Is Reinterpreting Einstein's Theory a Valid Scientific Endeavor?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by N_Quire
Lifegazer wrote: "I'm taking no crap from anyone. If you want to rubbish my argument, then deal with the argument I have presented. Okay? Otherwise, take a hike. I'm not interested in hearing unsupported conclusions about my overall-philosophy. Nor am I interested in what you think about my capabilities. I'm only interested in my argument.
If this argument is to be condemned, then it shall be condemned by reason. Not by evasive snobbery."

This is standard Lifegazer practice.

Yes. From time to time I have to remind people such as yourself that attacking my persona or capability does not discredit my argument - because it doesn't even address my argument.
It seems to me that you cannot grasp this simple point... because the content of this post is again equally-meaningless in regards to my argument.

Anyone not agreeing with your endless repetition of the same argument is insulted and told to go elsewhere.

That's not true. Anyone who condemns me and my philosophy - without justification - is told to go elsewhere. Reasoned criticism of my argument is welcomed, and is responded to respectfully. But you've made two antagonistic posts here that mention nothing I have said in my argument. And that's a disgrace. Do you understand?

What you are doing and saying is nothing new. There exist entire systems of thought which ignore or suspend the laws of nature. Such systems have millions of followers and provide many of them with meaning. They are variously entitled religion, the occult, astrology, pseudo-science, mysticism, etc, etc.

How does this address my argument? Which specific points of my argument have you countered with this propoganda?

Your thought is firmly entrenched within that tradition.

My thought is entrenched within reason.

It is not science and it is not philosophy. If I am to be polite, it is phenomenology, a thoroughly discredited philosophy.

LOL. That's absolute nonsense. I cordially invite you to prove that materialists are absolutely-correct. Otherwise, I demand that you retract that statement, for sincerity's sake.

If I am to be accurate, you engage in pseudo-scientific babble or mysticism which displays little or no understanding of established knowledge. It goes round and round in circles and enlightens no one. So yes, I will take a hike.

More antagonistic non-referential nonsense and snobbery. But this shall be the last of it. You must learn to counter reason directly. You must learn to address arguments specifically.

 

[kyleb]

sersiously Lifegazer, present some reason and no one will be complaining.

 

[N_Quire]

Lifegazer, If it were serious philosophy or science, I would be willing to debate. However, this topic is pseudo-science or, if you like, introspective theory development with no scientific or philosophical basis, which is why I have hiked.

 

[CJames]

I see a lot of semantics here about the meaning of a second, the meaning of a meter, the meaning of constant speed. It all pretty much deviates from the ultimate point.

LG, I'm going to try to paraphrase your argument. Let me know if I'm making a mistake.

"Because experience is unique to the observer, experience is created by the observer."

Is that correct?

If it is, I don't see any logic connecting the premise to the conclusion. If there is some, please post it. And despite your objections to it, please use the established form of logic, not the "reason" you always refer to. Make sure the premises necessarily imply the conclusion. I should be able to replace oranges with apples in your argument, and the conclusion still be true. The validity of a logical argument is about the structure of the argument, not the content of the information.

 

[quantumdude]

A second has a unique meaning for each individual, as does a meter.
If this was not so, then what's the Lorentz transformation about? What's the twin paradox about? The mathematics depend upon unique experience of spatial and temporal perception; or there can be no mathematics of Relativity.

No, seconds and meters are precisely defined, and those definitions do not change from one observer to another. The fact that different people disagree on measurements does not conflict with that.

My personal 'meter', for example, is a constant - because it is judged in relation to other things. 'Distort' the space between me & the moon, for example, and you distort my understanding of a meter, accordingly. Hence, my experience of that 'meter' remains constant - even though my space, in this case, has altered. And that's exactly what happens with Relativity: There is no doubt that the space & time of each individual is affected, comparatively with other observers, as he accelerates through space.

There is no reason that your “understanding of a mteter” should be distorted. All relativity tells you is that measurements are affected in a way that we previously did not know about.

The twin-paradox proves this. And yet, how each twin experiences his meter and his second, remains constant. The feel for any mathematical-value of time & space is constant, regardless of how that time & space is actually distorted.


The feeling of passing-time is so precise that a whole science of Relativity is founded upon it. It is this constancy of feeling/perception/sensation (for all observers), which enables science to apply universally-perceived laws of motion.

Boy, have you got it wrong. First, the “feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all. Second, SR does not make any use of such a notion. It speaks only of measurements.

Tom: You seem to be forgetting the Golden Rule of science: The universe dictates its nature to us, not the other way around.”

LG: The universe does not know what a meter is; nor a second.

Of course not, but the outcome of the measurements we perform on things in the universe is determined by the universe, not by reason or common sense. That was my point.

When two people have different experiences of the same universe, then how do you conclude that those different experiences are supplied by that universe?
You say that such a scenario is plausible. Will you please explain your reasoning behind that conclusion?

I did not conclude it (edit: that materialism is necessary), any more that you concluded that it all takes place in The Mind. My point was that the two notions (SR and materialism) are consistent with each other.

edit: I gave the discussion earlier, namely that the difference in our observations can be attributed to the difference in physical orientation of data receptors. What is so hard to understand about that?

Exactly: the factor is just a number to which both observers concur. However, dx/dt and dx'/dt' (the factor) are meaningless without the qualifying parameters which proceed that value. Those qualifying-parameters are, of course, meters and seconds. And all observers have a unique perspective of meters and seconds in relation to the universe he perceives. Hence; though the factor is universal, the qualification of that factor using personal parameters of experience, actually gives an individual meaning to each observer, of that factor.

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
My argument pertains to reality. It is obvious that we should have to talk about things other than physics.

Your argument has become an attempt to rewrite relativity to suit your limited understanding.

Where did I say that it is not?

Among other places, here:

"The two equations you used really need an experiential- qualification: instead of saying dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c, you really need to say: dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c'."

Nonsense Tom. I am using Relativity as a means to my conclusions. If I discredit Relativity, then I instantly discredit those very conclusions.

No, what I said is accurate. You only disagree because you have either ignored or dismissed everything I have ever said to you.

You've completely made that up, for effect. And if you haven't made it up, then you should justify it.
Any comments I have made here are challenging materialism. Fact. Not science.

No, childish grandstanding is your department, not mine. This thread has become a combination of pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy, and I have pointed out where you went wrong along the way.

 

[quantumdude]

N Quire: It is not science and it is not philosophy. If I am to be polite, it is phenomenology, a thoroughly discredited philosophy.

LG: LOL. That's absolute nonsense. I cordially invite you to prove that materialists are absolutely-correct. Otherwise, I demand that you retract that statement, for sincerity's sake.

N Quire is correct, and no proof of materialism is needed to understand his point. You are supposed to be the one doing the proving here, and you have not done it. You are drawing flak because you keep insisting that you have proven your case, despite the holes in your argument. In this case, you have simply assumed and asserted your conclusion. I noted where you did it a couple of pages ago.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
I see a lot of semantics here about the meaning of a second, the meaning of a meter, the meaning of constant speed. It all pretty much deviates from the ultimate point.

