?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

deep afternoon

So for starters, check out this video...one of the more surreal cartoons I have seen in a good long time, and definitely worth the download.

Just spent a whole mess of time on philosophy - specifically tying to get a clearer picture/discuss the finer points of my friend Matty's version of it. His view is that in a dimension linked, but apart from ours, there exists an infinite supreme rationality, which is the unifying element of reality. All parts of our existence, within time, are encompassed by this great rationality beyond black holes, in a place removed from time (hence the multiple concurrent states of being).

It all started out as a conversation on the merits and downsides of suicide - and moved on from there. While I am sure everyone involved in the conversation have very different opinions and expressions of reality, and how it works, Ed was good enough to quasi-moderate, at least insofar as determining some baseline definitions.

Time - the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues. That was the second definition, as provided by Richelle. Props to her, we probably would have diced semantics for 50 minutes if she hadn't hopped into the dictionary.

Energy was a harder condense into a definition. Ed's basic definition is that energy is work over time. Matty's whole structure of the universe had to support a timeless realm or dimension adjacent to ours, so time and energy became a mincing fest. Eventually the distinction went back to the definition of time, where events (energy) took place. Matty's view of human existence is that the entire thing is one "instance" - that is the entirety of our life cycle, from birth to death, is one singular point in eternity. Working this into a geometric model, I asked him if humanity would be better graphed 2d as a line or a circle.

We ended up with a human existence, and the energies it produces, and which react to it, as a singular point on an x,y grid. If you have lost the convo at this point, that’s ok, because there were large paragraphs of clarification, no longer clear, in between all this. I moved from the 2d model to a Mobius strip, which I think could geometrically encapsulate his world view in an explainable manner, even if I disagree with its existence/theoretical applications.

I still disagree that a combination of all instances, in a timeless state, would result in a rational consciousness. Matty argues that when you remove time from an equation, emotion gets weeded out. I agree that is possible that there could be a timeless state with a collective experiential consciousness that exists within it - but its relation to our world and purpose is negligible, if at all connectable. Matty argues that we are a part of it - therefore "living" makes us part of its greater purpose.

Too many holes and paradoxes imo. I don't think you can ever have a watertight worldview. Nonetheless, I've been working on mine since I was around 12 or 13, and I still have plenty of holes.

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
timaeusdaspirge
May. 23rd, 2003 05:47 am (UTC)
i dont think it's so much a matter of timelessness weeding out emotion - i believe that emotion is a by-product of hormone. without this corpreal form, without glands and nerve centers and such, emotion doesn't exist.
i believe time, such as told by clocks and calendars, to be a purely human creation. it's hardly undefeatable, and we are no more indefinately subject to it's linear nature than people were subject to the law of gravity - we just haven't figured out how to beat it yet. besides, time is entirely subjective - ask anyone who's waited weeks for that last half an hour of work to end, or anyone who's had a two minute kiss last a lifetime.
i need to know ed's defination of 'work' if i'm to address his defination of energy. not sure if i agree with the potential of timelessness - like all things, i think it just exists, it's just a question of whether or not we're subject to it. in outer space, you're no longer subject to the earth's gravity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. i'd have to replace 'timelessness' with 'free from the constraints of time (much like unemployment :-p)'
course, i believe we can theorize as much as we'd like, we can come up with all the myriad possibilities on the nature of the universe and the meaning of life, it's not gonna matter worth a fig. once we get to the proverbial other side, we'll know, but until then it could be anything from the christianic old man in the clouds to we're all living in a universe that fills the space between the atoms of a marble of some hyper-galactic child. am i a butterfly dreaming i'm a man, or do i just need a cup of coffee? :-p
delascabezas
May. 23rd, 2003 09:16 am (UTC)
hmm
I highly disagree with your concept of emotion being a chemical byproduct. I think that it is a function of self-awareness. Anything which has a sense of self awareness seems capable of an emotion, things which are not self aware (to the best of experimental results) do not seem to have emotional responses - they are capable of reactions similar to emotiional reactions (fear or agression) but not the emotion itself.

I think that eventually you will be able to get emotional software - programs eith enough self awareness to come to the same conclusions, emotionally as a , or at leas tbe able to learn them empathically from a self aware communicating life form.

The nuance between the measurement of time and time itself was hashed out. We are capable of removing ourselves fromnthe law of gravity via the use of artifical stimuli that coutneract it... time is a tougher state to exempt oneself from because we are within its continuim. Time is entirely subjective experentially, I agree, but in terms of scientific measurements, it can be readily quantified (seconds, minutes, light years).

"Work" in the context of eds defintion is anything wich exerts change on another thing. Matty's argument that timelessness is not possible within this reality ( i agree with him) which is why timlessness only exists in another physical plane, across the gulf represented by black holes (which are bboth a part of, and not a part of our physical reality). I agree with him on that one.

