Article - The Deceptive Memory

[Oggy]

Hi,

Please, give some comments to my article
www.deceptivememory.com

[There is no “past,” “present” or “future”! What is really happening is that we are constantly undergoing “a change of condition.” Apparently we are “being deceived” by those “impressions of the previous conditions” that have remained imprinted as our memories.]

Thank you,
Reinarto Hadipriono
Reinarto@Hadipriono.com

[Tormod]

Hi - and thank you for posting the link to your very interesting paper.

My first impression is that this is not a paper on physics. It is a paper on theological ideas, and I find many confusing and paradoxical statements which I am not sure is due to my lack of understanding it, or to a confusion on the part of the writer as to what time is.

I do not feel that there is a problem in seeing the present as a collection of pasts - this is correct according to modern physics. That there is a lag between when things happen and when we sense them is indeed a fact of nature, and due to the speed with which information can travel. In our body, information can only travel as fast as the neurons can communicate. It's as simple as that.

To connect our sense of time with the rotation of the Earth displays a bias on the behalf of the writer. This is indeed what I would call "cultural" time. What if we were living on a planet which always has one side towards the sun, another away (like the tidal lock of the Moon)? This has nothing to do with time in physics.

You write:

"What we are trying to imply by our experiment with the balloon above is that even with our bodies growing to such conditions as they are at the present, we are still preserving a larger part of that matter of our childhood bodies."

In fact, I can't agree with this. We do not today consist of the same matter as when we were younger. Our bodys constantly change. This is due to metabolism and the breakdown of matter. We shed dead skin cells at an astonishing rate. Every single cell in our body is refreshed with completely new matter, constantly. So there is no analogue between our bodies and a balloon. That's the difference between organic and inorganic matter! But even inorganic matter decays, which is easily observable in radioactive material.

What’s more, as far as the feeling of existence is concerned, there is no denial that we humans are simply inseparable from the other parts of this universe. This, certainly, gives us warrant to say that Man does evolve from the various matter existent in the universe. Since the evolutionists dare say that all living creatures, including human beings, developed evolutionarily, they should also have the courage to admit that the feelings of existence present in all human beings must have originated from what nature has in it.

This is were I start to sense the creationist aspect of your article. I believe in evolution, and to me it is obvious that the "feeling of existence" is natural and is a part of natural evolution. Human beings are not the only beings to have a sense of time. Every living being on Earth is required to observe the passing of time, because we must keep the metabolism going, and the only way to do that is to eat and convert the food into energy. We could say that we do this mainly for two reasons, to stay alive and to make sure we are prepared for what may come in the unknown future.

In conclusion, I find your claim that we can free ourselves from the shackles of time by "accepting that we are eternal entities" to be rather strange. This is obviously a theological issue, and it is not fruitful to discuss the physical aspects of time when you dismiss the existence of time as a misconception in modern human beings.

As Carl Sagan always said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". I find none of it in your paper. Sorry.

Tormod

[Oggy]

Tormod,

First:
Concerning my article – The Deceptive Memory.
What I mean is time on earth.

Second:
My emphasis is on the added meaning given to time, that is, the past, the present, and the future.

Third:
In using the balloon as a metaphor, my greater concern is with the change of time. Matters related with the life process are discussed in the lower part of the article.

Fourth:
This article requires contemplation, because it is philosophical.

Fifth:
Concerning my article - Symmetrical body shape. Yes, the human species has existed for approximately 3 ½ billion years. Below is some information on this.

August 13, 1999 - Journal of Science
Scientists studying Australian rocks have found evidence that primitive forms of life existed 2.8 billion years ago instead of a billion years earlier than had been previously shown.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/021202/021202-3.html
Martin counters that the tendency of unrelated bacteria to swap DNA makes genetics a bad guide to history. Each kingdom left its rocky nursery about 3.8 billion years ago, he suggests. The oldest non-controversial bacterial fossils are about 2.5 billion years old, although some believe there is evidence for life 3.5 billion years ago.

http://www.earthwatch.org/expedition...heproject.html
To determine with the maximum precision the age of the first human occupation in Spain. The investigations carried out up to now allow us to suggest that the first human occupation could be approximately 1.5 million years ago

http://www.progressnow.com/fortschritt/default.htm
Compared to the age of life on earth – c. 3.5 billion years – and the age of the human race – c. 2 million years -, human civilisation has developed at an incredible pace. This is largely thanks to the progress brought about by numerous inventions, which made it possible, first, to record ideas in writing, then, to reproduce them in large numbers, and finally, to distribute them around the globe at the speed of light.