But it's integral to the ultimate point. If there are a hypothetical infinite-number of observers with an infinite-number of perceptions/understandings of reality - and yet, only one absolute-reality shared by all - then it is plainly obvious that what each observer is 'seeing' is a construct of his own mind, in relation to that reality.

LG, I'm going to try to paraphrase your argument. Let me know if I'm making a mistake.

"Because experience is unique to the observer, experience is created by the observer."

Is that correct?

That is one main point, and I have briefly commented upon it above.
But the main point for pushing this argument, is that the observer himself is responsible for the particular/unique spacetime he is observing, via his own motion/acceleration in relation to the 'things' which he is observing.
For example, when the space-twin accelerates from Earth, he distorts his own spacetime - fact. When he comes back to Earth, his spacetime changes again, in line with that of his now-older brother.
Clearly, the motion of the observer wrt the things he perceives of, is responsible for the particular space-time he is experiencing... is responsible for the particular reality he is observing.
It should be remembered that Relativity isn't just some sort of weird mind-thing which happens to each individual. We're discussing tangible/physical changes here, experienced by each observer. Each observer's experience of physical-reality is different, and the nature of that reality is dependent upon the actions/motion of that observer.
Clearly, if the very-nature of the universe you can see is physically altered at the whim of your own motion, then it is as clear as daylight that the reality you can see is somehow dependent upon you. Your whole universe dances to your tune.
Your whole universe is happening inside your own mind. As is mine. As is everyones.

If it is, I don't see any logic connecting the premise to the conclusion. If there is some, please post it.

In brief, as above. But I have discussed these things in detail, throughout the thread.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
No, seconds and meters are precisely defined, and those definitions do not change from one observer to another. The fact that different people disagree on measurements does not conflict with that.

I agree with this. However, it's quite interesting that 2 paragraphs later you say this: "Boy, have you got it wrong. First, the “feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all." [/color]
If physics and maths are formulated upon human-experience, and those feelings/sensations/perceptions are not precisely defined, then how is it that seconds and meters are precisely defined, as you yourself have acknowledged?
What you're failing to realize, is that the definition of a second is a definition of the “feeling of time passing”. Langauge proceeds experience.
Not only are you comments in contradiction of one-another; they also show that you haven't grasped this essential point. ~Definition~ is an expression of experience.
So, if the "“feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all", then obviously, we would have no definition of time - seconds.

There is no reason that your “understanding of a mteter” should be distorted. All relativity tells you is that measurements are affected in a way that we previously did not know about.

My personal understanding of a meter (and of a second) is a fixed-constant, gleaned in relation to the universe I am perceiving. So, even as spacetime is distorted, I would not notice it, because my ~understanding~ is not affected.
But the twin-paradox proves that "personal understanding" is irrelevant here - because spacetime is subject to distortion/flux - as proved by the twin-paradox, for example.

Of course not, but the outcome of the measurements we perform on things in the universe is determined by the universe[/color], not by reason or common sense. That was my point.

Are you insisting (as materialists do) that the physical-universe is directly responsible for the Laws which govern it?
Any argument which challenges materialism (as does mine, here), cannot simply be countered with #assertions# that everything is determined by the universe. You must at least justify those assertions.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Are you insisting (as materialists do) that the physical-universe is directly responsible for the Laws which govern it?
Any argument which challenges materialism (as does mine, here), cannot simply be countered with #assertions# that everything is determined by the universe. You must at least justify those assertions.

Boy, here we go again. Every materialist assertion must be justified in your opinion. But as you know, every philosophical or theoretical thought system uses basic premises which can't be proofed, but are hold to be reasonable assumptions which are not in doubt.
The assertion that everything is determined by the universe, is such a basic premise, which can not be proofed. It can be justified however, because any other thought system that is based on the negation of this premise, is more suspicious and more unreasonable then the original premise.
For instance the negation of the premise that everything is determined by the universe would be that at least something was determined by something else as the universe. We just have to figure out what this "something else as the universe" would be, but it shows up that that is just another name for God. How reasonable is THAT assumption?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Boy, here we go again. Every materialist assertion must be justified in your opinion.

In a philosophical debate about reality, this should be the case. At least I am trying to support my conclusions with reason. So why do you expect me to just accept assertions as a counter to my argument? Surely you can see the sense in that, if nothing else.

But as you know, every philosophical or theoretical thought system uses basic premises which can't be proofed, but are hold to be reasonable assumptions which are not in doubt.

For the purposes of my own argument, I used basic axioms of Relativity, which relate to the universe as we perceive it.
Now, it is a fact that we perceive a universe as we do. And it is also a fact that Relativity has been proven to qualify the nature of those perceptions. I then proceeded to use these facts to build towards my conclusion. Hence, methodically, I don't see how you can accuse me of assuming anything.
However; clearly, materialists are just assuming that reality exists outside of our perceptions, and that this reality is imposing itself upon our minds. Therefore, I reiterate my complaint: why am I just expected to accept materialistic-assertions as a counter to my own argument? I'm looking for reasoned counters to whatever I say.

The assertion that everything is determined by the universe, is such a basic premise, which can not be proofed. It can be justified however, because any other thought system that is based on the negation of this premise, is more suspicious and more unreasonable then the original premise.

Going on gut-feeling eh.

For instance the negation of the premise that everything is determined by the universe would be that at least something was determined by something else as the universe. We just have to figure out what this "something else as the universe" would be, but it shows up that that is just another name for God. How reasonable is THAT assumption?

Actually, I don't think that the big guy with the white beard has had a mention so far. Not directly, anyway. But I'd be interested in knowing why you think such a conclusion is unreasonable, given that my argument is supposed to be reasoned. More gut-feeling?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
In a philosophical debate about reality, this should be the case. At least I am trying to support my conclusions with reason. So why do you expect me to just accept assertions as a counter to my argument? Surely you can see the sense in that, if nothing else.

Because the assertion are basic assumptions, and the reason we accept the basic assumptions is that the choosen assumptions are more reasonable then the negation of those assumptions.

For the purposes of my own argument, I used basic axioms of Relativity, which relate to the universe as we perceive it.
Now, it is a fact that we perceive a universe as we do. And it is also a fact that Relativity has been proven to qualify the nature of those perceptions. I then proceeded to use these facts to build towards my conclusion. Hence, methodically, I don't see how you can accuse me of assuming anything.
However; clearly, materialists are just assuming that reality exists outside of our perceptions, and that this reality is imposing itself upon our minds. Therefore, I reiterate my complaint: why am I just expected to accept materialistic-assertions as a counter to my own argument? I'm looking for reasoned counters to whatever I say.

I was not arguing about relativity, and for sure we have a more profound debate then relativity. We deal here with the philosophical issue of the basic premises of materialism, with which you seem to have a problem.

