Science Forums 2

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I guess where I've been coming from on this subject of time is the point of view that everything we observe is an effect of the inputs to our observational machinery. The conclusions we draw are automatically built upon the objects our perception gear generates.

Contemplation from the causal point of view attempts to focus on the things which give rise to observation. To look at the component parts, so to speak.

I was looking out my window at my car which is red. It occured to me that my car's redness was not exactly what it seemed. I felt that the redness was part of its makeup, when the truth is exactly the opposite: it reflects red light and in fact rejects it. It absorbs all other colors. I am, of course, working within the worldview that contains the identity 'photon'. I believe that part of my worldview to be correct.

I am not trying to attack the efficacy of the machinery of observation, don't get me wrong here. But I am trying to point out that what we perceive is really an effect from a different process, one which is easy to ignore because we naturally work with derivative perceptions. And we tend to think that those derivations are actually the ontology or the real-ness that is underneath. It would follow that all of our worldviews, if not taking into consideration the nature of perception, are going to be less than they should be and missing a more fundamental understanding.

It takes an act of will to contemplate the derivation process and to view all of this from 'under the hood'. The upshot, I guess, is that when we say 'characteristic' or 'attribute' or 'property' after contemplation from this point of view, the meaning changes slightly. How slight? I suppose in some cases it's about as subtle as an elephant taking a dump in a bakery.