Philosophy Now Forum

Noax wrote:What time is isn't degraded by our inability to measure it to perfect precision.

Time seems not to be an ontological commitment. It is part of physics . . .

Terrapin Station wrote:
(almost) all measurements are estimates. The only exception might be something like
measuring in Planck lengths but it is still debtable whether that is not an estimate too

surreptitious57 wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote: (almost) all measurements are estimates. The only exception might be something like
measuring in Planck lengths but it is still debtable whether that is not an estimate too

The length of a metre is calculated using the speed of light in vacuum which is an absolute and unchanging quantity
Also used for calculating light years. The element caesium is used in atomic clocks that are infinitesimally accurate

Belinda wrote:One personal experience in particular during which I understood that time=change and change=time was when I looked at picture postcards,each of them good quality photos,of the same historic city street from the same vantage point but photographed on separate occasions .

The OP is about measurement of time. There is no natural standard of measurement of time but for instance Greenwich meantime is a widely accepted standard measure of time.

ken wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

ken wrote:
Nothing to disagree with here.

Man has to lasso reality, as best as his conceptions can muster, or else he'd loose his mind, he tries to make sense of things the best his mind can, to quell his fear, so he feels concrete, real, will live forever! Yet it's to no avail, as he dies in the end, regardless! And so shall his legacy, apparently by his own selfishness/ignorance (realization/denial). Or in other words, the battle between his conscious and unconscious minds.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

ken wrote:This would probably be more accurate if you spoke for 'you' only and not for ALL human beings,

OK, I see it, people take offense when one tells them about themselves, especially 'if it seems' to tarnish their self image.

You, nor any human being, could tarnish My image, ever.
In fact your response actually demonstrated my point. I never 'stated' that anyone could, rather I 'implied' that you might, reread what I said verbatim, I said, "if it seems" (to them of course). Everyone has a unique self image, if someone says something 'seemingly' contrary to that image, people defend it. Which says nothing of it's truth value, as it's only what they consciously 'believe', dependent on the extent of their current knowledge. Rather it's their fear of their image being chipped away, as where would they be without it? It's their current foundation. Your response immediately above is your fear of not being seen as mentally strong. And 'all' humans either do or have done it, but knowledge is power. I'm not saying these things to hurt you, I like you because seemingly you try and take as wide a view as possible, and I do the same thing. I'm trying to enlighten you, of course everyone is guarded with respect to such things, for the reasons I've mentioned.

I think people take offense when another tries to speak for them for the very simple reason because 'you' can NOT do it accurately.
Yes one can, if it's one of the things that we all share, one of those things that are fundamental to the current human condition. Ones denial of the truth has no bearing on it. Of course no one can speak of 'everything' that you might think or say.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: But honestly, I've been studying things that make it very apparent, that what I said above is in fact true for all humans.

Any evidence of this for ALL human beings?
Sure!
Could you and will you logically argue this so that it is an unambiguous fact that could not be disputed?
Sure!
You even mention the word 'mind' three times. What is the mind, and, what is the 'his' in "his mind"?
I try not to but sometimes a still use 'him,' most probably because I'm a 'he' and that it's the age old convention. For instance I try and use humankind instead of mankind, but I'm only human so I often fail to remember to do so. As to the mind? It's synonymous with the psyche. Here's it's definition:
mind [mahynd]
noun
1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind.

2. Psychology. the totality of conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities.

And here are the main synonyms:
attention, brain, consciousness, genius, head, imagination, instinct, intellect, judgment, mentality, perception, power, psyche, sense, soul, spirit, talent, thought, wisdom.

Basically it's all that you have learned since day one, and all the associations you have superimposed upon that information.

Also why do you always refer to one gender?
See above.
What is the his conscious mind, AND, what is the unconscious mind?
First I'll give you their definitions then in my words

Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.[3] Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.

The unconscious mind (or the unconscious) consists of the processes in the mind which occur automatically and are not available to introspection, and include thought processes, memories, interests, and motivations.

So I see that the conscious mind is all that, which is stitched together (organized) of all the things one has learned, for them to comfortably make sense of things. While the unconscious mind contains all the facts unadulterated by making things fit some sort of organization or concept. Such that while the truth is known in the unconscious mind, the conscious mind denies that which it doesn't want to acknowledge for the sake of fear, only acknowledging that which causes it to feel safe, secure, wanted, in compliance with current so called norms, etc. Which is why often humans only believe they know themselves, while it's not actually the case. Keep in mind that this is not a black or white situation, rather an ever continuously variable state of shades of gray. While younger humans are further away from their truth and the opposite true of older humans, to varying degrees which are dependent upon fear levels, desire to know the truth, knowledge, honesty, honor, humility, selfishness, selflessness, etc.