This goes basically about wether or not in first instance there is material existence, and only secondary a mind (the approach of materialism) or whether there is at first mind, and only secondary matter (the approach of idealism).

In first instance, the materialist assertion, is a basic assumption.
It is something that can not be proven, same as axioms in mathematics can not be proven.

But the choice of this basic assumption is of course not arbitrary.

So tell me what is unreasonable about this basic assumption of materialism, and tell me what you want to replace it with.

Actually, I don't think that the big guy with the white beard has had a mention so far. Not directly, anyway. But I'd be interested in knowing why you think such a conclusion is unreasonable, given that my argument is supposed to be reasoned. More gut-feeling?

I interpret any deviation from materialism as inspired by idealism, wether this is formulated as a "first cause" or as "mind" which serves as an explenation for the world.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Your argument has become an attempt to rewrite relativity to suit your limited understanding.

That's just not true. My recent post to CJames shows that my conclusions are founded upon Relativity as it is understood.
The debate has dealt with side-issues, also. For example, I have clearly pointed-out to you the value of experience itself, and shown how measurement and definition are merely expressions of this experience. Your insistence that "experience has no value" is obviously an oversight on your part. The value of experience is evident in the language we use to define it. Langauge proceeds experience - even mathematical language.
Also, my point to you about dx'/dt' = c', was not a challenge to the constancy of lightspeed - but an attempt to show you how each observer has a unique experience of that numerical value - in exactly the same manner that each observer has a unique experience of '1' meter and '1' second.
Why is it that you so-readily understand the concept that everybody has a unique experience of 1m and 1s; yet cannot extend this chain-of-reason to 1m/s? Clearly, given that each observer has a unique experience of the meter and the second, it should be obvious that any given velocity should be qualified as acknowledging the uniqueness of those parameters.

Among other places, here:

"The two equations you used really need an experiential- qualification: instead of saying dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c, you really need to say: dx/dt=c, and dx'/dt'=c'."

This does not change the speed-of-light for anybody. It merely acknowledges the uniqueness of each observer's meter and second, in relation to the space-time he is observing at any given time.
If the space-twin observes light passing through x meters in a second, it is obvious that this is not absolutely the same thing as the Earth-twin observing light passing through x meters in a second - merely because both twins have a different perception of the meter and the second.

No, what I said is accurate. You only disagree because you have either ignored or dismissed everything I have ever said to you.

The word you are looking for, is 'countered'. I do not ignore you. Nor do I dismiss what you say. I think about what you say and then if I think you are mistaken, I counter you. That's the way a debate should happen.

No, childish grandstanding is your department, not mine.

Well, the fact that I fight to give my argument a fair hearing, is because few people are willing to do just that. Some of the responses in this thread have been completely evasive to my argument. And like I said: if this argument should fail, it should fail by reasoned-counter alone. Not politics or snobbery.

This thread has become a combination of pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy, and I have pointed out where you went wrong along the way.

That's your opinion. But in my opinion, if you do not even acknowledge that 'measurement' is an expression of experience - hence validating the "value of experience" - then how am I expected to reason with you?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Because the assertion are basic assumptions, and the reason we accept the basic assumptions is that the choosen assumptions are more reasonable then the negation of those assumptions.

Why is it more reasonable to believe that a reality exists beyond the Mind, than to believe that only the Mind exists (with its perceptions)?
We all have direct experience of a subjectively-perceived reality (a
mind-ful reality). However, it is completely impossible to even prove the existence of a single thing beyond that mind-ful experience. Hence, I'm struggling to see any justification within that statement. As far as I can see, it would be more reasonable to ~assert~ the existence of 'a Mind' - simply because that is all we have experience of.

I was not arguing about relativity, and for sure we have a more profound debate then relativity. We deal here with the philosophical issue of the basic premises of materialism, with which you seem to have a problem.

A quite-legitimate 'problem', I would say. And yes - it does go deeper than Relativity. However, I don't want to stray too far from the argument I have presented. Not yet, anyway.

This goes basically about wether or not in first instance there is material existence, and only secondary a mind (the approach of materialism) or whether there is at first mind, and only secondary matter (the approach of idealism).

In first instance, the materialist assertion, is a basic assumption.

I disagree. I fail to see how you can label an assertion as 'basic' if there is not one jot of proof to support such a reality.

It is something that can not be proven, same as axioms in mathematics can not be proven.

Axioms about mathematics are due different consideration than axioms about 'reality'. Mathematics is a conceptual language of the perceived universe. In fact, whether reality is external or internal would not affect mathematics in the slightest.

So tell me what is unreasonable about this basic assumption of materialism, and tell me what you want to replace it with.

Apart from the objections raised in this post, I could talk about this all day from many different approaches; including causality, evolution, thought (and dreams), motion, space, placebo-effect, emotions, sensory-experience, universal-order and Law... and now, relativity. I've lost track of the number of approaches I've taken in my challenge to materialism. Needless to say, that challenge is legitimate and credible. Unfortunately, few here take it seriously enough to partake of mature debate about such issues.

I interpret any deviation from materialism as inspired by idealism, wether this is formulated as a "first cause" or as "mind" which serves as an explenation for the world.

And?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Why is it more reasonable to believe that a reality exists beyond the Mind, than to believe that only the Mind exists (with its perceptions)?
We all have direct experience of a subjectively-perceived reality (a
mind-ful reality). However, it is completely impossible to even prove the existence of a single thing beyond that mind-ful experience. Hence, I'm struggling to see any justification within that statement. As far as I can see, it would be more reasonable to ~assert~ the existence of 'a Mind' - simply because that is all we have experience of.

The statement is that a material reality exist, and that our mind is just part of that reality. There is no distinction between 'outside' and 'inside' reality.

You argue from a standpoint of solipsism, in which the only reality that exsists, is your own mind. Even the existence of other minds is doubted in that perspective.

Although this is position one can take in theoretical debate, for practical reasons however all solipsists are materiralists (but just won't admit). If a solipsist is nearly hit by a car, he will step aside to avoid being hit by the car, and won't argue that the car is not reality, but just something that takes place in his or her mind.

See how easy it is to prove your real position in life?

(Unless you are both solipsist and suicidal, of course...)

I disagree. I fail to see how you can label an assertion as 'basic' if there is not one jot of proof to support such a reality.

I think there is a whole reality that supports the position of materialism. It is has been proven a fruitfull position and has lead to many scientific discoveries. If it would not be for the materialist position, there would not have been so much bothering in researching the material world, and discover how the material world really works.

Apart from the objections raised in this post, I could talk about this all day from many different approaches; including causality, evolution, thought (and dreams), motion, space, placebo-effect, emotions, sensory-experience, universal-order and Law... and now, relativity. I've lost track of the number of approaches I've taken in my challenge to materialism. Needless to say, that challenge is legitimate and credible. Unfortunately, few here take it seriously enough to partake of mature debate about such issues.

Please explain to us what will happen to the outer world when your mind dies?

