[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[markhsmit]

On Aug 14, 2009, at 9:46:31 AM, "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
From:   "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
Subject:    Re: [MD] The case for an Uncreated Source
Date:   August 14, 2009 9:46:31 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM, markhsmit <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> OK, so you state that relationship is a form of time and visa versa. I
> assume
> what you are talking about is the relationship of before and after, and
> that such a
> relationship is defined in terms of time; in the absence of time we
> couldn't
> draw such a relationship.



According to the Biocentric model, and straight thinking, time only exists
in the context of animal perception.



When you state that "time is a form of relationship...", perhaps it is up to
> you to explain
> what you mean.
>

Ok, what I meant was that time exists soley as a function of animal
perception - not as any sort of independent "thing".

Simple, succinct and logical. I like it.

John


Hmmm... So time does not exist outside of perception.  Animal perception
creates time, in fact, time is a function of it, and Time is created by experience?  Are we
talking about the same Time?  The Time used in physics equations?
If so then physics is a function of perception, and indeed any description
of the world.  We are set back into our heads, that's kind of Buddhist.  I'm
not sure if many forms of classical logic would agree with you, but it is
hard to argue against.  Have fun in there!



Willblake2

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/
httpat://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/