[sigurdV]

K.Consciousness, on 22 January 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

Sorry, I disagree. The order is definitely created by the brain. What gets fed to the brain is a heap of data. It is the brain that is arranging the data in an order that makes "sense" to us.

Where the order is not created by our own brain via our observations, we rely on external resources to validate the order. In any case, we are the ones who determine what is consecutive and what is not, what is ordered and what is not, according to what we know, what we learned and what we observe. That knowledge to determine what is consecutive and what is not, is embedded in our DNA (courtesy millions of years of evolution) and/or acquired via our own experiences as well from external media (books, journals, news papers, web sites, peers, acquaintances and so on)

In that respect, time is just a counter. Say, at number 100000000000, Alexander the Great was born and at number 100000000000000000000 Bill Clinton was born. Here, I just picked two random numbers to illustrate my point that the sequence of numbers to place these two events (the birth of Alexander and the birth of Clinton) is generated by us. As long as the numbers are universally agreed upon, we think we coordinated time.

So, a person born thousand years from now, wouldn't know whether Alexander's birth really preceded Clinton's birth. He would only "know" it via an external source. "Time" is not telling him anything. We were the ones telling him which event happened when on the number scale.

Time, in that sense, is a real number scale. The number scale is still ours, purely man made.

Our description of the reality is not the same thing as reality. We percieve objects by accepting and ordering data...its a complicated process not known in all its details.

But looking at your text i dont create what im looking at... it IS there affecting my brain and the brain produces a picture (map) in my mind of the text. The text and the picture of the text are not the same thing!

Likewise with the picture of time and time itself. Your argument does NOT prove there is no real object "time" in reality. All you look at is HOW our MIND makes a PICTURE of time, you make no attempt on explaining WHAT sort of object CAN give us the picture.

Nor do we percieve space itself, all we see are objects and decide them objects must have a container containing them. Our decision does not create it, its there or not there independently of what we think or percieve. As the case is with time!

To repeat again: The physics of time is not the same thing as the psychology of time

[K.Consciousness]

OK, looks like we are embarking on discussing three different concepts here, namely, reality, time and space. I thought the discussion is only limited to time but that is fine, I understand overlaps are the norm and not exception in our everyday lives.

sigurdV, on 22 January 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Our description of the reality is not the same thing as reality. We percieve objects by accepting and ordering data...its a complicated process not known in all its details.

It is an approximation, agreed. But there is no real reason to think that our approximation of reality is markedly different from true reality. If there is a reason, I would like to know what it is.

sigurdV, on 22 January 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

But looking at your text i dont create what im looking at... it IS there affecting my brain and the brain produces a picture (map) in my mind of the text. The text and the picture of the text are not the same thing!

Well, yeah, but whoever said the text and a snapshot of the text are the exact same thing?! Why state the obvious?

As an analogy, whether you are reading a hard-copy of Tolstoy's War and peace or whether I am reading it on my e-book reader like Amazon Kindle, we are still reading essentially the same thing. We could agree upon that, right? In which case, the reality of War and Peace is the information that the text is conveying to us, which is to say it's reality is not different at all than the originally penned version written by Tolstoy himself.

sigurdV, on 22 January 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Likewise with the picture of time and time itself. Your argument does NOT prove there is no real object "time" in reality. All you look at is HOW our MIND makes a PICTURE of time, you make no attempt on explaining WHAT sort of object CAN give us the picture.

The burden of proof is on those who think that time exists in reality. Just as I cannot prove that there is no God, the onus of proof of God, lies with those who say God exists in reality.

sigurdV, on 22 January 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Nor do we percieve space itself, all we see are objects and decide them objects must have a container containing them. Our decision does not create it, its there or not there independently of what we think or percieve. As the case is with time!

Space is physical. The very fact that particles move around is proof enough that space exists. Space is not a perception, it is real and fundamental. The movement could be of particles at the microscopic scale or objects at the macroscopic scale; even if you say that it is the electrochemical signals sent and received by neurons that is interpreting space as we know it, I would still say that in order for the electrochemical pulses to move around along the neurons' axons and across synapses, they still needs space otherwise no interpretation of the external world is possible.

[sigurdV]

K.Consciousness, on 22 January 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

It is an approximation, agreed. But there is no real reason to think that our approximation of reality is
"markedly different"
from true reality. If there is a reason, I would like to know what it is.

Check out the approximations on the age of earthly life: There were lot of approximations from 4000 years to...say 10000 ...cant recall all steps and i dont think the present approximation is close to the mark

So we both agree that there IS a reality, not yet correct described by our pictures of it?

Got to zzleep cya

[K.Consciousness]

Hmm...somebody in their infinite wisdom moved this thread to the Philosophy forums.

Is philosophy forums a catch-all bucket for anything and everything that overlaps with more than one subject? Do they not know that everything in this universe is entangled and that there is no defined locality per se for any given entity?

On this very thread, I talked about neurons so why is this not moved to the Biology forum? Or someone talked about dimensions so why is this not moved to the Astronomy and Cosmology forum?

It would be fascinating to understand the logic behind moving threads and/or posting topics even. On what basis are subjects classified? Does a discussion involving, say, the Big Bang, belong to Astronomy and Cosmology forum or to the History forum?

If my above questions are playing around semantics, may be this whole thing belongs to the Linguistics forum then?

sigurdV, it was nice talking to you but I am not interested in the philosophy behind Time so please count me out of further discussions. Thank you.

[sigurdV]

K.Consciousness, on 23 January 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

Hmm...somebody in their infinite wisdom moved this thread to the Philosophy forums.

Is philosophy forums a catch-all bucket for anything and everything that overlaps with more than one subject? Do they not know that everything in this universe is entangled and that there is no defined locality per se for any given entity?

On this very thread, I talked about neurons so why is this not moved to the Biology forum? Or someone talked about dimensions so why is this not moved to the Astronomy and Cosmology forum?

It would be fascinating to understand the logic behind moving threads and/or posting topics even. On what basis are subjects classified? Does a discussion involving, say, the Big Bang, belong to Astronomy and Cosmology forum or to the History forum?

If my above questions are playing around semantics, may be this whole thing belongs to the Linguistics forum then?

sigurdV, it was nice talking to you but I am not interested in the philosophy behind Time so please count me out of further discussions. Thank you.

Zya! Concider it done.

But i think u over react, the content is more imortal than the massage, so the best way to treat/cheat etc an assIMILATOR is ignorance : WHEREVER they send u, do ure thing!

PZ "ass" = " A flat"... moving a halfstep down.

[URAIN]

K.Consciousness, on 22 January 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

Sorry, I disagree. The order is definitely created by the brain. What gets fed to the brain is a heap of data. It is the brain that is arranging the data in an order that makes "sense" to us.

Brain is arranging but brain cells are not constant. Old cells are replacing new cells. Data also changing, cells also changing but we observe all these changes. I have not seen anyone 'who say which is observing the all changes?"

K.Consciousness said:

Space is physical. The very fact that particles move around is proof enough that space exists. Space is not a perception, it is real and fundamental. The movement could be of particles at the microscopic scale or objects at the macroscopic scale; even if you say that it is the electrochemical signals sent and received by neurons that is interpreting space as we know it, I would still say that in order for the electrochemical pulses to move around along the neurons' axons and across synapses, they still needs space otherwise no interpretation of the external world is possible.

I have also same view as like you. I have some additional views. Which leads a big discussion in the world and changes the science views on

seeing nature.

I would like to share these views from a stage, which reaches to most of all scientific people's. I think that may be science journal.

It contain some so simple experiment and high observation. I am waiting for a stage from I share my thoughts.

Is here anyone willing to assist me?

K.Consciousness said:

Is philosophy forums a catch-all bucket for anything and everything that overlaps with more than one subject? Do they not know that everything in this universe is entangled and that there is no defined locality per se for any given entity?

On this very thread, I talked about neurons so why is this not moved to the Biology forum? Or someone talked about dimensions so why is this not moved to the Astronomy and Cosmology forum?

It would be fascinating to understand the logic behind moving threads and/or posting topics even. On what basis are subjects classified? Does a discussion involving, say, the Big Bang, belong to Astronomy and Cosmology forum or to the History forum?

If my above questions are playing around semantics, may be this whole thing belongs to the Linguistics forum then?

I agree with you. (May be moderator has seen some thought of philosophy in this thread. Hence he is moved this thread.)

K.Consciousness said:

I am not interested in the philosophy behind Time so please count me out of further discussions. Thank you.

No, Please don't quite. He has not forced us to discuss this topic only under philosophy.

I have hope this thread will end in scientific thinking. (Then it may be again moved to physics forum)