If allt things only happen within your mind, I care to know about that.

Maybe you relax from the position of solpisism, and at least consider the fact that not only your mind exists, but also those of others.
Which would at least lead to the fact that there is an 'outside' reality.

Unless of course you claim that all minds are parts of one bigger mind.

And explain me one other thing. There was a time in which the world existed, but not your mind. You don't have direct experience of that, but you have been told. Were all people lying about that fact?

 

[(Q)]

Lifey

then it is plainly obvious that what each observer is 'seeing' is a construct of his own mind, in relation to that reality

Or, they are all simply observing the same reality – a much more plausible and simple explanation.

Clearly, the motion of the observer wrt the things he perceives of, is responsible for the particular space-time he is experiencing... is responsible for the particular reality he is observing.

The observer, when in motion, views everything within his surroundings as occurring and functioning perfectly normal. In other words, to him, he is not experiencing anything at all. To him, he views himself and his surroundings at rest and not moving at all. How do you explain that?

It should be remembered that Relativity isn't just some sort of weird mind-thing which happens to each individual.

This contradicts your theory of the singular Mind.

Clearly, if the very-nature of the universe you can see is physically altered at the whim of your own motion, then it is as clear as daylight that the reality you can see is somehow dependent upon you.

This would suggest we have control over the universe and how it is shaped/formed. How do you explain the universe prior to our existence within it?

Your whole universe dances to your tune.

His tune is the Samba, theirs is the Tango, and mine might be the Cha-Cha-Cha. Everyone dances to a different tune. Again, this would contradict your theory of the singular Mind,

Your whole universe is happening inside your own mind. As is mine. As is everyones.

Therefore, the universe did not exist until… when? Was it the advent of music or the amoeba?

Any argument which challenges materialism (as does mine, here)

You yourself are a materialist – do you have a computer, TV, stereo, car? Or do you live in a cave or a tree with nothing but a few sticks and stones? The word, “hypocrite” comes to mind.

My recent post to CJames shows that my conclusions are founded upon Relativity as it is understood.

No, as it is misunderstood by you.

I have clearly pointed-out to you the value of experience itself, and shown how measurement and definition are merely expressions of this experience

This also contradicts your singular Mind theory. If the universe, as you suggest, is happening inside your mind, the concept of ‘experience’ should not exist. How can you experience anything if it is all in your mind?

Why is it more reasonable to believe that a reality exists beyond the Mind, than to believe that only the Mind exists (with its perceptions)?

Again, that would suggest the universe never existed up until… when? Why would this singular Mind choose this universe? Why not a universe where we can travel instantaneously from one point to another? How many people were of this singular Mind when it first originated? When did this singular Mind first originate? Why does the singular Mind have control over me and I am unable to control any part of it? I wish to change this reality – why can’t I do it? Why does the singular Mind contain so many idiots who are unable to rationalize? Does the singular Mind work like an ant colony or a bee hive? Is there a queen?

There are so many unanswered questions with the singular Mind theory. I could sit here typing questions all day long and never finish. Have you got all the answers?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
The statement is that a material reality exist, and that our mind is just part of that reality. There is no distinction between 'outside' and 'inside' reality.

Well, I could write an essay challenging this particular stance. But I'll avoid doing so, for now. I'd just like to point out that this statement makes absolutely no distinction between reality and sensory-experience itself. That is not a position which is easily defended, imo.

You argue from a standpoint of solipsism, in which the only reality that exsists, is your own mind. Even the existence of other minds is doubted in that perspective.

For the record, I leave the labelling of my ideas to other readers. I have never-ever labelled myself as anything, other than a rationalist, perhaps.
Also for the record - and I did state this at the end of my initial argument - I reason that all individual perceptions (of conciousness) exist within One Mind, ultimately.
Hence, I do not doubt that 'you' or anyone else exists as a real perception. However, that's all I think that any of us are: a particular perception of existence, within time - of The Mind. I would also extend this argument to any organism which has the capacity of awareness.

Although this is position one can take in theoretical debate, for practical reasons however all solipsists are materiralists (but just won't admit).

I will admit that my awareness interacts with the universe I perceive, and that I am affected (physically & emotionally) by it. But this same thing happens (to a lesser extent) in dreams.

If a solipsist is nearly hit by a car, he will step aside to avoid being hit by the car, and won't argue that the car is not reality, but just something that takes place in his or her mind.

About a month ago, I jumped out of bed with a shriek, punching the air wildly - with my heart pumping fast & hard. I was ~lost in a dream~ which I truly believed was real (specifically, I was being attacked by a figure which emerged from the shadows). Amusing for you, perhaps. But it scared the hell out of me.
Who's to say that this waking-perception of reality does not work in a similar vein?

See how easy it is to prove your real position in life?

Wouldn't it be interesting if you had this conversation in your sleep? Literally. When lost in your dreams, the guy talking to you could say exactly the same things that you are saying to me now.

Please explain to us what will happen to the outer world when your mind dies?

The perception of 'me' may cease to exist, but I am not advocating that I (lifegazer) am The Mind which is behind all of this.

And explain me one other thing. There was a time in which the world existed, but not your mind. You don't have direct experience of that, but you have been told. Were all people lying about that fact?

Same answer as previously.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Well, I could write an essay challenging this particular stance. But I'll avoid doing so, for now. I'd just like to point out that this statement makes absolutely no distinction between reality and sensory-experience itself. That is not a position which is easily defended, imo.

Reality is material, and anything material is in motion/change. The sensory experience is as material as anything else.

For the record, I leave the labelling of my ideas to other readers. I have never-ever labelled myself as anything, other than a rationalist, perhaps.
Also for the record - and I did state this at the end of my initial argument - I reason that all individual perceptions (of conciousness) exist within One Mind, ultimately.
Hence, I do not doubt that 'you' or anyone else exists as a real perception. However, that's all I think that any of us are: a particular perception of existence, within time - of The Mind. I would also extend this argument to any organism which has the capacity of awareness.

I exist as a 'real perception' in (your/the) mind only? In other words, if you (or the mind) do not perceive of me, then I do not exist? People and material objects however do exist, whether they are perceived or not.

There is an outside reality, even when it was not perceived by any mind. There was a sun, there were planets, etc. even before any life began to develop on earth.

But I hold it your argument then will be that even before any life was in existence, this One Mind did exist, and was perceiving all of this?

If that is your position, then I guess you are just juggling with words, and this One Mind is just another term for material existence.

I will admit that my awareness interacts with the universe I perceive, and that I am affected (physically & emotionally) by it. But this same thing happens (to a lesser extent) in dreams.

Your awareness interacts with the universe you percieve. But you said you don't acknowledge the fact of an 'outer reality', only the mind itself. What is your awareness interacting with themn, if such an outer reality does not exist in the first place?