I agree that mental posturing matters not one whit - but I don't believe any answers are forhcoming post the cessation of metabolic process... ya either figure it out breathing, or not at all, because no revelations in store once the dirt nap cometh.





timaeusdaspirge
May. 23rd, 2003 09:28 am (UTC)
Re: hmm
i believe completely the opposite of your supposition on emotions - i believe someday we'll be able to program a simulacrum of emotions, but not the actual thing, whereas it's highly biased of us to assume that animals have no emotions simply because we can't communicate with them. now, i'm not one for the pet physic or the ilk, but i do believe animals have emotions - you'd have thought marley and coffee woulda taught you that :-p i stand firm in my belief that emotions are entirely dependant on chemicals
our defination of time can be readily quantified, i agree. we've figured out the countermeasures to gravity, it only stands to reason we'll figure out countermeasures to time eventually :-p

still dont agree about the concept of timelessness - don't think it exists. as for your declamation that there's nothing after the dirt nap, i demand proof on that one, kemosabe.

milk comin' out yer nose yet?
delascabezas
May. 23rd, 2003 09:35 am (UTC)
Re: hmm
i didn _not_ say that animals have no emotions - i said that animals which are not self aware do not - i think that self awareness is the key, not chemiclas, which is why i beleive what i do about programmed emotion. The chemical byproducts of our emotions are only part of the chain reaction, not the genesis of them.

Therefore, ants, bees, amphibians - maybe reptiles, animals on the lower end of the chain who live on instinct, not having higer brain functions or self awareness are not self aware. I think that msot warm blooded creatures are self aware, and capable of emotion.

We can figure out countermeasures to time, only in the same way that we can discover countermeasures to gravity - by removing ourselves _temporarily_, and sometimes at great peril, to the stimulus.

If you cryo-freeze me, i am removd from the effects of time, but not time itself.

If i go t into a 0g chamber, i am removed from the effects of gravity, but gravity is still keeping the institute with the 0g machine rooted nicely to the face of the surface of the planet.

I do not think that timelesness exists - but i think taht it is theoretically possible, especially under the circumstances matty is talking about, where youa re in another dimesion/reality alltogether.
timaeusdaspirge
May. 23rd, 2003 09:40 am (UTC)
Re: hmm
and my point is, until you find merlin to turn you into an ant so you can see what life is like for one, you can't really say ants have no emotions. course, i don't think canadians have emotions, but i can't prove that either :-p
what makes you say self-awareness is the key to emotions?
right, so we've found a way to remove ourselves from the effects of gravity (0g chamber) and from gravity itself (space travel); we can theoretically remove ourselves from the effects of time (cryo-freeze) and someday from time itself (quantum leap :-p)
and like the discovery of flight, some will crash and burn figuring out how to get around time, but eventually we'll have another kittyhawk..
almost anything is theoretically possible - there are no absolutes
delascabezas
May. 23rd, 2003 11:41 am (UTC)
Re: hmm
While i concede that there is a slim possibility that ants could feel emotions, I highly doubt it. Most lower life forms (from a subjective perspective lower that is) have adapted survival and communal techniques which seem not to suggest a sense of self awareness.

Self awareness is the key to emotions, in my opinion, because emotions are reactions to external or invironmental influences. If you have no sense of self, then you can only have the mechanical chemical responses or instinctual reactions. Pain becomes an abstract - things become reduced to a sense of survival or nonsurvival. In a black and white outlook limited by a lack of self-awareness, then emotions have no room.

Its like programs now, reverse engineered. They can do many of the functions humans can, but are incapable of making the big leap, because of the limitations of thier awareness.

Ants, as an example,in my opinion, are highly evolved hive structures. The queen as the nucleus,and the nursery workers, food gatherers, warriros, and builders all performing thier individual tasks. Self awareness allows for the ability to make decisions for yourself, even if you choose not to. Ants cannot switch roles in thier societies, and thier activities (this is proven) are all chemically based. An ant never feels longing that they cannot go from being a worker to a soldier, likewise soldiers do not feel fear when they swarm an ingading beetle - they have a simnple function, and they act within that function only, based on chemicals released by other ants.

Your Merlin allusion, while cute, is ineffective, as human fascilites tranferred to an ant do not an ant make.

As to Canadians, you can ask them, easily quantifiable and proveable.

Space travel does not remove you from gravity, only the earth's gravity. Og chambers remove you from gravity, but only in a sphere equal to the circumphrence of the chamber - and it is still affecting the chamber itself from the outside. Quantum leaps do not remove you from time - they simply allow you to move through its stream in a different manner.

While I agree that anything is theoretically possible, (indeed, that was the whole p urpose of yesterday's dialouge - i was trying to define and conceptualize soemthing I didn't even agree with, but still strove to prove as possible, tehoretically) I also beleive that there are inherint limitations in place which prevent us from doing certain things.

Humans can fly, sure, but not like a bird, only in a plane. Until someone masters the art of telekenesis such that they can agitate the air around them sufficently to mock flight, or creates cybornetic superskeletal implants which would allow our bone structure to sport wings sufficent to get our bulk off the ground - we are still limited, even though we _can_ fly.

I don't see our race as being eloquent enough to do many of the things we may well be intellectually capable of, those are the absoultes in my mind - the flaws of human nature.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Steam Escaping!
delascabezas
The Son of the last of a long line of thinkers.
delascabezas.com

Latest Month

February 2017
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow