The Never Ending Pool

I agree. This is not the Heidegger board, just some bobheads a few of whom might enjoy sharing "armshare philosophy" about concepts none of us have any business feeling cocky about. There is a book called something like "The History of Time," It is fascinating and literally traces the development of man's history in trying to record "time" from the earliest known archeological evidences, up to the present.

I searched and found something like this by Hawkings, but "I don't think that is the one I had in mind."

As to Wurlitzer's last, I can only say that I think that without a consciousness of "times past" we cannot even postulate "times to come."' This is the linkage I perceive between time and memory. Perhaps we must introduce the concept of "consciousness" as have most other philosophers, when discussing "time."

Not Henry Porter wrote:

QUOTE:
I agree. This is not the Heidegger board, just some bobheads a few of whom might enjoy sharing "armshare philosophy" about concepts none of us have any business feeling cocky about. There is a book called something like "The History of Time," It is fascinating and literally traces the development of man's history in trying to record "time" from the earliest known archeological evidences, up to the present.

I searched and found something like this by Hawkings, but "I don't think that is the one I had in mind."

As to Wurlitzer's last, I can only say that I think that without a consciousness of "times past" we cannot even postulate "times to come."' This is the linkage I perceive between time and memory. Perhaps we must introuce the concept of "consciousness" as have most other philosophers, when discussing "time."

but consciousness of times past is usually in reference to historical events, not personal memories. i would substitute your idea of memory with the idea of history. the time line of history is a much different thing than the time line of personal memory, and is far more relevant to our anticipation of what is to come in the future than the meager experience gathered in our few years of existance. in fact, our concept of a stable earth and universe comes from an environmental perception based on only a short span of years. if we look at the changes in the planet from a historical, not personal, perspective, we would not be worried so much about the weather fluctuations and geographical changes made to the earth's surface
by such events and earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.

I can't agree. Our most verifiable experience of time is our own personal history, existing as it does in an enduring "memory." We cannot really know that anything "happened" before our time. We allow this as a reality ONLY bacause we have a perception of our own past, present and future, and we can project this beyond our own experience in history and confidently assume that reality persited before us and will persist after us. But, we cannot know this, nor will we ever have the same confidence in it as a reality as we will our own personal history (memories).

i agree with your points, not henry porter, but do not believe that our memories help us much when it comes to future events in the same way that a study of history can help us understand what happens now and in the future.

for example, when caligula assumed power, he gave all citizens a tax rebate, and destroyed the roman economy by overspending on the military. george w. did the same. we can understand better the w administration by studying that of caligula. the little i know of the administrations that ruled america during my own lifetime has been culled from reading, not recalled from personal memory.

therefore, i persist in claiming that it is time and history that are linked, not time and memory.

i don't want you to think I am downplaying the role memory plays in our behavior. most of our actions are predicated upon previous actions, and the memory of actions determine the actions to come. but time is not really an element here. animals who have no concept of time function in the same way as regards memory.

Well, "zoinks", I must say that "not henry porter" is right, I am looking for more of a "conversational" thread...
In that way, there would potentially be room for jokes, Bob analogies, etc....

I am enjoying the comments so far, although it really does make my head hurt a little sometimes to consider every comment. I don't seem capable of coming up with long paragraphs of thought like "wurly" and "n.h. porter" here...

You both were talking about "time and memory".
When Bob sings: "Time is a jet plane
It moves too fast
Oh but what a shame
That all we've shared can't last"

well, doesn't all they've shared last in the form of memories? Surely he doesn't wish that every happy moment remained as tangible as the moment it occured? (Although I've wished that sometimes).
Or if he is referring to the end of a relationship, does he mean that "all we've shared" no longer exists at all?

If those are stupid questions, do me a favor and just disregard and carry on with what you were doing!

