Cadmus

I agree that people should only have an abortion if there is a pretty good reason for doing so. However, I suspect that no one volunteers for an abortion without what that person thinks is a good reason for doing so. Do you think that a large percentage of people who have abortions do not believe that they have a pretty good reason for doing so? I think that whether or not you personally agree that their reasons are good or not should not be relevant to their decision as to whether or not their reasons are sufficiently good.

I think that it is fair to say that everyone experiences pain at an unconcious level. I don't know how to answer you what it was like. Have you ever felt pain? If you remember your experience of pain, then I think that it is safe to suggest that you experienced that pain at a conscious level. However, did the pain go from non-existence to awareness instantaneously, like a car going from 0 to 60 instantaneouslY? By this, I mean to suggest that it is possible for pain to progress in such a way that your body is in discomfort and that there is pain occuring even before your conscous mind becomes aware of it. The degree of discomfort need not reach the level that you are consciously aware of it before it can be classified as pain, I think.

I don't think so. To experience pain requires only a brain to understand pain and a nervous system to transport messages that can be interpreted as pain. I think so. Consciousness is a higher brain activity. Pain is definitely a lower brain activity.

Yes, in my opinion. The entire universe is a consciousness, in my opinion. Our species, unlike rocks, is able to tap into the universal consciousness to some degree, a few dimensions worth. In other words, I consider consciousness to be the interaction of the space-time within the universe.

Precisely. Objects are not located "in" space that is a distinct entity. Objects are space-time. The universe that we now recognize is composed of space-time, some units of which are large enough that we recognize them as objects.

Sure. They are objects n space-time, and they are composed of space-time.

I do not think that it is optimal to discuss space outside of its context of time. There is only space-time. To separate space from time is to introduce incompleteness. More specfically to answer your question, when you suggest that objects move through space or through time, I get the impression that you are considering the objects to be distinct from the space and the time through which they are moving. I disagree with this. Any object that you can speak of is part of the matrix of space-time. Objects are composed of space that are in motion through time, they are objects in space-time. All objects in space-time are in motion. Everything is in motion through the matrix of space-time that composes the universe that we are recognize now. You ask how an object can not move through space or time alone. Any object that moves through space requires time for that motion. Therefore, all motion through space requires time. All motion through time requires motion through space because nothing in the universe can ever be static with respect to the entire universe. Therefore, all motion through time requires space. Everything is always in motion through space-time. Nothing can ever really be in motion through space yet not time or through time yet not space in the context of the entire universe.

I think that the only thing that is possible is to discuss what you might possibly mean by "traveling back in time". If you were to travel back in time, such travel would take place in your future. Therefore, you would be traveling into the future. If you were to travel into the past, you would be there. However, you were not there the previous time. Therefore, this would not be the past that was. Lastly, the entire universe has moved through time since the past. To travel into the past would require the entire universe to roll back to a previous stage, which I consider impossible under any circumstances, but certainly given that part of the entire universe, namely you, would not roll back to the past but would roll forward to the past, a contradiction in terms.

I will offer a comment. This is just my subjective opinion, of course. I think that the idea that you proposed is not possible at all. You say that we live in a 3 dimensional world. How do you know? Really? Some physicists are suggesting that there are 10 or more dimensions. How can you claim for a fact that we live in a 3 d world? Anyway, all objects that humans are aware of exist in at least 3 dimensions. Perhaps more. I think that nothing can exist in 2 dimensions. You propose rats that are devoid of height. Are you suggesting that their height is infinitely small? If so, I will challenge your proposal of infinity in space. I contend that there is no existence that has infinite smallness in any dimension. I get the impression that what you are suggesting is not something that exists in 2 dimensions. but the science fiction concept that something exists in an "alternate" dimension. Whatever this might mean, and however possible it might be, I do not think that anything in the universe can have existence in less than 3 dimensions. Of course, it is possible for humans to be aware of less than 3 dimensions, just as most science types believe that they recognize existence to be in 3 dimensions.

I will not call you wrong. However, I would like to challenge what you call a dimension. I think that you are perhaps considering that "we" move through space, and in the same way that we move through time. I disagree with this. I think that it is not that objects that are not space move through space which is distinct from them, but rather that objects are space. All objects in space must exist in time, and therefore to say that objects move through space is also incomplete. I would suggest that objects exist in space-time, and that objects in space-time move through space-time. Objects exist in space-time. Time is in motion, forward. Space is also in motion, over time. Objects that exist in space-time cannot help but be in motion through space and in motion through time. Objects in space-time must always be in motion through space-time. Objects in space-time are space-time, and are not distinct from space or time. When you suggest that time "is" a dimension, I really have no idea what you might mean by that. Can you elaborate?

Time is always in motion, forward.

If I understand your correctly, then I disagree. Space is the presence of something.