As I said previously it would be far more accurate if you spoke for you only. You do not know what ALL other human beings have gone through, what they now know, and what they are capable of doing, am I right?
What one has specifically gone through, knows or is capable of doing, can only be addressed by that individual, what is common between us is that we all have gone through, know or are capable of things, which is enough to know and is our common ground, the fundamentals, which allows us to speak of everyone.

Just maybe there is one human being who has learned things that they have not yet expressed, which just might squash most of or maybe all of what you say is fact for ALL human beings. Just something to think about.
Not true, as I only speak of those things that are known to be common to everyone, always acknowledging those specifics that only the individual knows.

I am not saying you are far off the mark, but if you are going to speak for ALL human beings and also say it is a fact, then you better be able to KNOW what you are talking about and be able to back up absolutely everything you say.
I can and I do.

Really I am not that interested in your answers to these questions as I know where you are coming from and what you are getting at. Those questions are just put there for you think about if and how you could really answer them.
Yet I answered them, because I need to ensure my meaning is clear, else I do neither one of us any good.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:And I always draw from other disciplines, people, and times when considering somethings truth value.

Do you think that is much different from what all people do when considering somethings truth value?
Surely one would hope not, but as to what individuals might find important, do, or be knowledgeable of, I surely cannot say. It's really all about ones forte. People know lots more than I do about football, basketball, brain surgery, etc, etc, etc. Since the age of 4 my forte has been observing people, so as to understand their motivations. According to some PhD's in psychology, it's why many don't like me. They said that I'm so accomplished that I often know what people are going to say before they say it, such that I cut them off, as their words are not required, which really pisses them off. I'm sure you can imagine. Though it would indeed be nice if everyone could be experts on everything. It's just not currently humanly possible.

That way is one way, but there is, I found, another and dare I say it better way for not just considering something truth value but actually discovering the Truth of ALL things.
Well, at this point, just hearing you say it's the case, without proof, excuse me for doubting that it's possible. It's ironic that just prior to this, I stated how it's impossible for humans to know everything. I surely hope this isn't your segue into professing your belief in your god.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

ken wrote: but I totally understand where you are coming from. That is generally how human beings think and conceptualize and because of fear why they do the things they do.

There's a whole lot about humans that many are unaware.

Just like there is a whole lot about human beings that you, yourself, are unaware of, right?
Obviously I meant relative to my understanding and especially to psychologists. But it's true that since as yet no one knows everything about humans, the totality of what can be known, cannot be quantified. So no ones knowledge of what can't as yet be quantified can be relatively quantified.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Many of the 'whys' people do as they do, are completely unknown to them, even for you and I, although neither one of us might like to admit it.

What do you mean by "you and I"? I know you are unaware of some of the 'whys' you, yourself, do. BUT, 'I' actually do KNOW WHY ALL human beings think and do, absolutely every thing that they actually think and do.
Sorry but that's probably just not currently possible, as I surely would have heard of the breakthrough.

That is WHY I suggest you speak for you ONLY. You do NOT KNOW what I KNOW.
Never said I knew the extent of your knowledge, but if you believe it's complete, you're almost certainly incorrect. And you're also incorrect that as to some things I can't speak of all people, because I can.

Name one meaningful 'why' that you think that I do NOT know.
There is no such thing as mind reading, especially with many miles between the minds.

THEN, name all the ones that you do not know, and, if you like I can help uncover them for you. I actually prefer to not give the answers, but I certainly do like to show you how you can find the answers by yourself.
Patting oneself on the back is also about fear. And again we all do it, some more than others, as usual.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Humans not only fear many things external to them like lions, bears, lightening bolts, and forest fires, but they also fear being fearful, being known as being fearful, not being accepted in a group, being identified with a controversial group, looking bad in their peers eyes, and the list goes on and on, including the opposites of those things I just mentioned, depending upon the individual.