About a month ago, I jumped out of bed with a shriek, punching the air wildly - with my heart pumping fast & hard. I was ~lost in a dream~ which I truly believed was real (specifically, I was being attacked by a figure which emerged from the shadows). Amusing for you, perhaps. But it scared the hell out of me.
Who's to say that this waking-perception of reality does not work in a similar vein?

A dream is as real as reality, although there are differences. A dream is a process going on in your mind, without real perceptions.
But the dream is real, in the sense that it involves material processes in your head.

One major difference is if you are hit by a car in your dream, this event will probably just wake you up, and not cause you being hurt physically (unless you fall out of your bed, but not by a real car, of course). In reality thought a car hitting you, will cause you real injuries.

I hope you are able to make the distinction...

Wouldn't it be interesting if you had this conversation in your sleep? Literally. When lost in your dreams, the guy talking to you could say exactly the same things that you are saying to me now.

Well I remember a dream I had, when I was climbing a tree, and was affraid I was falling out of it. But suddenly in my dream I remember to have said to myself, I should not be affraid, cause it was just a dream. Perhaps this was a dream in which I was almost awake, so I knew it was a dream.

The perception of 'me' may cease to exist, but I am not advocating that I (lifegazer) am The Mind which is behind all of this.

Same answer as previously.

The way you define The Mind, seems to me this definition fits well perfectly for material existence.
In what way do you make a distinction between material existence and mind?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Reality is material, and anything material is in motion/change. The sensory experience is as material as anything else.

That's easy to say. But I could make you sweat with many awkward questions...
According to you, manufacturing conciousness is fundamentally no more different than manufacturing a brick. The complexity of that 'brick' is acknowledged. But the point remains: You think conciousness is manufactured from matter in motion/interaction.
Given that you equate the brain to some sort of data-interpretor of the external universe (which gave rise to that brain), how do you explain for the artistic free-will which must also be ready-present to transform mathematical input-data into subjective sensory-experience, as well as the ability to have 'emotion'?
This is a highly significant question. There is no sensory-experience upon awareness until and unless the brain already possesses such artistic freedom as to create those perceptions, itself. Not to mention the ability to effect (have power to...) these perceptions of love; pain; red; sweetness; cold; hot; etc., upon its own conciousness.
The brain was a genius BEFORE it had perceived of a single thing. I say this because firstly, it had to understand how to interpret universal-data before it could begin to subjectively-represent that data upon awareness. And secondly, it had to have the ability to think of subjective representation (it had to have 'imagination'), before it could have experience.
Now; that's quite a feat, wouldn't you say? For the material universe (alone) to create a brain with those capabilities before that brain could come to have any 'experiences', is not even remarkable... because "remarkable" does not remotely justify the residual dumbfoundedness which exists when asked to believe that this could ever have been the case.
In my opinion, The Mind reveals herself at her full glory here. And I have only asked the questions in order to see this. I didn't need to read a book, or be a biologist. The questions are questions of reason/cause.

I exist as a 'real perception' in (your/the) mind only?

No. I; you; he; she; we; they... all of us exist as a perception of identity which relates to the things it is conscious of. But these perceptions (mine included), exist in The Mind itself.
God can see himself as a dot against the landscape, or as the landscape itself - dot included. This is obvious from the equally-obvious axiom that "God is all things.".

In other words, if you (or the mind) do not perceive of me, then I do not exist?

The perception of 'you' (in relation to what you see) exists. But that perception is gleaned from limited knowledge. Not from reason. Hence the duality of identity.

There is an outside reality, even when it was not perceived by any mind. There was a sun, there were planets, etc. even before any life began to develop on earth.

I never said that there wasn't. I just infered that The Mind was the perceiver/thinker of such a realm.

If that is your position, then I guess you are just juggling with words, and this One Mind is just another term for material existence.

The arguments I build cannot justify that conclusion. Matter cannot create a brain which knows how to interpret universal-data before ever receiving that data. And neither can it build a brain which has the artistic/imaginative freedom and power to effect the senses and feelings which awareness does experience, prior to having knowledge of how to do such things.

Your awareness interacts with the universe you percieve. But you said you don't acknowledge the fact of an 'outer reality', only the mind itself. What is your awareness interacting with themn, if such an outer reality does not exist in the first place?

Its thoughts and sensory-visions... and its emotions.

One major difference is if you are hit by a car in your dream, this event will probably just wake you up, and not cause you being hurt physically (unless you fall out of your bed, but not by a real car, of course). In reality thought a car hitting you, will cause you real injuries.

Our minds know how to wake-up from those sort of dreams. At such fearful moments, the concious-mind is put on full-alert. Hence we wake up to the dangers of our dreams. Thankfully.
Many mystics and the like - Jesus especially - have all claimed to have woken-up to the Divine reality. Only the future will determine whether such a state-of-mind awaits the whole. But how they 'achieved' such a thing (if indeed they did), is beyond my present understanding. But I believe that they may have - especially Jesus - simply because my philosophy would expect 'a Jesus' to
eventually be born. I know that religious figures should not be used in a philosophical argument. I merely use 'Jesus' as a mirror/example to reflect what I think ~Divine conciousness~ is all about. To give a meaning to what Divine-conciousness may imply.

I hope you are able to make the distinction...

I did. It was a valid point. But I think that waking-up from a fearful-dream is a different prospect to waking-up to Divine-conciousness. The former is a reaction to fear. The latter is a response to supreme-wisdom and an all-loving-heart, so it seems.

Well I remember a dream I had, when I was climbing a tree, and was affraid I was falling out of it. But suddenly in my dream I remember to have said to myself, I should not be affraid, cause it was just a dream. Perhaps this was a dream in which I was almost awake, so I knew it was a dream.

Yes. I once had a dream like that. Did you, like me, manipulate that dream to your own whims? Did you play God?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's easy to say. But I could make you sweat with many awkward questions...
According to you, manufacturing conciousness is fundamentally no more different than manufacturing a brick. The complexity of that 'brick' is acknowledged. But the point remains: You think conciousness is manufactured from matter in motion/interaction.
Given that you equate the brain to some sort of data-interpretor of the external universe (which gave rise to that brain), how do you explain for the artistic free-will which must also be ready-present to transform mathematical input-data into subjective sensory-experience, as well as the ability to have 'emotion'?
This is a highly significant question. There is no sensory-experience upon awareness until and unless the brain already possesses such artistic freedom as to create those perceptions, itself. Not to mention the ability to effect (have power to...) these perceptions of love; pain; red; sweetness; cold; hot; etc., upon its own conciousness.

The brain does not accept 'mathematical data' but get it's impulses from the nerve system, which is biochemical stuff. The nerve system is a complex biological/neurlogical system itself. I don't have enough knowledge to explain it in detail, but I think there are lots of source of information around that explain how the brain and nerve system function, as far as we now know.

The brain was a genius BEFORE it had perceived of a single thing.

What is your time reference here? The time scale of a human individual, growing from conception to a full human grown up being, or the development of the brain in human history/evolution?

On a human time scale, the answer is that this is of course the case, because the human brain and body is fully equiped on birth. Would that fact surprise you? I don't think this is a remarkable fact.

