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.
Message Board 
