Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CraigD
Since neural activity requires metabolism
|
Both "neural activity" and "metabolism" are presumed conclusions of your paradigm and thus cannot be used to justify that paradigm.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CraigD
, it also seems you "need time to create a memory".
|
Once again, this presumes your paradigm is valid: i.e., that the mental image of reality you achieved unconsciously by the time you were two is the correct answer to the question "what is reality?"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CraigD
I’ve concluded that this is because we laden the idea of consciousness with a sort of superstitious, magical meaning not conducive to rational examination.
|
Instead, could it not be that everyone is wasting their time trying to justify the validity of those beliefs they came to at the age of two; essentially they are working from the perspective that all that emotional baggage inherent in that unconsciously achieved mental image of reality acquired when they were a mere child has to be true?
It is a fact that human intelligence is totally isolated from the outside world in the sense that we don't know, a-priori, how any information we have is acquired. The only contact with reality exists via interactions, the real meaning of which simply cannot be known a-priori. Our mental image of the universe is constructed from data received through mechanisms (our senses) which are also part of that image. Any scientist in the world worth his salt should hold it as obvious that one could not possibly model the universe until after some information about that universe were obtained . The fundamental problem with this position is that we cannot possibly model our senses (the fundamental source of that information) until after we have modeled the universe.
Thus, the problem becomes one of constructing a rational model of a totally unknown universe given nothing but a totally undefined stream of data which has been transcribed by a totally undefined process. This is the problem which every human being has solved on an unconscious level by the time they are two. The question is, "is that solution valid?" It should be clear to you that, if you don't know how to solve it, you certainly have no way of analyzing the validity of your solution.
Absolutely every human soul out there (scientist to layman to philosopher) is absolutely ignoring the problem I have just pointed out to you. Intentional or unintentional, ignorance is ignorance whatever the source.
Have fun -- Dick
"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."
by Anonymous
Time and consciousness
Re: Time and consciousness
