Thought is independent of time

Funny you should say Newton. When asked how did he come up with all his discoveries he replied, "I intended my mind."

To discover a force in nature requires observation, an intent of mind.

Are you up to speed yet, I usually don't spend a lot of time in your shallow end.

 

Seriously, that's your best? An assertion that you knew Newton, followed by (again, and inevitably) a twisting of your own (flawed) argument to make it conform with the criticism I made?

Give up. You convince no-one with your empty rhetoric, your nonsensical spurious profundity and your constant weaseling away from the point. Pretending to intellectualism under the guise of being misunderstood is a jaded act.

 

No I did not assert that I knew Newton. I heard the story from a pbs interview with Oliver Sacks, professor of neurology and psychiatry at Columbia University. It was simply a fortunate coincidence that you used Newton as an example in relation to that quote, because in fact that is where the quote came from.

Do you have a point other than your disdain for what I say? Perhaps a point regarding the subject of the thread. I am not flattered that you have a hard on for me, I am not that kind of guy.

 

And when desperate, use the ol' straw man argument. Well done. What's next, the last resort of comparing me to Hitler?

I have the point that your veneer of intellectualism scares most people away, because you twist and turn and dodge and weave from any countervailing (and usually correct) proponent.

And now apparently I have a hard on for you?? Wow, the Socratic depth of your refutation is phenomenal...

 

Intention as used in terms of the Scholastic philosophers (which Newton would have been well aware of), and more recently, Franz Brentano who was the professor of, and influenced, numerous well known figures including Husserl, Freud, and others, refers to the representation of objects, properties, states, and concepts within the mind. It is based on this definition of intentionality that Franz Brentano first said that, consciousness is a consciousness of, an opinion that has been well represented in this thread.

It is not exactly the same kind of intentionality, as when one says, 'I intend to do this thing.'

In certain views of modern philosophy. intentionality is a problem for materialists and those who view consciousness as emergent from physical matter. The argument goes that we will probably never be able to provide true intentionality to Aritificial Intelligence.

Likewise, qualia---the experience, including emotional experience of intentionality. How do you explain the experience of deep red for example, to someone who has never experienced it. We can't even verify if my red is that same as your red. Or the emotional experience of a poem or a sonata----how do we explain that. Aritificial Intelligence may never achieve such levels.

 

Okay I'll bite, where is the straw man? Where is the comparison, you with anything?
You are not being specific in your characterizations of what I say and so I cannot respond to any specific point you make. In general it doesn't seem to matter what I say, Your complaint as best I can gather is not with what I say, but how I say it. The complaint that I scare most people away is absolute fantasy on your part, you do not know most people and most people don't know me nor have they heard read what I have written.

You have not offered in this thread nor in any other, nor under any other username a countervailing, usually correct proponent to any discussion I have had with you other than your subjective complaint about my presentation. Therefore I deduce that your complaint refers to something elemental about me.

The fact that I appear to twist and dodge and turn to you, is that your statements have no teeth with which to pin me down. That is, you cannot legitimately dissemble my positions because they are well thought out and durable under scrutiny. You just don't have the guns to intellectually dominate or even keep up with me.

Regardless, if it is all the same to you I would prefer that we just share our thoughts.

 

Meagain:

:-D

Can do that in one sentence: - It isn't.

 

:-D

Oh, by 'that thing' I thought you meant your speech on what not everything does, not that you meant nothing by it. Like your 'non-local reality', which doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

 

This.

Nothing is independent of time, however much the drivel that thedope posts makes us wish that it was

 

In deference to Meagain. Thought takes time and thought can also transcend time. To transcend means to go beyond the perception of.

In the interest of clarity, non-local is not the state of reality in absence the other part of my equation which is, nor remote. The combination of non-local, meaning not exclusively local plus nor remote, meaning it does not exclude nearness, adds up to reality is everywhere, not confined to anywhere in particular.

