| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision |
| aker:space_and_time [2015/10/31 02:12] – janus | space_and_time [2017/02/14 05:08] (current) – ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation janus |
|---|
| |
| A model of perception and apperception\\ | A model of perception and apperception\\ |
| {{:aker:time_and_space:consciousness.png?800|}}\\ | {{time_and_space:consciousness.png?800|}}\\ |
| This model is not considered at the quantum level. | This model is not considered at the quantum level. |
| | Showing where **no** time exists. | Showing where there **is** time and space | | | Showing where **no** time exists. | Showing where there **is** time and space | |
| | {{:aker:time_and_space:consciousness_t.png?380|}} | {{:aker:time_and_space:consciousness_nt.png?380|}} | | | {{time_and_space:consciousness_t.png?380|}} | {{time_and_space:consciousness_nt.png?380|}} | |
| |
| <fc red>t<sub>0</sub></fc> = An event or object in space and time. This object or event is there, it happens. In this example, a tree.\\ | <fc red>t<sub>0</sub></fc> = An event or object in space and time. This object or event is there, it happens. In this example, a tree.\\ |
| <fc red>t<sub>4</sub></fc> = <fc red>t<sub>3</sub></fc> is the point at which the tree as an engram exists in the brain. It would be reasonable to assume <fc red>t<sub>4</sub></fc> is equal to <fc red>t<sub>3</sub></fc> were it not for the fact that consciousness of the tree is different to the engram of the tree in the brain. Moreover as I mention later, the object may already exist in consciousness without having been seen and placed as an engram into the brain. In this example it is a tree but it could be anything. \\ That said there is another objection to <fc red>t<sub>3</sub></fc> and <fc red>t<sub>4</sub></fc> being separate times: <fc red>t<sub>4</sub></fc> exists where there is no time. The coming to consciousness of the tree object occurs in a non-time place, the place of psyche and consciousness. This raises questions about the limitations of the psyche to bring objects to consciousness. I do not know those questions and I think it has something to do with the border between psyche and matter. Perhaps <fc red>t<sub>4</sub></fc> is not a time marker but the event of the tree coming into consciousness. | <fc red>t<sub>4</sub></fc> = <fc red>t<sub>3</sub></fc> is the point at which the tree as an engram exists in the brain. It would be reasonable to assume <fc red>t<sub>4</sub></fc> is equal to <fc red>t<sub>3</sub></fc> were it not for the fact that consciousness of the tree is different to the engram of the tree in the brain. Moreover as I mention later, the object may already exist in consciousness without having been seen and placed as an engram into the brain. In this example it is a tree but it could be anything. \\ That said there is another objection to <fc red>t<sub>3</sub></fc> and <fc red>t<sub>4</sub></fc> being separate times: <fc red>t<sub>4</sub></fc> exists where there is no time. The coming to consciousness of the tree object occurs in a non-time place, the place of psyche and consciousness. This raises questions about the limitations of the psyche to bring objects to consciousness. I do not know those questions and I think it has something to do with the border between psyche and matter. Perhaps <fc red>t<sub>4</sub></fc> is not a time marker but the event of the tree coming into consciousness. |
| | |
| {{:aker:time_and_space:consciousness_tnt.png?800|}} | {{time_and_space:consciousness_tnt.png?800|}} |
| |
| **Questions**:\\ | **Questions**:\\ |
| A teleology is any philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature. The word comes from the Greek τέλος, telos; root: τελε-, "end, purpose". The adjective "teleological" has a broader usage, for example in discussions where particular ethical theories or types of computer programs are sometimes described as teleological because they involve aiming at goals. | A teleology is any philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature. The word comes from the Greek τέλος, telos; root: τελε-, "end, purpose". The adjective "teleological" has a broader usage, for example in discussions where particular ethical theories or types of computer programs are sometimes described as teleological because they involve aiming at goals. |
| |
| **//Entelechy//** : From [[wp>Driesch|Driesch]] "...a term borrowed from Aristotle's philosophy to indicate a life force which he conceived of as psychoid or "mind-like", that is; non-spatial, intensive, and qualitative rather than spatial, extensive, and quantitative." Also, see [[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/entelechy|wiktionary]] : Etymology - From Late Latin entelechia, from Ancient Greek ἐντελέχεια (entelékheia), coined by Aristotle from ἐντελής (entelés, "complete, finished, perfect") (from τέλος (télos, "end, fruition, accomplishment")) + ἔχω (ékho, "to have"). Cf. [[aker:collected_works:cw8|CW8]] p191, footnote 61. | **//Entelechy//** : From [[wp>Driesch|Driesch]] "...a term borrowed from Aristotle's philosophy to indicate a life force which he conceived of as psychoid or "mind-like", that is; non-spatial, intensive, and qualitative rather than spatial, extensive, and quantitative." Also, see [[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/entelechy|wiktionary]] : Etymology - From Late Latin entelechia, from Ancient Greek ἐντελέχεια (entelékheia), coined by Aristotle from ἐντελής (entelés, "complete, finished, perfect") (from τέλος (télos, "end, fruition, accomplishment")) + ἔχω (ékho, "to have"). Cf. [[collected_works:cw8|CW8]] p191, footnote 61. |
| |
| > ...that gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers. | > ...that gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers. |