Tub

Apologies for attributing Phi's quote to you, ( apologies to Phi, too ), and thanks for correcting me.

Oh dear, dear: " buTted in " ? That's terrible - you should be ashamed of yourself, lol. I'll be interested to see how Eise replies , if he does, buT even he might not find it too eisEy. I recently came upon a remark by Bertrand Russell who said that Philosophy lacks the " ethical neutrality " of Science: "..until we have learnt to think .. in ethically neutral terms, we have not arrived at a scientific attitude in Philosophy; and until we have arrived at such an attitude, it is hardly to be hoped that Philosophy will achieve any solid results "*. Quite a claim, but it was written in the very early 20th century so perhaps modern Philosophers think differently now. * Bertrand Russell. " Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays ". ( Free to download and read on the http://bookviser.com/ app ).

Ha,Ha....... nice to see some good-natured banter between you fellahs among all the weightier stuff. Anyway, i'd just like to quickly* butt in and out with an observation that i expropriated from Denis Alexander's blog " The Various Meanings of Concordism " ( https://biologos.org/author/denis-alexander/ ); he was actually writing about science and religion but i think it applies here too: " Science and... Philosophy...each have their own integrity as methods of inquiry, constructing their own models of reality without mutual interference. " Peaceful co-existence is the key, i think - each discipline contributes their own pieces to the great jigsaw of knowledge and understanding and can compliment each other without stepping on each others' toes: as Eise said, Science supplies the " how? " and Philosophy the " why? ". Science can explain how i laugh, Philosophy can tell me why i laugh etc. So i think it is a little unnecessary to compare them with each other, they're just different , like a tiger is different to a toadstool. No real need to compare. * Yes, i know i shouldn't split infinitives - i just blame William Shatner....... for everything!

Nervice breakdown ? Scool lesson ?

Obviously not, SJ, but that's due to the physical action of microchips reacting to a signal - if i took the battery out, the time-display on my phone would disappear but time itself wouldn't come to a halt, and when i put the battery back in, the phone would pick up the new signal again,so it's not the phone that's generating time. I'm glad you edited that post, Strange! Climbing a mountain is hard enough by itself, never mind cleaning one! ( Posting on a smartphone ? ). Thanks, anyway. Thanks, swansont. I imagine relativistic effects went unnoticed before Einstein and until we developed techniques and instruments sensitive enough to measure them.

Does this mean then, that time has no existence without the observer so time has no intrinsic existence, which is what Mr Parker was getting at? Didn't Einstein say something like "... the moon still exists even if i don't observe it " so perhaps we could say the same thing about time? Or what would happen to time without the observer - would it simply go on pause and then pick up from the same point when observed again or just " flow " on? Didn't all time begin simultaneously at the " Big Bang " ? I'm puzzled. Thanks. I didn't know about UTC. In effect,then, we have created an absolute time that isn't observer dependent - as if we had all synchronized our watches - and, if that was the case and there was only UTC, would that have any impact on our acceptance of relativity?

Ha,Ha. Excellent. While not being a complete " time-denier ", i do have a little sympathy for Mr. Parker. Time is definitely a useful and necessary measuring tool for science and daily life, but, like the sea has an absolute bottom and relative depths, i think there could be an absolute time and relative time: here in England, by the clock, we are something like 5 hours " ahead " of America, but about 12 hours " behind " Australia ( relative time ) and yet we all exist in the same, simultaneous moment ( absolute time ), so perhaps there's a case for both aspects. P.S. It's 11.57 a.m GMT as i post this.

Hello again, Gee. It seems that Tar is hors de combat just now so, if i may , i'd just like to make a little intervention. Forgive my savage precis of your post - i can't take issue with anything you wrote ( even if i wanted to, haha ), and i would agree that thought is part of consciousness, and both are material functions of the brain, but i'd like to ask you if you think that consciousness has any relationship with intelligence? I ask this because i think that intelligence is linked to sensitivity and, as far as i can ascertain, supersensible consciousness, like intellect, is not sensitive in itself, and this aspect of consciousness needs intelligence more than vice versa. I'm also a little reluctant to divide consciousness ( into separate "inner " and "outer " ),parts as i think the consciousness that sees and hears the skylark is the same consciousness that writes the poem about it; perhaps it is attention that ebbs and flows between the two - i know that , if i am thinking deeply about something, i am unconscious of my surroundings and, on the other hand, if i am engrossed in a gripping tv programme, i am completely unconscious of myself until i " come to my senses " again. I think ,then, that it could be that sensitivity/intelligence has evolved separately and later than consciousness as Life, as a whole, became more complex. So,relating back to your original OP, i think that it isn't necessary for consciousness to evolve any further, but it is vital that intelligence and sensitivity do.