Yes there is obviously a lot of truth in what you are saying here. BUT, if and when you discover the fundamental WHY, then I would suggest that you then do have a right to speak for ALL human beings, however, as you will also discover and what comes with the understanding and knowing of the fundamental WHY of every human being's thinking and doing IS the loss of the egotistical self in thinking that you want to speak for others.
Everyone wants to be effectual, to play an important part, to contribute, to have worth amongst their fellow humans, but no one knows everything about any one thing, let alone everything.

egotism [ee-guh-tiz-uh m, eg-uh-]
noun
1. excessive and objectionable reference to oneself in conversation or writing; conceit; boastfulness.
2. selfishness; self-centeredness; egoism.

It's not egotistical to speak of that which one knows, pay attention to the definitions above. We all speak of what we believe we know, what else could we speak of? And there is a difference between speaking 'for' others and speaking 'about' others. I speak 'about' others not 'for' others. That they speak 'for' themselves is how I can speak 'about' them. But make no mistake, there are why's people do as they do, which are common amongst all peoples, that are fundamental to the current human condition.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:One of the more fundamental things to consider in understanding my words truth factor, came from Darwin, i.e., "survival of the fittest," in fact all animals prime directive is to live at all costs. They will do anything they can to achieve this goal, i.e., lie, cheat or steal, sometimes even going so far as to kill/murder, if we believe somehow a situation threatens our existence.

We are 'all' the culmination of those things we have been exposed to, our experiences, whether understood or not, it makes no difference. To know anything is to know that which others have said throughout history. Actually everything we learn is based upon historical data, as no human can learn from the future. When we are born we are empty knowledge except for basic instincts.

Did you not work this out by yourself and know this already? You do NOT need to read other people's writings to find and understand this.
See immediately above.

That knowledge comes naturally when understanding other factors. For example as most parents are sub-consciously suggesting when they say they would do anything for their child is that keeping our species is of the highest order. If the Truth be known 'our' existence means 'our species', not one's own individual personal self. That would just be ludicrous to even try to put "our" own individual personal self's existence in front of 'our' species existence. Although there is quite a lot of truth in what you say, but understanding the difference from the personal self and the real and true Self is needed to be understood first, as well as quite a few other things also, which this forum is in no way extensive enough for this to be done right now.
Sure, our species can exist without us individuals existing, but us individuals can't exist without our species existing. Sounds like you're trying to say that your "personal self and real true self" are my conscious and unconscious minds, respectively. This forum in no way limits what we are capable of talking about, sounds like your train of thought derailed.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The reason it's so ingrained in the animals psyche is because it's the longest lived fear, the fear of death, and dates back to when life first came to exist in the primordial ooze, about four billion years ago. It's to be found in every one of the 100 trillion cells that make up an adult human body. Single cells have been shown to swim away from dangerous substances and towards food; the basis for our fear not to die, instead to survive.

That is what each human being does UNTIL they each discover WHO/WHAT they really are.
I beg to differ. Everyone fears death. That they attempt to cover it up is no surprise, as I have said, people also fear being known as being fearful.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

ken wrote: But human beings do not necessarily behave in the most intelligent of ways, always. In fact if very often at all actually.

I agree, look at me, I've already told you in another thread that I was cussing and being somewhat mean because of my life's tribulations. I'm sure that you too are able to draw upon your understanding of some of your inconsistencies to say what you have just said.

Through a truly Honest and Open reflection, of one's self, with a desire to seriously Want to change for the better IS HOW ALL meaningful questions can and WILL be answered.
Yep!

By the way there is NO "life's tribulations", but there is a perspective from which tribulations in Life are created.
Wrong, say a stranger comes up behind you and literally stabs you in the back, there is no perspective of a sane mind that is responsible for that or the ensuing tribulations. The same could be said of cancer, as well as other life threatening conditions.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:But there is still much about ourselves that we don't fully understand.

Again, I would suggest you speak ONLY for yourself here. Again, you do not yet know what I KNOW.
I don't have to know what you know, only that no one knows it all.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Even scientists are still trying to fully fathom the human brain.

Just sometimes scientists, and human beings, CAN be looking, from the wrong perspective. There is actually another way of looking, which allows what is being sought after to be found much, much quicker, than is currently available now.
Sorry, only science and the scientific method can yield anything close to the truth. Share your alternative, if you dare.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

ken wrote:
But I am certainly not here on this board for any of those reasons,

Believe it or not, we all are, to some degree or another.

That may be what you, yourself, do but I certainly do not do that.
Yet you have proven otherwise throughout this message of yours.

I said, "I am certainly not here on this board for any of those reasons". Do you not believe Me?
To say such things means you haven't studied much if any psychology.