http://www.icm.csic.es/scimar/PDFs/10hsu.pdf

http://www.singinst.org/why-singularity.html
Life first arose around three and half billion years ago; it was only eight hundred and fifty million years ago that multi-celled life arose; only sixty-five million years since the dinosaurs died out

http://www.czp.cuni.cz/values/citank...pe/svoboda.htm
The Cambrian explosion of life-forms. For longer than three and half billion years, i.e. 85 % of the duration of life on Earth, oceans and water bodies were…

Sixth:
I’d say the same thing to you, too. ‘However, it is wise to check the facts before publishing your comment.’

Seventh:
It seems to me that this forum is characterized by lack of contemplation, hasty or careless judgment, arrogance, and tends to involve the emotions of both sides.

Eighth:
I’m beginning to feel that this forum is not quite a delightful place for me. I, therefore, choose to quit. Under you style of management, I just hope no one else follows in my footsteps.

Bye…

[Tormod]

Oggy,

you are obviously offended because I decided to comment upon your two papers. I'm sorry for that. When you post your papers to a public forum you should expect to receive criticism for the content - and you asked for it. If you don't like the answers, you are welcome to discuss the matter further and provide your sources (which you have above). We have many fruitful discussions in these forums and your opinions are as welcome as anybody else's.

Concerning my article - Symmetrical body shape. Yes, the human species has existed for approximately 3 ½ billion years. Below is some information on this.

None of the links you offer say that the human species has existed for 3 1/2 billion years.

The Nature article you mention says:

Each kingdom left its rocky nursery about 3.8 billion years ago, he suggests. The oldest non-controversial bacterial fossils are about 2.5 billion years old, although some believe there is evidence for life 3.5 billion years ago.

I would be very interested in seeing how "evidence for life" can be translated to the "human species". Like you mention yourself further down in the reply, it took billions of years for complex life to arise. How then can you possibly place human beings at the scene?

That human settlements have existed since about 1,5 million years may possibly be true, but what the paper at Earthwatch which you link to actually says is this:

This allows us to form a hypothesis of the long and continued occupation of Homo in Europe.

Now, "Homo" is the line of ascendants from which Homo Sapiens Sapiens eventually descended. There are many paths of homo, like Homo Erectus and Homo Neanderthalis, and the links between them are both documented and continually researched.

However, stating that there were species of Homo about around 1,5 million years ago does not mean that our species were around.

A very good book on this subject, is Martin Jones: "The Molecule Hunt - Archaeology and the Search for Ancient DNA". He, among other things, cites works which show that Man and monkey parted around 5 million years ago, and that the first appearance of our own species was around 200,000 years ago. These are of course theories.

I’d say the same thing to you, too. ‘However, it is wise to check the facts before publishing your comment.’

I always try to do this, and when someone points out that I am wrong, I listen to them and try to find out where I went wrong and what I can learn from it. Nobody's perfect, though. But when you make very strange, undocumented observations like "human beings were around 3,5 billion years ago" you really bring extraordinary claims into the discussion, and must expect to be questioned about it.

It seems to me that this forum is characterized by lack of contemplation, hasty or careless judgment, arrogance, and tends to involve the emotions of both sides.

Have you taken part in any of the other discussions? No. Why not? You should not judge all the members of these forums just because you don't like my reply. There are many bright and open minds here.

I’m beginning to feel that this forum is not quite a delightful place for me. I, therefore, choose to quit. Under you style of management, I just hope no one else follows in my footsteps.

This has nothing to do with my management! I read people's postings, make comments, and offer assistance. As do many others in these forums. Rarely do we ban anyone or throw out a posting. You asked for comments on your own articles, but have offered no comments on any other postings in our forums. Did you just walk in here, post your articles, expecting hails and "wows"? Sorry, but this is a contemplative forum where we discuss matters. We don't take everything at face value.

<B

[Oggy]

Hi,

Wow, good advice! Sorry for all the inconveniences I’ve caused you. Now you have become just the person I’d like to make friends with—so wise and friendly. Thank you! Maybe it was all because of the “bait” you put into your comments, or maybe it was just that we haven’t known each other quite well. Or perhaps, it was all because of the difference in our cultural background.