Oh, P.S.-- wurlitzer, in regard to you "expanding universe" comments : If EVERYTHING is expanding to the same degree and at the same speed then wouldn'T EVERYTHING remain in the exact same relation to each other? (But are they and do they---that is my question)...

if everything is expanding in all directions, the orbits would become larger. in this case, however, time would seem longer, not shorter. did the big bang occur at the center of the universe, or at the edge of it? i dont know.

but i think i know what bob is getting at in his verse. a jet plane moves from one city to another. if that jet were time, it could not return to the original station, but would continue successively to new destinations. time takes us from one love affair to another, sometimes so fast that we can hardly even hold on to the memory of some of them. it is a shame that these love affairs cannot last, just as it is a shame that any given moment must immediatly lose its place as the present and take its place in the past. and the whole lot of life that we are given to live just goes by so god damned fast, and we cant hold on to even a speck if it.

as for memories, they are rarely shared. each person has their own recollection of a shared past. that is all that can be shared, that intangible moment that is lost in the very instant it is lived.

one more thing. if the big bang occurred at the edge of the universe, and is expanding laterally in one direction, then time is very much like a jet plane, and the earth is never in the same location, but moves laterally as well as circularly. if this is true, time is certainly lost, as we can never return to that physical position in the universe where we were at any given moment in the past. this might also explain why sensory things seem so different today than they did in the past. Out past is literally millions of miles away. we are at a completley different place in the universe than were were then.

Here's some wiki to lay on you:

"You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you."

-- Heraclitus, On The Nature of Things, Fragment 41; Quoted by Plato in Cratylus


Variant translations:
You cannot step twice into the same river; for other waters are continually flowing in.
You cannot step twice into the same stream. For as you are stepping in, other waters are ever flowing on to you.
You cannot step twice into the same river.
You cannot step into the same river twice.
It is impossible to step into the same river twice.
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.


Never heard that final one, but I like the addition of "not the same man." This probably added post-Sartre. 8-)

This Moment by Mike Heron
Incredible String Band


This moment
is different
from any
before it
and this moment
is different
it's now


And if I
don't kiss you
That kiss is
untasted
I'll never
no never
get it back


But why should
I want to
I'll be in
the next moment
Sweet moment
Sweet lover
Sweet now


The walls of this room
are different from any before them
They are now
They are now
The air that you breathe
is different from any before it
It is now
It is now


You may think that life is repeating
Repeating
Repeating
Repeating
Repeating

You may think that life is repeating
Oh no
Oh no
Oh no
Oh no
Oh no!

Each moment
is different
from any before it
Each moment
is different
it's now

Not Henry Porter wrote:

QUOTE:
Still, nothing original in you, just comments about "problems" with what other people state and no analysis of your own?

I'm sorry, what's the subtext here, that you've contributed some sort of original thought to this thread? I hate to be the one to break this to you, but every bong-toting goofball that's ever walked the earth beat you to those "nuggets".

raggedclown wrote:

QUOTE:
I pretty much agree with all of that. Except that animals do have some kind of memory, or my mum's cat wouldn't remember when I visit every couple of months that I am the only one in the family that feeds him by hand (which he loves) and act accordingly. Obviously concepts like 'day' 'week' and divisions of time do not mean anything to them, but memory does not depend on those.

Sane commentary on animal cognition from ragged. Is that a seal I hear being broken in the distance?

Not Henry Porter wrote:

QUOTE:
I would probably also consider space an illusion. But space just "is." It is because we perceive it. I do not know why we perceive space, but we do, just like time. But once we try to talk about it, our tongues freeze or else become sharp and cutting.

There's a third option: we spew complete nonsense. Sorry, this is no less confused than your first stab at the topic.

wurlitzer wrote:

QUOTE:
i don't read posts from people who substitute links to wikipedia for original thought. if you want to reference something, link to the original material under discussion, not the unreliable wikipedia entry.