The other way around would be more remarkable, having your brains grow, when it is needed to respond to certain outside stimuli.
Human biology, or biology in general, does not provide for such 'quick evolution'. It would be rather impractical also.

I say this because firstly, it had to understand how to interpret universal-data before it could begin to subjectively-represent that data upon awareness. And secondly, it had to have the ability to think of subjective representation (it had to have 'imagination'), before it could have experience.

To explain in detail how this ability comes from 'dumb' atoms and molecules, is a long story. It has costed several billions of years of evolution of life forms to come up with such a complex system.

But I don't follow exactly what your argument is about you present here. Of course the layers of material existence the human brain is made of, are far too complex to be understood in full detail.

But your argument is more or less that because of this complexity, you don't seem to accept it's material origins.

Now; that's quite a feat, wouldn't you say? For the material universe (alone) to create a brain with those capabilities before that brain could come to have any 'experiences', is not even remarkable... because "remarkable" does not remotely justify the residual dumbfoundedness which exists when asked to believe that this could ever have been the case.

In my opinion, The Mind reveals herself at her full glory here. And I have only asked the questions in order to see this. I didn't need to read a book, or be a biologist. The questions are questions of reason/cause.

But from reason alone you won't be able to comprehend a human mind in full detail. And I talk about human mind, cause I don't consider 'The Mind' as a real entity, only as an abstract entity.

So in my mind it is not 'The Mind' that reveals his full glory, but it is material existence that reveals it's glory. The only conclusion that can be made is that material existence already contains the capacity or potential to develop human minds.

No. I; you; he; she; we; they... all of us exist as a perception of identity which relates to the things it is conscious of. But these perceptions (mine included), exist in The Mind itself.
God can see himself as a dot against the landscape, or as the landscape itself - dot included. This is obvious from the equally-obvious axiom that "God is all things.".

There is only material existence, of which also humans and human minds are made of and upon. A mind is best thought of of a very complex material system in a living organism, that is able to be aware of the outside world and itself in a very sophisticated way.

The perception of 'you' (in relation to what you see) exists. But that perception is gleaned from limited knowledge. Not from reason. Hence the duality of identity.

Don't understand this part.

I never said that there wasn't. I just infered that The Mind was the perceiver/thinker of such a realm.

The arguments I build cannot justify that conclusion. Matter cannot create a brain which knows how to interpret universal-data before ever receiving that data. And neither can it build a brain which has the artistic/imaginative freedom and power to effect the senses and feelings which awareness does experience, prior to having knowledge of how to do such things.

Its thoughts and sensory-visions... and its emotions.

The long history of evolution of life forms from simple macromolecules that had the ability to self-reproduce, to the human species, is a too long and too complex story, an can for sure not be interpreted by way of statements like you state here.

This evolutionary process can be divided into billions and billions of steps, which are in itself very complex. For sure the ability to process the information around us, was not 'created' in one step.

i don't know what your argument comes from. How do you know that your statement is true or not? You just mention something contradictionary, but it seems to me, you really never bothered in the first place how evolutionary processes, even the most simple ones, did take place.

I hold it your argument is just based on ignorance, and not on true knowledge about the material processes that did take place in the evolution.

What you don't seem to understand is that without any real knowledge about even a few steps in the history of evolution, your statements just sound like plain ignorance.

And by the way, the brain as a very complex ensemble of specialised human cells, is in no way able of knowing what it is doing, it is just performing the job, and creates the functions needed for the mind to be a conscious observer.

Same way as the microchip has no way of knowing what kind of program is it performing, it just has hard wired code that deals with the input, and prodeces the output.

The only difference is that the latter needed an intelligent designer for designing the microchip, and the first costed billions of years of evolution and the right conditions to do the job.

Our minds know how to wake-up from those sort of dreams. At such fearful moments, the concious-mind is put on full-alert. Hence we wake up to the dangers of our dreams. Thankfully.

Yes. So, eventually we will react to the outer world in a materialistic way, that is we recognize that an apporaching object that looks like a car, can cause us serious damage. At that moment, we do not stumble and think if and or wether that car is real, or just an illusion of our mind, cause we will be dead before we determined that!

In our debates, in which we don't experience such stimuli, we might think we react in a different way, as we actually react when we are being put under the stimuli of such an event.
So our mind knows how to react to 'outer reality' and reacts to it accordingly, even when we are not consiously aware of that reality.

Many mystics and the like - Jesus especially - have all claimed to have woken-up to the Divine reality. Only the future will determine whether such a state-of-mind awaits the whole. But how they 'achieved' such a thing (if indeed they did), is beyond my present understanding. But I believe that they may have - especially Jesus - simply because my philosophy would expect 'a Jesus' to
eventually be born. I know that religious figures should not be used in a philosophical argument. I merely use 'Jesus' as a mirror/example to reflect what I think ~Divine conciousness~ is all about. To give a meaning to what Divine-conciousness may imply.

Such a state of the mind is based on stimuli of certain parts of the brain, causing 'religious feelings', so they can be ultimately be defined in terms of how the brain works, and the material processe that determine the way the brain functions. Don't worry.

I did. It was a valid point. But I think that waking-up from a fearful-dream is a different prospect to waking-up to Divine-conciousness. The former is a reaction to fear. The latter is a response to supreme-wisdom and an all-loving-heart, so it seems.

It can be quite well explained in terms of the right chemistry in the brain, causing such sensations.

Yes. I once had a dream like that. Did you, like me, manipulate that dream to your own whims? Did you play God?

I don't know what this has to do with 'playing god', it was just a dreamlike state that was very close to a conscious state (just moments before awaking), in which the dream state was left, and I was in the process of awaking. Otherwise, i could not have thought that way.

Playing for God is what Bush is doing in Iraq. I abstain from such immoral interventions, causing bloodshed of thousands of Iraqi people.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The arguments I build cannot justify that conclusion. Matter cannot create a brain which knows how to interpret universal-data before ever receiving that data. And neither can it build a brain which has the artistic/imaginative freedom and power to effect the senses and feelings which awareness does experience, prior to having knowledge of how to do such things.

Its thoughts and sensory-visions... and its emotions.

Now if such a thing happened in, let's say, six days, I would call that a miracle, indeed, and would reject such a weird explenation! But seen on a time scale of several billions of years, and examining all the small steps that in itself are quite complex, this makes sense to someone. Although we might never be able to know the full complexity and full details of all the billions steps involved in this process, from what we already know we have a glimpse of the immense and total complexity that was involved in this evolutionary longs lasting process.

Get the idea?

Further, what gives you the idea that there must have been a mind that had thought about 'creating' brains, before a brain was developed?

Your reasoning is really weird, in that you have a total lack of knowledge about how the material world works.

Does a water molecule know at what temperature it must transform from the liquid form into gas? No, the gas molecule simply acts according to the properties a water molecule has.
Put many water molecules together, heat it, and you'll see at normal pressure the water to boil at 100 degrees celcius.
Where is that knowledge stored? How does the water know at what temperature to boil?

