, so, if not in appreciation of, but rather appreciation of the convolutions our language has us engage, I let you off! Yes, me! Scott free! To let you out! Into the fire of somewhere, or other, now that you're no longer having nowhere in particular to be everywhere. ;-D

Which one?

lol

'Allo 'allo 'allo. Wotaweavere then? Creation is a law without opposite, it is true. And since everything is thereby analogue for everything else, then I wonder about your account of Zarathustras account of the will as being flatfooted! lol
:bobby:

 

So anyone or anything that is conscious is thinking? Nonsense.

This is irreconcileable with your post #211 that thought can be beyond the perception of time. Now you say it is our consciousness that extends beyond its own perception??

The propositions are self-evidently contradictory in the first place, and absurd in the second.

This is what I describe as your sliding away from the scrutiny of precision.

 

Actually I think we have all switched back and forth between consciousness and thought through out this thread. One argument towards consciosness or thought being dependent on time is that consciousness must be a conscious of. Consciosness-of is expressed as thought. Consciousness-of could also exist as a feeling, emotion, or other perception, but it is not truly conscious-of until it manifests as thought at some level.

There is the famous experiment (I don't know if it was actually performed or just used as an example, but...) where a frog is put into water which is slowly warmed up until it boils the frog to death. The frog never becomes conscious of the increasing temperature and the pain. But surely there are levels of sensory perception where it is evident, that the water is getting hotter.

Perhaps a better example would be a human with chronic pain who has learned to block out that pain. They still feel the pain, but they are not conscious of the fact that they do.

So how is thught so different from cponsciousness that to mention consciousness changes the subject of this thread?

 

I haven't.

Thought and consciousness are self-evidently different things. To equate them necessarily imputes the quality of thought to every being that exhibits consciousness. Conflating physical symptoms (or more accurately, the conscious experiencing of physical symptoms) with thought or consciousness is unhelpful.

I've met any number of people who are conscious, but who clearly cannot (or do not) think. Most drivers, for a start.