Non-local meaning our subjective view is never a complete representation. Nor remote meaning whatever does exist, exists for us completely. I say non-local because the tendency is when we run impulsively is to believe our petty crap matters or is earth shaking or requires us to shake someone else. I say nor remote because we can feel safe in letting our petty crap go with no detrimental effects on the fabric of reality or on the good emergence of our being. Reality cannot harmed, yours or anyone else's but illusion can be dispelled and sometimes disillusionment can seem painful but it need not be.

 

Never once said it was sweet pea.

 

I would add that the time we choose to take can be optional.

 

One problem with time is that it has an experiential component, like all things do, that is pure experience and cannot be verbalized. What does that have to do with time? Maybe as much as anything, but perhaps everything. What if it really is no more than a pure experience, ungraspable?

But when I think about that, I think about the Big Bang. And you have to wonder, are there two different kinds of time, one experienced and one non-experienced? Or does it have to be experienced, and thus that necessitates the existence of consciousness before the life that we understand.

Though "before" really makes no difference in such an instance. Everything I see just sort of seems conscious, but I'm coming from the bias of a consciousness. Why couldn't it all be self-aware, though? And if it could be, why couldn't time just be the physical embodiment of this self-awareness? Like time-lapse clouds casting shadows on a barren, lifeless desert. If time exists...perhaps it is experiencing.

 

So how is thought dependent on time assuming it is. Most practically we can lean to Meagain's statistics on a thought taking time to process. I started a thread comparing the distance of the synapse to our perception of time.

Time also coincides with the appearance of wave forms meaning there is meter between peak to peak of an oscillation, timing. Helpful is a matter of timing. The wave of the breath consists of an inhale follow by an exhale and that entire wave cycle is called one breath and our lives transpire at the pace of our breath. You stop breathing and your life dissolves. The word spirit means breath.

Phenomena are redundant and their consistent reverberation is also responsible for the perception of time as well as space. We become familiar with the moment because it repeats itself with regularity. The sun rises and falls, daily. Each extant moment, practically in our case the time it takes to have a thought, is new, but our perception of it is patterned upon the previous moment, thought. This is why I make the claim that the thought comes first in our perception of the world.

 

a thing must have a boundary , and so the singularity thought would
not be a thing . would it be nothing ? or a secret ... to which perfect
timing is a plaything .

 

thedope:

In the interest! No, it doesn't add up. Neither here nor there means nowhere, not everywhere. If you want to say reality is everywhere why not just say it? Reality being everywhere means it is always local. You'll find I am genius loci when it comes to clarity in this thedope. :-D Watch. lol

No, the locality of reality serves its endlessness well enough. :-D I am not interested in you finding your own expression at odds with the infinite.
When you have it at odds with mine you will though. lol

Baby out with the bathwater. That is, if it were you alone who invoked our bearings.

Oh! I see! It is for our 'good' that our pettiness is always there for us to fall back upon!? lol

What's illusion doc?

Interdependency.

And the claim is mistaken since they come together. It's as though you think perception and knowledge aren't synonymous for the sake of the synapse. :-D

 

tikoo:

Funny thing is, everything's the thing it is. Infinity is actual, and physical.
In my experience, only metaphysicians think endlessness means formlessness.

:-D

 

I did.

But not local to the exception of any other locality. Local is a relationship.

I don't find my expression at odds with the infinite. Something in particular is not everything but everything is always something.

No baby or bathwater out. The drama does not end, only the cheap drama.

We each have concerns that are uniquely ours. Nobody will advance them in your stead. They are not needed although you may find yourself convinced you are needy of them. Some will be convinced that you should care for life in the same way they do.

It is a misinterpretation of an experience of sensory perception.
For instance the idea that you cannot live without some other person in particular is an illusion.

.

It is not mistaken. Your immediate beginnings can be traced to a thought entertained before you appeared. Our progressive model of life is built on memory. I do not rise from my chair before I think to rise from my chair.