[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Time and M&Ms

Hi John M.

First, I pondered on Rosen's use of the word "adjective" for a while
until I thought I got it. He seems to consrtuct the traditional
syntactic mechanism out of the equivalent of nouns and verbs. Things and
processes. "The car accellerated to 60mph in 4 seconds flat " i.e., F=ma.
Noun - car      =     physical object
verb - accellerate       =   phase change

Now, where does complexity come in?  In order to modify the above
statement one traditionally requires another force. Or change the mass.
I think he says complexity qualifies these rates in a relative way. This
introduces adjectives ("a modifier of a noun to denote quality of the
thing modified" - Webster).  "The car accellerated fast." Its not
quantitative, but fast is different than slow and context dependent. So
it introduces context. Consciousness would be adjectival - applying
qualities to the world; attributing it so to speak. When we then try to
realize a conscious entity, like a "fast car" the realization is then
context dependent and quantitative. This moves between two different
systems of specification and thus constitutes a modeling relation.

Second, Time. Nobody knows.
... but true to form, I can speculate. Judith and I tried to write about
this for the ISSS. I wanted to carry Rosen theory to the foundation of
space-time itself, as I have in other papers. But I wasn't ready and it
wasn't clear where the boundary was with Rosen's statements. We hinted
at it in the paper, but I am working on a more thorough statement. If it
ends up making any sense.



John M wrote:

JohnK, how can a term like "experience" be an adjective? This is why I find
more applicable the (loose) "quale" (pl.: qualia) term.
It may cover anything<G>

BTW I can't wait for write-ups cpoming in on TIME. I found it tricky ever
since I started to 'think' (after retirement). Up to that time I did not
have the time to think about it. I decided first that it is a
motion-parameter for space, which I deemed more fundamental. Of course if
you consider it the other way and find time more fundamental, then space is
the motion parameter. Motion considered as 'change'. The second version was
less acceptable, because space does not always apply to e.g. ideational
changes, as time does.
I derived a timeless system to place the univers into, yet I wanted to keep
a deterministic view: a system where every change has its initiation by some
other change(s), (which, you may say: anticipate(s) it)  -  and SEQUENCE -
w/o time  puzzled already R. Feinman into (QM-al) reversible causality.
I wanted to keep my original image of "space and time derived (organized?)
within THIS universe to make it observable".
Timelessness (like in: ever(lasting) or co-currently occurring,  maybe the
ominous infinite time as well) puzzled me into dreaming of a different
"time" -concept in the (physical?) timelessness, where a sequence is
acceptable, yet not timely quantizable by a clock.
I am nowhere with these speculations so far.
(So: Judith, I am waitng. I would be surprised if RR had speculated in these
very same terms and resulted in a soultion. Did he?)

To JohnK's >" (...[experience]...i.e., not a thing or process)."<
I have one 'vagueness' to add:
in my wholeness view I consider "things" ('it'-s) as concepts (call them
ideationals) as interpreted (modeled?) by OUR mind (using the neuronal brain
as its material tool) into - sort of - 'materialized' format.

Those, who are still with me, get a piece of M&M candy.

Cheerz

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Consciousness and information, etc.




John M.,
thanks that helps.
I suppose "experience" shares the same domain as consciousness - not an
"it." In Rosen's view, perhaps more of an adjective than an noun or verb
(i.e., not a thing or process).

John M wrote:



John K,
you probed the semantic quagmire of the conscious family.


S N I P