These are similar interpretations as you have put forward, but which make it a bit more clear, that they are foolish interpretations.

If you don't have a clue of how the material world really works, then go study some physics, chemistry, biology, etc. You might learn how the material world really works.

 

[heusdens]

Some questions/comments for Lifegazer.

Since in your previous post you reveal more clearly your point of view, which is ultimately an Idealistic approach, involving a 'Super mind' annex 'Creator' thing, ans since you refute to accept the material explenation of the development of the human mind, let's confront you with some pitfalls in your thinking.

Firstly, materialism tries to understand the world, and the material processes that go on in the world, as it IS, and not how we think it is. This requires us to examine and reexamine the material world in all it's aspects and features, and try to come up with real explenations. And the only way one can explain things is to define things in terms of already known things and phenomena. You can only understand complexity from more simple things, and built up your explenation from that.

Your 'explenations' work the other way around. Even to explain the most simple things, involves in your approach the existence of a 'Super Intelligent Supreme being', which in itself is not in any way understood. The world is already an immense complex system, but you seem to need an even more complex system, a creator, that has built or created everything. If a human brain was a result of an intelligent designer, it follows that the designer must have had more complex brains as the brain he designed. Which of course leads us to the question, who created the brains of the creator, ad infinitum.
In other words, this way of explaining things does not lead to any answers, but move away from it.

Furthermore, from human history and it's early development, it can be clear that the emerge of God and religion as human concepts, have to do with the fact that in early manhood, while human beings were fully equipped with almost the same brains as we have now, there was a lack of knowledge on almost anything.
Humans did not understand why sometimes the hunt was good, and sometimes they nearly starved to death. They did not understood why they became ill, why their land drowned, and why their lives were full of suffering. They would feel that there suffering maybe was to blame by their own misbehaviour, or were caused by some hidden and unknown being or force, and they invented symbols for this, and invented rituals to serve these 'beings' or 'spirits'.

For all the effects from the outside world, there was a lack of real knowledge. To compensate for this lack of knowledge, an ultimate and hidden force was invented, just to satisfy the curious, and to ease the pain. Later on this Gods of nature were replaced with culturally developed Gods, and which finally lead to a concept of monotheism.

In our current situation we face however the fact that human knowledge has grown immensely, and religion has no real purpose anymore. Religion is outdated, but still holds many millions of people in ignorance and is a willing tool for dictators to suppress their people. It keeps people ignorant from how the material world really works, and makes them servicable to the needs and greeds of the upper class.
Humanity however has the ability to free itself from any outside danger the world offers, and also has the ability to control it's own form of society, in order to provide for all people in their needs.

It's a pitty that still, up to today, so many people keep themselves ignorant from how the world really works, and keep them selves tied up to an outdated belief system, that places the world upside down.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I agree with this. However, it's quite interesting that 2 paragraphs later you say this: "Boy, have you got it wrong. First, the “feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all." [/color]

Why interesting?

If physics and maths are formulated upon human-experience, and those feelings/sensations/perceptions are not precisely defined, then how is it that seconds and meters are precisely defined, as you yourself have acknowledged?
What you're failing to realize, is that the definition of a second is a definition of the “feeling of time passing”. Langauge proceeds experience.

Do you mean precedes?

Not only are you comments in contradiction of one-another; they also show that you haven't grasped this essential point. ~Definition~ is an expression of experience.
So, if the "“feeling of time passing” is not precisely defined at all", then obviously, we would have no definition of time - seconds.

There is no contradiction in my comments. You erroneously equate "feeling" with "measurement", simple as that.

Are you insisting (as materialists do) that the physical-universe is directly responsible for the Laws which govern it?

I am saying that the universe has properties that cannot be known a priori, and so must be determined by experimentation.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's just not true. My recent post to CJames shows that my conclusions are founded upon Relativity as it is understood.

Nope. What's more, you aren't even in a position to make this kind of an assessment, since you have never studied the subject.

The debate has dealt with side-issues, also. For example, I have clearly pointed-out to you the value of experience itself, and shown how measurement and definition are merely expressions of this experience. Your insistence that "experience has no value" is obviously an oversight on your part. The value of experience is evident in the language we use to define it. Langauge proceeds experience - even mathematical language.

I do not recall doing anything other than ask you to explain what you mean by the "value of experience". I still have not received any sensible answer.

Also, my point to you about dx'/dt' = c', was not a challenge to the constancy of lightspeed - but an attempt to show you how each observer has a unique experience of that numerical value - in exactly the same manner that each observer has a unique experience of '1' meter and '1' second.

If you say that the two (c and c') are different somehow, then you are saying that they are not constant. I don't know how you could say otherwise.

Why is it that you so-readily understand the concept that everybody has a unique experience of 1m and 1s; yet cannot extend this chain-of-reason to 1m/s?

I can extend it to 1m/s. What I have been trying to pound into your head is that it does not extend to 3*10⁸m/s.

Clearly, given that each observer has a unique experience of the meter and the second, it should be obvious that any given velocity should be qualified as acknowledging the uniqueness of those parameters.

"It should be obvious that..."

That is your favorite logical operator. Unfortunately, it proves nothing.

The word you are looking for, is 'countered'. I do not ignore you. Nor do I dismiss what you say. I think about what you say and then if I think you are mistaken, I counter you. That's the way a debate should happen.

As Njorl said, you do not even remotely address the objections that are offered to you.

Well, the fact that I fight to give my argument a fair hearing, is because few people are willing to do just that. Some of the responses in this thread have been completely evasive to my argument. And like I said: if this argument should fail, it should fail by reasoned-counter alone. Not politics or snobbery.

Your argument is as dead as a doornail. We have been fair, and we have rejected it because it is completely devoid of logic. You never established any connection between relativity and the impossibility of a material universe. All you did was assert it, and you were called on it.

That's your opinion. But in my opinion, if you do not even acknowledge that 'measurement' is an expression of experience - hence validating the "value of experience" - then how am I expected to reason with you?

You are impossible.

What I asked you was:

No, I do not denounce existence. I simply do not understand your bizarre language, which is why I asked the question. You still have not shed any light on the “value of space/time”. If it is simply measurements of spatial and temporal intervals, then please just say so.[/color]

Of course, you never did say so.

edit: insert quote

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
I do not recall doing anything other than ask you to explain what you mean by the "value of experience". I still have not received any sensible answer.

OK guys. I don't really want to get too involved in this because I will admit I am not qualified. Also, my eyes are drooping here so don't be too harsh with me if I fail to contribute any value. But let me see if I can help out with this question of Tom's above.

While I'll be the first to admit that I cannot personally defend nor express an opinion on LG's conclusions,(not yet anyway) I actually think I understand what he's talking about when he talks about the "value of experience". I'll assume that people here are not just trying to be difficult on purpose and really are curious.