I am actually here to learn how to express better so that I can be better understood and so that I can convey My messages more clearly and succinctly. I want to be heard, properly, for once and for ALL.
Good! Of course studying English and increasing your vocabulary are far better avenues to explore with such an endeavor.

I am actually NOT creating any drama, although I totally accept others may see it differently. I am here to learn how to express the true Self better and actually one thing I want to show is how human beings actually exist far longer than they could have ever imagined now, and how and when they actually pass over/away, which by the way ALL happens here in this ONE and only Life.
You seemingly misunderstood. We all create drama so as to try and take our minds off the inevitable. Sounds like you're flirting with the god issue again.


But that is for a completely other story.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:That we are unconscious of it, is no surprise.

No it is of no surprise to Me, and neither is ALL the other things that you are still unconsciously aware of yet.
You should share these revelations of yours.

WHY human beings are still unconscious of all the meaningful things in Life is totally understandable and is actually related exactly to WHY all human beings think and do what they think and do.
Again, expound.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

ken wrote: but then again I am always being ridiculed for nearly always thinking and doing WRONGLY or differently from what other human beings think and do.

Here on this board? If so, get used to it. Not that I'm an expert by any means, obviously, but command of the English language is paramount here on this forum. To this day, I often say things that seem to be cryptic to others ears. Because I'm getting older, with ever failing health, in decline of my peak, on top of the fact that I was never that good in the first place, and that since I went to university, I never really kept up, practiced, if you will, I believe many have had to adjust to my way of saying things, while many don't even try. Actually my vocabulary has grown a bit and I'm more relaxed with peoples condescending ways, and I can on occasion say things in such a way as to command the attention of some, and they get me. Of course as you've seen, I still sometimes vent. I really have to instead, incorporate it into a workout routine.

No not just here in this forum, but just about anywhere I go. When I start talking the full truth of who 'I' am and expressing the true Self, then I always have to pull back on what I reveal and how much I reveal. Most people are not yet ready for that revelation.
Shoot, I'm not afraid of anything you might have to offer, though I may present critical argument, hopefully you're capable of handling it, of course that's up to you.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

ken wrote:I tend NOT to use past human beings thinking and words for guidance, I discovered I can NOT clarify with them what they were actually meaning.

I do understand that sometimes it's hard to understand age old dialects. I have found that if one rereads as many times as necessary, soon their meaning becomes apparent. But I agree with Kant and the others view of time and space, as stated above in your quote of my quote of wikipedia.

ken wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The only thing I have really alluded to here in this thread is that both 'time' and 'space' can be seen as a thing AND seen as not an actual thing that exists, but as a thing that humans dreamed up, invented and created to use to describe in measurements the distance between two physical things, i.e., space, or the distance between two occurring events, i.e., time. In other words I have just been trying to explain that what is 'seen' IS relative to the observer. As obvious leo has pointed out that what he sees is 'space' does NOT exist but time does, whilst others will say what they 'see' is 'time' does NOT exist but space does.

I like this because you still cling to the other thread dealing with relativity, while, whether knowingly or not, seemingly try and attempt to mend Leo and my fence of disagreement. Supposedly Leo just died recently. Before doing so stating that he would not be around much because he wanted to spend more time on his life's philosophical work. If in fact it's true, and if I had known of his closeness with his final day, I probably wouldn't have given him so much grief in our arguments. I would have wanted to give him the gift of calm so as to help him realize more assuredly, that he'd completed his life's works, that in the end he'd done it, that his life was worth all that, which he'd wanted it to account for. Such that he'd peacefully return from whence he'd came, the mighty universe!

Actually it was completely unknowingly if I was attempting to mend yours and leo's fence of disagreement.
Coincidence it is then.

My actually work, which WILL be done, is to knock down every fence of disagreement and showing ONLY what is important - agreement. This I WILL do by showing, with evidence, how the Mind and the brain can actually together in peace, although as shown throughout this board/forum they can actually also working opposingly.
Do you live in a country where English is the first language?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Here it's raining now, the tears of mother earth, so fitting for my closure of Leo's return, as the rain and I share. When it comes to death, we almost always initially cling to denial!

What do you mean by 'denial'?
Here you go, something from wikipedia:

The Kübler-Ross model, or the five stages of grief, postulates a series of emotions experienced by survivors of an intimate's death, wherein the five stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Leo and I certainly weren't intimate's, but I don't see it as a necessary qualification anyway.

