Re: The Kaleidoscope of Next
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: The Kaleidoscope of Next         

Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: John Jones
Date: Dec 5, 2007 11:40

On Dec 5, 4:42 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2:11 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Dec 4, 6:56�am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Dec 3, 9:44 am, John Jones aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Just what is going on with 'next' or sequence? after all, it is only
>>>> one thing, then another thing. �Let's start off our 'nexts' with
>>>> zero.
>
>>>> zero...infinitesimal...finite...infinite
>
>>>> Zero convinces us that we can have a number without making the effort.
>>>> Next we reach the foggy domain of infinitesimals where number becomes
>>>> more than zero yet less than finite. We then enter finite. Carrying
>>>> on, we reach infinite.
>
>>>> Punctuating this 'sequence of 'next's' we find numbers, like pi, that
>>>> stick out like hedgehog spines. How do these suddenly emerge? Oddly,
>>>> sequence does not seem to establish transitional boundaries between
>>>> each of these domains or entities.
>
>>>> Have I left any entities out? Probably. But why is one thing after
>>>> another, why is 'next', so productive of domains and entities, so
>>>> kaleidoscopic?
>
>>> Since consciousness really happens during the transition from some
>>> states of configuration in the brain to others, it is a irriducable
>>> emergent and contextual process bound in clock time. Of course it is
>>> lost but the structures that produced it are altered by producing it
>>> over the span of the transition. So the present configuration
>>> represents all you know and remember when it transits through
>>> "The_Processing_Cycle" and self-alters itself
>>> progressively. ...fleeting associations create an arrow of time by
>>> organizational change, or I should say that the reference for time is
>>> probably the length of moments. In a similar way that we measure space
>>> with reference to the size of our body parts we attribute our selves
>>> onto the world and see how long it is.
>
>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> What do they call that idea where what we experience is what actually
>> happens in the brain?-
>
> They call it a scientific theory with evidence, mainly from
> malfunctioning parts of the brain and how experience is altered when
> they malfunction. The theory of neuroscience.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If malfunctioning is not identified by experience, then why is
malfunctioning important? how else would it be identified?
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!