Thanks for the Penrose. That line "..certain quantum physicists hold different views at the same time. " made me smile. I've ordered the book, along with another of his, ( Consciousness and the Universe: Quantum Physics, Evolution, Brain and Mind ) so he can thank you too for a few more royalties.

Unlike your good self, studiot, i'm not qualified enough to criticize the scientific content of that BBC programme ( The Secrets of Quantum Physics ), but i do agree about the overall presentation style - though perhaps that is more due to the whims of the director and producer of the programme , rather than Prof.A-K's choice: i suppose they have to make the programme as visually entertaining as possible in the time available. I'm sure he could make the programme with much more depth but that might go over the heads of the largest target audience - interested amateurs like myself - and scientists wouldn't need to watch anyway. I did enjoy it - at my level - but if, as you say, the programme contains somewhat inaccurate information, then that can't be overlooked. Whatever the case, i'll watch next week's episode a little more warily. Thanks. Here's another link you may find helpful: http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2014/02/quantum-entanglement-who-is-right.html

I think there is no doubt that consciousness has a causal effect in the world: consciousness is the seat of our individual and collective identity and, since time began, most, if not all of human conflict, whether tribal, national, racial, religious, political or even inter- and intra-personal, has been caused by a clash of identities.The sad problem is that we don't seem to realize that, for all their impact, these psychological identities are artificial and superficial. ( Colossi with feet of clay ). For instance i was born in England to Christian parents, but i wasn't " born " English or Christian - upbringing, education and society nurtured and built-up this identity for me so it was a manufactured identity, imposed on me, which i later set aside; a manufactured identity that i inherited and which initially conditioned my brain to act/react in certain pre-defined ways which could be said to negate free-will in that respect, making me the programmed machine of ( someone else's ) fixed ideas. I think this happens to most people. Similarly, for example, a child born tomorrow in Iran, say, will inherit the Iranian and Islamic identity of its parents who previously inherited that same identity from their parents and so on, going back hundreds of years, just as Christians , Hindus etc., having inherited the burden of thousands of years of the past from their forebears, will pass-on the onerous burden of that past to their children and so on in aeternae. In this way, the past, with all its endless conflict, becomes the present and will in due course become the future, unless, through insight and understanding, the falseness of separative identity is seen. It could be said that these inherited identities are the real " sins of the fathers " that cause the continuation of all our past turmoil as human beings. We need look no further than the benighted Middle East today: all those separate collective identities at each other's throats, and the pity of it is that all those conscious identities have been inherited by, and imposed on, " new " people who really should have no psychological connection to the past adversity that poisons the present. It would be naive to think that human relations will ever be perfect, but some of this present and inherited animosity could surely be alleviated by some small understanding of the workings of that inherited identity that is harmful. Observing one's own consciousness, ( being a " light unto oneself " ), which is all we can do, we can see this identity in action - not as a separate entity watching from outside, ( that infamous "ghost in the machine " ), but as consciousness observing itself: the actor watching from the wings is also part of the play. Obviously, some sort of identity is necessary for normal social interaction and we can't be completely free of identity but we can be free from identity, though only as an individual, ( which, we know, means "undivided " ), and mostly alone, ( which, we know too, means "all one " ). Then we can look at others with fresh eyes, completely free from the past that so colours our perception. So i really feel that the understanding of identity, which shapes consciousness, is vital to ending the thousands of years of human division and conflict, and the understanding of that consciousness as the seat of identity is intrinsic to ending that baleful influence of our collective past. This understanding and awareness deprives the false, artificial identity of some of its vitality so that insight, intelligence and sensitivity, which are not part of that consciousness, can begin to act for the benefit of all, even though it is only as individuals that we can reclaim the authentic identity of a human being. I haven't, sadly, but a few exceptional people have and we can all learn from them.