I never have been in denial of death, besides at a very young age when I was totally unaware of death. Although on occasions I wished I was never born I have truly never really wanted to die. And although I want to keep living forever, I am never in denial that this body, besides some truly amazing breakthrough, will stop breathing and pumping blood one day.
The denial of death is one of those things that's a function of fear and that dance between the conscious and unconscious minds that I covered earlier.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The rain and I have a very special relationship, as strange as that might sound.

That does NOT sound strange at all to Me. i have experienced that relationship also. I KNOW where you are coming from there.
While it might be similar, I'm sure the circumstances under which it was initiated is quite different.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I tend to believe in Gaia and the Universe!

Peace Ken, peace!

I tend to NOT believe in any thing, besides the Self, but then that could well be ONE, and the same, with the Universe.
Well we are certainly of the universe.


I KNOW what the answer is. I just keep some things a mystery until ALL is revealed.
Well please reveal this answer that is a mystery, no need to keep it to yourself, except for your fear, that is.

=SpheresOfBalanceGreenwich meantime, contrasted by the other 23 time zones, is simply a location with which to reference any particular moment in time universally. In the US Navy it's called time Zulu. As to time itself, humans have simply plucked arbitrary measure out of thin air that seems to make the most sense to them. It's their way to cope with sequence. Time, as a thing in and of itself, cannot be measured directly, because it doesn't actually exist. We just superimpose our arbitrary measure over the physical properties of the universe.

prothero wrote:

=SpheresOfBalanceGreenwich meantime, contrasted by the other 23 time zones, is simply a location with which to reference any particular moment in time universally. In the US Navy it's called time Zulu. As to time itself, humans have simply plucked arbitrary measure out of thin air that seems to make the most sense to them. It's their way to cope with sequence. Time, as a thing in and of itself, cannot be measured directly, because it doesn't actually exist. We just superimpose our arbitrary measure over the physical properties of the universe.

Time (in the sense of Newton) as some universal, fixed, absolute, independent aspect of nature does not exist.

There is no attainable universal “now” since there is no view from nowhere, no view from everywhere. All observations take place from a fixed location in space and time and as in relativity the notion of simultaneous is a matter of reference. Even the sequencing of events is only possible for causally related events.

All measurements of time refer to some other process or activity, the oscillation of a quartz crystal, the turning of the earth, the rotation of the earth around the sun, the cycles of the moon, cesium atom vibrations, etc. In the absence of change time has no meaning. Time is merely an abstracted notion from the flow, the flux that is reality. Reality (the universe) is not a thing, but instead is a process and the one constant feature of reality is process. Time in this sense (as an abstraction from change) is universal.

The rate at which processes occur (chemical, biological, physical) varies according to the gravitational or inertial frame in which they are placed. So even atomic clocks run at different rates depending on their distance from the earth and their acceleration frame (the famous time dilation or twin paradox of Einstein).

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I see you've managed to regurgitate the theories of others. Anyone can do that! Just read and paraphrase, and become a mindless clone, hah!

But it seems you forgot the effects of electromagnetic energy, and electomotive force as it pertains to changing process's. You do realize that the earth is surrounded by a magnetosphere, and is constantly being bombarded by the solar winds (electromagnetic radiation), don't you? When one moves those cesium atoms relative to the earths gravitational pull, they are also moving them relative to it's electromagnetic field, it's lines of flux, and the effects of that electromagnetic radiation. So I see the findings of so called proofs as to time dilation as inconclusive. I mean we are in fact talking of merely nanoseconds in deviation. Not enough controls were or can be put into place so as to necessarily isolate one potential cause. Of course your understanding may vary!

Noax wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I see you've managed to regurgitate the theories of others. Anyone can do that! Just read and paraphrase, and become a mindless clone, hah!

I would not know how to express that information without regurgitation of the work of others that I have been taught. That might make me a mindless clone, but at least an educated one. Yes, anyone can do that. Why didn't you?

But it seems you forgot the effects of electromagnetic energy, and electomotive force as it pertains to changing process's. You do realize that the earth is surrounded by a magnetosphere, and is constantly being bombarded by the solar winds (electromagnetic radiation), don't you? When one moves those cesium atoms relative to the earths gravitational pull, they are also moving them relative to it's electromagnetic field, it's lines of flux, and the effects of that electromagnetic radiation. So I see the findings of so called proofs as to time dilation as inconclusive. I mean we are in fact talking of merely nanoseconds in deviation. Not enough controls were or can be put into place so as to necessarily isolate one potential cause. Of course your understanding may vary!