Tom,

Let's assume you get up one morning and walk into the bathroom and admire your muscles in the mirror. Then you go to the kitchen and fix yourself some breakfast. Let's also assume you don't have access to any formal device for measuring time i.e. a watch or clock. After you eat your breakfast,you go into the bathroom and look in the mirror and you see an 85 year old man. Would you be surprised? Why? What proof do you have that decades have not passed? The answer is "yes" you would be surprised. You don't need a watch to be able to tell the difference between an hour and a few decades. That is the experience value of time. It should always be somewhat correlated to a formal measure of time but in the example above, it is not. If this really happened you would think you were going nuts.

But yet this is what happens in the case of the twins paradox. The space twin returns to find his Earth twin is an old man. The space twins "experience of time" no longer correlates with the actual measure of time of his Earth twin.

Now Tom you may actually have understood all this before. Your quote about from Einstein seems to recognize this concept and just throw it out the window because it is unreliable. Perhaps it is. But let me ask a question. In the twins paradox, I have always understood the potential dialoge between the twins to go like this:

Space Twin: "You're an old man! But I was only gone for a year!"
Earth Twin: "Nonsense! You were gone for 60 years. I have lived a full life since you left."

and not like this...

Space Twin: "Oh my god it's good to be back. Seems like I've been gone for so many YEARS! But my clock practically stopped working and I haven't aged a bit! I am so confused."

So the theory seems to suggest what would happen with the mindful "experience of time". Why would it do this if it is not making assumptions about how the experience of time works? It's claiming that the experience of 1 second will remain the way it always has for both twins. Yet somehow one of the twins has managed to separate his experience of 1 second from the actual measured second of the other twin.(The first dialgue and not the second)

If the paradox story is accurate it does seems to be addressing the "experience of time" and not just throwing it away as irrelevant. Please let me know if I'm off base.

The relevance of all this to LG's conclusions I'll leave to you guys to sort out.

Heh and tomorrow I may not even agree with this. I am so tirreeeed I keep noddddng ooff.,. I am gouiiing to beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Fliption
Let's assume you get up one morning and walk into the bathroom and admire your muscles in the mirror. Then you go to the kitchen and fix yourself some breakfast. Let's also assume you don't have access to any formal device for measuring time i.e. a watch or clock. After you eat your breakfast,you go into the bathroom and look in the mirror and you see an 85 year old man. Would you be surprised? Why?

Yes, because it does not take me 55 years to eat a bowl of Raisin Bran.

But yet this is what happens in the case of the twins paradox. The space twin returns to find his Earth twin is an old man. The space twins "experience of time" no longer correlates with the actual measure of time of his Earth twin.

Your first example is not what happens in the twin paradox. It's always the other guy's clocks and meter sticks that look screwed up, never my own.

Now Tom you may actually have understood all this before. Your quote about from Einstein seems to recognize this concept and just throw it out the window because it is unreliable.

I throw it out for two reasons. One, it is ill-defined. Two, this thread is supposed to be about how relativity implies The Mind.

But relativity does not make use of any of these fuzzy concepts such as what time and space "feel" like, so there is no point in bringing it up. Relativity only refers to measurements.

 

[Janus]

Originally posted by Fliption

Let's assume you get up one morning and walk into the bathroom and admire your muscles in the mirror. Then you go to the kitchen and fix yourself some breakfast. Let's also assume you don't have access to any formal device for measuring time i.e. a watch or clock. After you eat your breakfast,you go into the bathroom and look in the mirror and you see an 85 year old man. Would you be surprised? Why? What proof do you have that decades have not passed? The answer is "yes" you would be surprised. You don't need a watch to be able to tell the difference between an hour and a few decades. That is the experience value of time. It should always be somewhat correlated to a formal measure of time but in the example above, it is not. If this really happened you would think you were going nuts.

The problem with this example is that even though you've never glanced at a clock, There are plenty of other clues in your environment. to give you "time Clues" (For instance, As Tom mentioned, eating your cereal. If it had actually taken decades, the milk would have been really sour by the time you finished.

If however, you took away all such clues (say put you in a sensory deprivation tank). You would soon lose all track of passing time. Seconds can feel like hours.

Even if you just put someone down a deep cave with no time keeping device, it has been shown that their conception of how much time has passed will drift out of sync with those on the surface. Even though an atomic clock brought with them in a locked and sealed box would keep perfect time with the surface.

 

[Lifegazer]

I also want to conduct an imaginary-experiment...

Imagine two orbits around the Sun. The first orbit is that of Earth. The second orbit is that of the space-twin. His velocity is not that important, as long as we recognise that he is traveling extremely fast (c/2, for example).
What is important, is that the radius of this second orbit is exactly the right distance from the Sun, to enable the space-twin to share the same radial (approx.) as Earth, from the Sun, as he moves at C/2. In other words, the Sun; Earth, and the space-twin, all share the same radial.

I'm hoping that someone can solve my confusion with the time-issue here. For on Earth, a full revolution of the Sun = 1 year.
So; why isn't a full revolution of the Sun, by the space-twin = 1 year? I mean, the space-twin must experience (relatively) less time than someone on Earth (as in the twin paradox). So, therefore, he must experience less time than '1 year'. And yet, he's just done a full revolution of the Sun in the same time that Earth has (same radial).
My confusion may seem vague or naive here. But if the space-twin can see Earth do a full revolution of the Sun, then he must also see the rest of the universe as the Earth does, relative to the Sun. I.e., Earth and the spacetwin should see almost the same nightsky. Upon first-glance, this might not seem relevant. However, if the spacetwin shares the same nightsky as Earth, in what sense can we say that he is experiencing less time (relatively) than someone on Earth, whilst also proclaiming that his experiences are 'normal'?
Where's the source of my confusion? This doesn't make sense to me: that the spacetwin can actually experience less time than someone on Earth, when the observation of the universe from either looks identical.

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by Tom
Yes, because it does not take me 55 years to eat a bowl of Raisin Bran.

it took me a bit more than 15; but that is because i never liked raisins as a kid.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
Yes, because it does not take me 55 years to eat a bowl of Raisin Bran.

Oh so you're saying that eating a bowl of Raisin Bran is a way of measuring time? Lol then what isn't? No wonder you're struggling to define the experience of time passing.

Your first example is not what happens in the twin paradox. It's always the other guy's clocks and meter sticks that look screwed up, never my own.

Oh yes, I am aware of that. I think you missed the point of that story. Step back a bit. The only similarity I was pointing out is that you now have an inconsistency in "experienced time" and actual measured time on the original planet. It would be the same thing as my example except you have to travel like the space twin did to achieve it.

But relativity does not make use of any of these fuzzy concepts such as what time and space "feel" like, so there is no point in bringing it up. Relativity only refers to measurements. [/B]

From your perspective, I'm struggling to see what would not be considered a measurement of time. It seems that just the act of experiencing anything is itself a measure of time (like eating breakfast). If this is true then LG does have a problem I think.