09 May 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombIt doesn't matter how such a consciousness perceives time, it would still be limited in a real sense by the speed of light.
You are assuming the consciousness experiences time as we do. We judge time based on our orbit round the sun. Our bodies have evolved to judge time based on the rotation of the Earth. This entity would exist on a super macroscopic scale, perhaps in a far greater Universe that we are completely unaware of (leap of faith i know, but you never know...). I r ...[text shortened]... tom in a far vaster Universe, going on and on....
Ok sorry, tangent. It was fun though....😀
09 May 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIndeed, but is it anything more than the physical properties they hold and the forces which act upon them which determine that? If so, intelligence is a misleading term.
I see it in a context of communication, the molecules "knowing" what to do.
09 May 07
Originally posted by sonhouseYes of course it would, but when you consider it lives for Billions and billions of our Earth years, it's experience of time would be relative to it's ecperience so therefore it wouldn't get board waiting for a thought to process. 😛
It doesn't matter how such a consciousness perceives time, it would still be limited in a real sense by the speed of light.
09 May 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's exactly why i'm staying away fro this sub discussion. My Dad is a philosopher so i grew up being challenged by these paradoxes. I've tired of discussing them as they just end up in an argument...
As an effete pataphysicist, I'd have to laugh at you.
Doesn't "matter" imply the same problem of reification as any other of the terms we've been discussing?
09 May 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombHow about just taking consciousness as a given and going from there?
I'm still trying to come up with a way of conducting this conversation without going off on a tangent about the nature of my consciousness and whether it exists or not. It is possible that you are all a figment of my imagination and i am in fact having a conversation with myself but this doesn't really get anywhere. If this is the case then I migh ...[text shortened]... the answer. If not, then i'm justified in asking people to stick to the subject i believe. 😉
Do you believe that reality is constrained by 'proof'?
09 May 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo, I don't think so, matter is just the building blocks of a materialistic universe. (For clarification, I meant probably to the misnomer bit. )
As an effete pataphysicist, I'd have to laugh at you.
Doesn't "matter" imply the same problem of reification as any other of the terms we've been discussing?
09 May 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThen sub-atomic particles, then strings(?), then whatever. Matter and energy are two halves of the same coin, manifesting as different entities at higher levels. I have no probelm with reclassifying their language if science or philosophy suggest such a move is necessary, I don't know much about the physics at such a level. The problem I think is that we like to deal in macroscopic terminologies and it doesn't serve our everyday lives much to disintegrate those categories and classifications that reside at the level of immediate experience.
Not if you take it down to sub-atomic level...where the blocks tend to disappear.
09 May 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombThat would be analagous to brain cells getting bored waiting for input from another part of the brain or sensory organ. Inapplicable. The real problem would be, given a conscious entity made out of the parts available in intergalactic and interstellar space, it would not have time to think many thoughts due to the unbelievably slow passage of light on that size frame. For instance, there are parts of the universe that could never communicate with one another because the pieces are outside the available time for any kind of signal to cross such a path in the lifetime of the whole universe so any kind of 'brain' you can envision would have limited thinking capability, because and only because of the distances involved. Like I said in my first post, given a consious universe and given our universe had a beginning and ruling out supernatural influence, then this 'brain' would have a beginning
Yes of course it would, but when you consider it lives for Billions and billions of our Earth years, it's experience of time would be relative to it's ecperience so therefore it wouldn't get board waiting for a thought to process. 😛
and middle and end stage of life totally because the universe itself has such time structure. So there would be a time when there was no consciousness and then something happening to allow it to happen so any sub-units involved in thought would be billions of LY apart so all the pieces involved such an activity would, being limited to the speed of light, inevitable involve distances on the largest scale in the universe and therefore any co-ordinated processes leading to thoughts would also take billions of years. You can't have it both ways.