[MD] False Messiah

[David M]

well actually whilst we conceptualise entities
as having certain properties
we still need to experience something that can be
connected to them (as conceptual entities or patterns)
to consider them real in the spatio-temporal realm.
Otherwise they are ideas or possibilities without actuality
(i.e. spatio-temporal perceived qualities).  

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Heather Perella" <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] False Messiah


> Hello,
> 
> 
>> SA said:
>>      What I am saying is 'non-spatiotemporal without
>> reason', yet, with reason we have spatiotemporal
>> existing in our lives, in our perception, and thus,
>> the way we see the world.  The former
>> ('non-spatiotemporal without reason') does not exist
>> due to us having reason.
>> 
>> Scott:
>> If reason, in some esoteric sense, is fundamental,
>> then reason creates/is 
>> the non-spatiotemporal, and unconscious (to us)
>> reason (in its guise as 
>> sense perception) also projects it as
>> spatiotemporal. Note that I am not 
>> restricting reason to human beings. You might also
>> note that what I said 
>> sounds like John 1:4 "By [the Logos] were all things
>> made that were made", 
>> though I began thinking this way before making that
>> connection. So it is 
>> important to remember that reason has levels. The
>> reason to which we 
>> ordinarily refer, for example that which theorizes
>> about spacetime and the 
>> non-spatiotemporal, is not the Reason that creates
>> them.
> 
>     Ah, I see.  You are talking about different
> levels of Reason.  How do you perceive (or how have
> you concluded) reason is non-spatiotemporal creating
> spatiotemporal?
> 
>>  SA said:
>>     What do you mean photons are not perceived?  We
>> see light.  Sure we don't see a photon as a particle
>> or wave, but we notice the larger scale version
>> called
>> light.
>> 
>> Scott:
>> I meant that we do not perceive massless, spin 1
>> whatevers. Photons, 
>> neutrons, etc. are physicists' constructs. And what
>> we *do* see is particle 
>> effects or wave effects, while photons are neither
>> particles nor waves, so, 
>> no, we don't see photons.
> 
>     Ok, I understand you here.  
> 
>> SA continued:
>>   Maybe you are stating that photons are
>> filtered out via experiment and we do use theory to
>> guide us into having these 'things' we call photons.
>> Maybe you are saying as long as the theory holds, we
>> value photons or the theory of photons.  I guess
>> maybe
>> I am jumping from theory of photon to photon itself
>> at
>> times.
>> 
>> Scott:
>> On the last sentence, yes, I think you are, which
>> makes your other sentences 
>> off-base with respect to what I am saying. A
>> physicist uses a concept called 
>> 'photon' in his or her theory. I don't think we can
>> say anything about 
>> photons beyond that.
> 
>     Ok
> 
>> SA continued:
>>   So using theory of photons (theory is our
>> perception, our reasoning) to notice photons (as
>> long
>> as our reasoning holds up, or in other words, as
>> long
>> as the theory of photons holds up) then our
>> reasoning
>> is not just valuing, but supporting something we
>> call
>> photons.
>> 
>> Scott:
>> I seem here to be using 'perception' differently
>> than I have been. I have 
>> been using it strictly as "sense perception": our
>> seeing, hearing, tasting, 
>> smelling, and touching, not in the more vague sense
>> of "how one perceives a 
>> situation (e.g., as good, bad, etc.). So theory is
>> precisely *not* sense 
>> perception in the way I have been using the term.
>> Theory is our reasoning. 
>> Our reasoning (thinking) does not turn the
>> non-spatiotemporal  into the 
>> spatiotemporal. Our senses do.
> 
>     How do you know that sense perception does and
> not reason (thinking)?  You may have mentioned
> somewhere the answer, but now that I am more on the
> same page as you, I may understand more clearly now.
> 
>> SA continued:
>>   Our value of photons, is in other words, our
>> reason and consciousness of photons, thus, photons
>> exist as long as we value and perceive photons as
>> existing.  Is this what you are saying?
>> 
>> Scott:
>> No. I presume that if we all die, there would still
>> be the 
>> non-spatiotemporal reality that, while we were
>> alive, we understood as 
>> photons, etc.
> 
>     And this is why intellect is a higher level than
> social, biological, and chaotic levels.  Without our
> reasoning and becoming conscious of photons, photons
> would not exist for us, yet, now that we have reasoned
> (intellectual level) photons to exist, we can assume
> with high precision that photons exist without our
> (social level) being (biological level) conscious of
> them.  
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>