You keep insisting that your opinion is the right one, despite the fact it is popularly acknowledged that life first arose three and a half billion years ago.

Now, my question is: How would you define the word “Human being”?
We, Mr. Flintstone’s family , Cambrian human, proterozoic human or “Human-to-be”? I’m sure that there is only one system that make the animate emerge from the inanimate in this world. One system, almost simultaneously, and sporadically.
http://www.the-absolute-enormous-uni...s_reaction.htm
That’s why we can’t give any definition on it. It’s all because we emerge from only one system. It is only because animate-creatures-to-be were then scattered everywhere and influenced by different surroundings that creatures appear in different forms as they do now. This means that it is said that life first arose around three and half billion years ago, then some of them must be the source of human being. Do you have you any objections?
At least my conjecture is much closer than yours, which is 200,000 years.

About – The Deceptive Memory:
The key to the whole article is this ordinary and trivial issue:
When we throw a ball from points A to B, for instance, we tend to say that the ball was at point A. Does this not mean that at the time the ball was at point A, the rays reflected by the ball left an impression or are recorded in our brain, which we try to retrace at the present?

If you say ‘yes’, that’s fine! The problem is solved then. But, if you say ‘no’, that’s extraordinary! And I must make an extra effort to add some words to patch some of the holes in my article for the public to better understand it.

Well, sound like I am trying to make up everything.

Thank you,
Cheers,
Oggy.
Reinarto@Hadipriono.com

n.b. By the way, do you want to see what my human-to-be look like?
It’s funny! It’s like a louse. http://www.the-absolute-enormous-uni...uman_to_Be.htm

[Tormod]

Dear Oggy,

thanks for keeping the line open.

I only have a few moments as I'm sitting at work, but I'd like to set one issue straight.

You keep insisting that your opinion is the right one, despite the fact it is popularly acknowledged that life first arose three and a half billion years ago.

One of us must be reading the other person wrong here.

I agree with you that life may have surfaced around 3,5 billion years ago. However, it is my humble opinion to follow the evolutionists and believe that complex life emerged much later, as you point out. So whereas life may have been present early on in our planet's history, human beings have only been around for a short while.

As for the definition of "human being"...give me some time and I'll contemplate.

Tormod

[deamonstar]

all of this is very interesting.
I have posted a link here that may shed some light on the issue of the time line of the human species.

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/l.../timeline.html

[Harzburgite]

Originally Posted by Oggy

Please, give some comments to my article
www.deceptivememory.com

I am concerned that in a work which is either to be considered science or philosophy, that you obtain your definitions from a dictionary! That is inappropriate and jarred this reader badly from the outset.
I am even more concerned that in a document discussing time that there is not even passing mention of Xeno's paradox, nothing on any of the Greek philosophers, no Leibniz or Newton, no Kant, no Pöppel. Nothing.
The conventional approach is to briefly review earlier concepts, at the very least examine those currently extant, and to identify the weaknesses within them. Then to demonstrate how your hypothesis addresses these weaknesses.
In the absence of such an approach several problems arise, all doubtless unintended:
1) the writer is in danger of coming across as ill-informed.
2) the writer is in danger of coming across as arrogant.
3) the writing appears in a vacuum, and with no solid base will easily be blown away by the breath of enquiring skeptics.
The very absence of this proper context for your ideas makes it impractical to give them the consideration they may well deserve.

[Harzburgite]

Originally Posted by Oggy

This means that it is said that life first arose around three and half billion years ago, then some of them must be the source of human being.

Being the source of a human being is not the same as being a human being. The ingredients in my kitchen, being the source of a chocolate cake, are not a chocolate cake. Your usage in this case is confusing, misleading and distracting. I would urge you to correct it.

[adnaan]

I am taking a guess on what he is trying to say, and attempting to fix it.

Basically our 5-senses deceive us mainly, and what our 5 senses have done in its actions, basically our brain records that into its memory. For when this happens, we are able to sense time, for time cannot be sensed without knowing some kind of past, and therefore know there is a past, we also know that there would be a future.

I think he basically means that time doesnt exist but is created by us, from our brains, and that we create this past, present, and future, and we are unaware that its a mere illusion.

Anyways, this was a guess, on what I think Oggy was trying to show us.