Isn't this rich! Here we have someone regurgitating a load of psychoanalytical horse crap with one breath and objecting to wikipedia's apparent unreliability with the next. Do you realize that, generally speaking, wikipedia is extremely reliable? If you'll allow me one more link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Not Henry Porter wrote:

QUOTE:
I agree. This is not the Heidegger board, just some bobheads a few of whom might enjoy sharing "armshare philosophy" about concepts none of us have any business feeling cocky about.

Who said anything about Heidegger? Are you suggesting that such basic philosophical concepts as idealism and free will are somehow too esoteric for the purposes of this thread? Pardon me for not just accepting any garbage churned out by some third rate thinker as being "original" and worthy of pursuit.

Oh, and, the "Why isn't the earth's orbit expanding along with the universe?" problem has a simple answer: because it's locked into a certain trajectory by the sun's gravitational pull. The expansion of the universe is a generality. It doesn't mean, for instance, that your head is growing larger as I type. Bear in mind that plain language descriptions of the large scale structure of the universe don't portray a shred of the nuance of the underlying mathematical models and are basically horrible perversions.

good post, up to you
you'll be alright in time.
time will pass, in time.

just keep movin' and don't look back.

to quote bob, the future is just a thing of the past.

if you're into jung & freud, check out the film 'a dangerous method'
you'll fall in love with the lead actress kiera knightly who was dynamic in this role.
i could relate to otto gross

my best to all of us.

for zoinks: original writing does not imply writing that is made up of unknown data, but writing that makes something interesting or entertaining out of already known premises. linking to any kind of an article written by somebody other than yourself is not substitute for making a statement of your own concoction. obviously, you dont understand this, or you would have seen the humor in my playful play upon jung's theory of the anima and the rollicking assumptions regarding the play of the expanding universe on the terrestial measurement of time. you also failed to read the title of the post, the last word of which was "Fun." while the rest of us are having fun, you are taking our playful repartee as seriously as an old grouch professor, insistent upon correcting every improbable detail. did the dish run away with your spoon, or what?

wurlitzer wrote:

QUOTE:
for zoinks: original writing does not imply writing that is made up of unknown data, but writing that makes something interesting or entertaining out of already known premises. linking to any kind of an article written by somebody other than yourself is not substitute for making a statement of your own concoction.
obviously, you dont understand this, or you would have seen the humor in my playful play upon jung's theory of the anima and the rollicking assumptions regarding the play of the expanding universe on the terrestial measurement of time.

Every bit of "original writing" (notice the stealthy transition from "original thought" ) you and Not Henry have put forth in this thread is either meaningless, built on ideas that no one has taken seriously in ages, or a complete misrepresentation of actual science...in other words, "bongside chat". But, of course, once I have the nerve to point this out, it all becomes "playful" and "rollicking" riffing (rather than earnest commentary on the topics in question). Of course.

QUOTE:
you also failed to read the title of the post, the last word of which was "Fun." while the rest of us are having fun, you are taking our playful repartee as seriously as an old grouch professor, insistent upon correcting every improbable detail.

If I were correcting "every improbable detail" I would've blown another 5,000 words on this thread by now.

QUOTE:
did the dish run away with your spoon, or what?

Like, man. Snap, snap. [bong hit] Bobby Dylan, man!

When will I ever learn that the surest way to kill a thread is to enter into a dialogue with a troll?

Love the profile pic.

diamond sky wrote:

QUOTE:
good post, up to you
you'll be alright in time.
time will pass, in time.

just keep movin' and don't look back.

to quote bob, the future is just a thing of the past.

if you're into jung & freud, check out the film 'a dangerous method'
you'll fall in love with the lead actress kiera knightly who was dynamic in this role.
i could relate to otto gross B)

my best to all of us.

Hello diamond sky! If I recall correctly, you are of the female persuasion.(if I'm wrong, sorry). Feel free to pop in anytime...Bring your lady-friends...It might lead to a softening of some of the rough edges that seem to be building up around here. Oh and "diamond", say hello to your sister "sapphire-tinted" for me .