[MD] Mystics and Brains

[Ron Kulp]

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of pholden at davtv.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:06 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Mystics and Brains

Quoting Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>:


> Time is an intriguing concept, and your exchange demonstrates that it 
> can be viewed in more than one way.  I guess I side with Craig on this

> issue because I define awareness of the "present" as not just today, 
> or this moment, but as the "infinitesimal now" -- an interval that 
> represents a static "snapshot" of reality that we can label state "Y".

> Theoretically, all change occurs on either side of this snapshot: 
> i.e., the past (states "A to
> X") and the future (state "Z").  And by intellectually integrating 
> these states, we experience reality as a process that moves from A to
Z.
> 
> But because change itself is relative in an S/O world, it makes little

> difference whether objects change with respect to the subject, or the 
> subject changes with respect to its objects. The result in either case

> would be perceived as "change".  For example, in the 'block universe
theory'
> proposed by Minkowski and later named by William James, reality is a 
> single block of space/time and it is awareness (our mental 
> perspective) that divides the block into a past part, a present part,
and a future part.
> 
> I copied two paragraphs on the subject of Time from "The Internet 
> Encyclopedia of Philosophy" that are relevant to your disagreement:
> 
> "Philosophers of time are deeply divided on the question on what sort 
> of ontological differences there are among the present, past and 
> future.  There are three competing theories.  Presentists argue that 
> necessarily only present objects and present experiences are real; and

> we conscious beings recognize this in the special 'vividness' of our
present experience.
> According to the growing-universe theory, the past and present are 
> both real, but the future is not.  The more popular theory is that 
> there are no significant ontological differences among present, past 
> and future.  This view is called 'eternalism' or 'the block universe
theory.' ...
> 
> "In 1969, Sydney Shoemaker presented an argument to convince us of the

> understandability of time existing without change, as Newton's 
> absolutism requires. ...But philosophers of time argued that even if 
> time's existing without change is understandable, the deeper question 
> is whether time does exist without change."
> 
> You can find more fascinating ideas on time and time travel at this 
> site,
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/time.htm#H3

Thanks for the analysis of time, Ham. The key phrase for me is, ". . .
reality is a single block of space/time and it is awareness (our mental
perspective) that divides the block into a past part, a present part,
and a future part."
The "single block of space/time" is precisely what I am referring to
when I suggest "The present never changes."

Platt



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/