So you have a better model that makes alternate predictions that can be validated? I'll even permit your mindless regurgitation of the work of another (or a link is nice).

Belinda wrote:

One personal experience in particular during which I understood that time=change and change=time was when I looked at picture postcards,each of them good quality photos,of the same historic city street from the same vantage point but photographed on separate occasions .

The OP is about measurement of time. There is no natural standard of measurement of time but for instance Greenwich meantime is a widely accepted standard measure of time.

Greenwich meantime, contrasted by the other 23 time zones, is simply a location with which to reference any particular moment in time universally. In the US Navy it's called time Zulu. As to time itself, humans have simply plucked arbitrary measure out of thin air that seems to make the most sense to them. It's their way to cope with sequence. Time, as a thing in and of itself, cannot be measured directly, because it doesn't actually exist. We just superimpose our arbitrary measure over the physical properties of the universe.

Noax wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I see you've managed to regurgitate the theories of others. Anyone can do that! Just read and paraphrase, and become a mindless clone, hah!

I would not know how to express that information without regurgitation of the work of others that I have been taught. That might make me a mindless clone, but at least an educated one. Yes, anyone can do that. Why didn't you?
First, I wasn't talking to you; mindless clone or mob wanna be? Second I'm educated. And lastly Because neither I nor you know enough about their work to know no errors were made, so all we can do is take it on faith, like many believe in their gods. I have thought of things that must be considered to ensure the conclusions accuracy. Why didn't/couldn't you?

But it seems you forgot the effects of electromagnetic energy, and electomotive force as it pertains to changing process's. You do realize that the earth is surrounded by a magnetosphere, and is constantly being bombarded by the solar winds (electromagnetic radiation), don't you? When one moves those cesium atoms relative to the earths gravitational pull, they are also moving them relative to it's electromagnetic field, it's lines of flux, and the effects of that electromagnetic radiation. So I see the findings of so called proofs as to time dilation as inconclusive. I mean we are in fact talking of merely nanoseconds in deviation. Not enough controls were or can be put into place so as to necessarily isolate one potential cause. Of course your understanding may vary!

So you have a better model that makes alternate predictions that can be validated? I'll even permit your mindless regurgitation of the work of another (or a link is nice).
You've simply proven that all you can be is a mindless clone, believing the strength of your argument comes from your ignorant hero worship, I'm sorry.

prothero wrote:

Noax wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I see you've managed to regurgitate the theories of others. Anyone can do that! Just read and paraphrase, and become a mindless clone, hah!

I would not know how to express that information without regurgitation of the work of others that I have been taught. That might make me a mindless clone, but at least an educated one. Yes, anyone can do that. Why didn't you?

But it seems you forgot the effects of electromagnetic energy, and electomotive force as it pertains to changing process's. You do realize that the earth is surrounded by a magnetosphere, and is constantly being bombarded by the solar winds (electromagnetic radiation), don't you? When one moves those cesium atoms relative to the earths gravitational pull, they are also moving them relative to it's electromagnetic field, it's lines of flux, and the effects of that electromagnetic radiation. So I see the findings of so called proofs as to time dilation as inconclusive. I mean we are in fact talking of merely nanoseconds in deviation. Not enough controls were or can be put into place so as to necessarily isolate one potential cause. Of course your understanding may vary!

So you have a better model that makes alternate predictions that can be validated? I'll even permit your mindless regurgitation of the work of another (or a link is nice).

Thank you for saving me the trouble. There are quite enough people who just make things up our of thin air and choose to ignore the science behind the subjects under discussion. There is quite a lot of science behind subjects like consciousness, time and space. Philosophers who fail to educate themselves or choose to ignore the science basically are saying reason and evidence have no connection to philosophy. That is a position which does nothing to elevate philosophy.
And all these preconceived notions, that you have so ignorantly projected, make you seem a fool! Tell me "all" the specifics as it pertains to the time dilation experiment. If you can't, put on the dunce cap and sit in the corner, because you're simply a mindless clone, that ignorantly believes your strength comes from your hero worship!!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Nothing is worse than idiots citing the work of others, because they'd have no clue otherwise, then defending others work with fervor as if they could possibly 'know' with certainty. This is a philosophy forum which in fact is the love of wisdom, and the quest to attain truth in knowledge. To truly belong here, try and work the problems for yourself, as that's what philosophy is all about, not simply parroting others work, then believing you've actually accomplished something for yourself!