Again, DrP, are you sure? Tortoises may not be as thick as they look - after all they've been around for millions of years and, if going by your picture, you're a bass-player, it might be a very, very close call. No offence....honestly.

Hello Stick72. Funnily enough, there was a programme on BBC tv last night ( The Secrets Of Quantum Physics ), which touched on your question : can Bohr and Einstein both be right ? One answer came from a late Irish scientist/philosopher, John Stewart Bell, who said: " Einstein was consistent, clear, down-to-earth and wrong. Bohr was inconsistent, unclear, wilfully obscure and right ". I don't know enough to say if that's the end of the debate but it's certainly a definite answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell

Ha,ha..... touche! So go for it, DrP - but make it just 300 metres to be on the safe side.

Are you sure DrP? Some of those tortoises can move at 5mph! And if it's Russian, forget it !

Thanks.

Why is it not just E=mc? Why is the equation Squared?

That philosopher may have been Anaximander, sometimes known as " The Father of Cosmology ", who was said to be the first to embrace the concept of infinity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology) Even if it wasn't him and it was some other philosopher, the idea that " no event can ever happen " would mean that he never said that anyway but the fact that he did completely contradicts him.

Hello, fudgetusk. I'm neither Greek,nor a philosopher, sadly, but this is interesting so i'll try to give some reply - always remembering that a reply isn't always an answer. Anyway, as i see it, the past has no existence so no duration and if something doesn't exist, or have any duration, can it be said to be infinite? If the past ( or the future ) doesn't exist, then there is only the present " Now ", with no time existing before or after it. The "Now " must therefore be timeless and, if it is timeless, time cannot accumulate as the past so the past cannot be infinite. Again, if the " Now " is timeless, it must always be new - never happened before, never happen again - and can something new have a past? The Universe can never be the same thing twice and the whole movement of Life is in the present " Now ", so everything that happens only happens in that present and so can never be set back infinitely: the present can never be the past, and vice-versa. Of course we have the very necessary and useful time of our clocks and calendars but these are psychological concepts and the intellectual product of memory and without these devices does time exist at all? So, after all that rambling, i would have to say that ,for me at least, the past is not infinite. P. S. Who was the Philosopher? Was it Zeno ?

Thanks, koti.

Something similar: if i stand in my garden on a sunny day, the Sun's rays feel warm on my face, but if astronauts were to venture outside the ISS, without protective clothing, they would quickly freeze to death; so why do they not feel the same Sun's rays as heat?

Hello, inverse. I'm quite new here too so i don't really know, but if you want to, you can just enter your post and the Moderators will let you know if it's OK. Just have a try and see what happens. Good luck.

Not being too well-versed in either Science or Philosophy, i don't really have any particular axe to grind, so i would just like to say that i think that both disciplines have equally important roles to play in dealing with the problems the world faces today: Science to tackle the practical problems like pollution, climate-change and over-population; Philosophy to disarm the harmful religious, political and nationalistic ideologies that are threatening all our well-being. I hope both can succeed - in tandem - because they must: one without the other may not be enough.

Obviously, i am not claiming that those attributes are the only attributes of selfishness - that would be silly - but to know Love we must be absolutely selfless and that includes ego and superego just as much as id. Selfishness includes everything, and both the " good " side and the " bad " side are two sides of the same coin and are a unified barrier to selflessness and Love. Yes, of course we have to take care of ourselves and not impose too much on others, but profane self-love, or any preoccupation with ourselves, however principled, is not the self-destroying Love which, i think, is what we are talking about here. Do you think that selfishness is not responsible for all the inhuman acts we witness in the world today and throughout history? You say selfishness is not automatically a bad thing so, conversely, it is not automatically solely a good thing either - it is both: yin and yang, good thief and bad thief , Ariel and Caliban and so on. Beware more of the good thief. Fortunately for us, we live where we can indulge in niceties, not in stricken places where living is a daily struggle just to survive and where we see both sides of selfishness in action: one gives rise to the other, but for Love to act, both sides must be still.

All the negative qualities mentioned in the thread - hate, arrogance, anger etc. - are all attributes of selfishness but real Love is totally selfless so , as darkness is the privation of light, i think we could add that selfishness is the privation of Love.