The nature of time...

[Quietus]

BUT, I do however understand why time needs to be used in physics. Now, I think, I understand. It's a framework in which we are able to think of change. That's all. Just a tool that we need to use.

The real question is if time is fixed or relative (Einstein).

Most men are not free, not in the way that they should anyways. That's why they believe in good and evil.

All men were never free. Men can be defective but not free. Answer these questions:

1) Which came first, your hunger or your stomach?
2) Which came first, your stomach or your DNA?
3) Which came first, your DNA or your parents' DNA?

Freedom is only an illusion. Your feelings are only there to keep you alive and reproduce (and pass your DNA to your children). You never pass your brain. That's the system and it is inescapable. If you kill yourself, it means that you are simply defective and your dna is eliminated from the pool. If you never reproduce, it means you are not good enough in this system as well.

Like it or not, you are part of that system, which is Evolution.

Lastly, laws are the social measure of "good" and "evil". People follow it for their own protection (survival) as well as others. It is favored, because Society is there do what individuals can't do on their own and it is part of Evolution itself.

eg. If you can beat a gang of 20 thieves on your own, there would be no need for cops.

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE=Quietus]

All men were never free. Men can be defective but not free. Answer these questions:

Discussable.

1) Which came first, your hunger or your stomach?
2) Which came first, your stomach or your DNA?
3) Which came first, your DNA or your parents' DNA?

Huh?

Freedom is only an illusion. Your feelings are only there to keep you alive and reproduce (and pass your DNA to your children). You never pass your brain. That's the system and it is inescapable. If you kill yourself, it means that you are simply defective and your dna is eliminated from the pool. If you never reproduce, it means you are not good enough in this system as well.

Again discussable, freedom is not an ilussion, maybe your problem is one of terminology...

Lastly, laws are the social measure of "good" and "evil". People follow it for their own protection (survival) as well as others. It is favored, because Society is there do what individuals can't do on their own and it is part of Evolution itself.

Law is not the measure of good and evil, and that's something that many people fail to understand here. Law is just pragmatic, it tries to achieve justice of course, but never looking to the motives of the man or to his moral tendences in society. People follow it for his own pleasure, wich is very different from survival.

[Don Corleone]

Time is a dimension, no differerent than any other we perceive, though we perceive it differently.

BP, to challenge the concept of 'time' is to challenge existence itself. You might be able to argue semantics and claim that it is not defined properly. But the fundamental concept, life is a movie, not a snapshot, is fundamental. How can you possibly argue for existence period if you cannot allow for time?

I think it's good that you try so hard to develop theories based on pure reason, but at some point, you're going to need a healthy dose of empiricism. There are simple data you can observe, make predictions about and confirm or deny your guesses on. You are right, at the end of the day, all could be explained by a deluded mind that exists singularly and creates time to prevent itself from going insane (as well as all experienced phenomenon that display chronolgical characteristics).

But what would be the point? You're driving towards a nihilism that nihilists themselves do not dare tread into. Why bother to tap your toughts and observations into that imaginary little keyboard? Why write messages to imaginary friends across the internet, or even speak to imaginary diversions in 'real life' for that matter? At the end of the day, existence, and meaning of said existence, are a choice. We matter because we choose to. At the end of the day, it really is that simple. To follow this path of 'pure reason' and 'nothing exists except my thoughts' may very well be true, but if it is, what possible point could it serve to make yourself aware of such a truth? If existence is truly meaningless and absurd, why exist?

[Byzantine Prince]

I think it's good that you try so hard to develop theories based on pure reason, but at some point, you're going to need a healthy dose of empiricism.

Empiricism is not a word.
I am basing my thoughts on empirical evidence, didn't you notice?
My argument was:

Man looks at movement, and thinks, something is different from my memory of that image. The fact that the position of the object is different in the memory, indicates to the man that [blank] has passed.

That is clearly based on something man experiences. Then from his senses he derives into the false conclusion that TIME has passed.

Why bother to tap your toughts and observations into that imaginary little keyboard? Why write messages to imaginary friends across the internet, or even speak to imaginary diversions in 'real life' for that matter?

Why do you post here?

Seriously though, why even bother speaking? Why bother living, why bother having sex, why both eating? Why?!?! Because by living a little longer, I can think and philosophize a little longer.

what possible point could it serve to make yourself aware of such a truth?

I am more confounded on why you think my aims are so worthless. Just because I'm nihilistic you think I have no goals, that would make me a bum( ), not a lover of wisdom.

Aristotle said that in order for man to be alone he must either be an animal or a god. Nietzsche added that man must be both, a philosopher!

[Quietus]

Discussable.
Huh?
Again discussable, freedom is not an ilussion, maybe your problem is one of terminology...

Go ahead and discuss, I'll answer you.

Law is not the measure of good and evil, and that's something that many people fail to understand here. Law is just pragmatic, it tries to achieve justice of course, but never looking to the motives of the man or to his moral tendences in society.

The law is the best social measure/approximation of "good" and "evil" at least in a democratic society. It is under the law that everyone is relatively safe. Collective security is important.

People follow it for his own pleasure, wich is very different from survival.

Pleasure and Pain is part of survival. That's the point. Who decides which is Pleasure and Pain? The machine in you. Do you decide which is sweet or not sweet? If an experience is Painful, do you keep repeating it? No, you stop doing it because it is a threat to your survival.

[Kanamori]

How can you possibly argue for existence period if you cannot allow for time?

Cogito ergo sum. Variously put by him, 'I am, I exist'; 'I am thinking, therefore I am'. You can be sure of your existence w/o being sure of any notion of time, because the statement only requires self-recognition momentarily.

[Soulforged]

Go ahead and discuss, I'll answer you.

No, for another topic.

The law is the best social measure/approximation of "good" and "evil" at least in a democratic society. It is under the law that everyone is relatively safe. Collective security is important.

Again your summarazing your views, not reality of the law. The law is just pragmatic, good and bad are things for the individual to measure.

Pleasure and Pain is part of survival. That's the point. Who decides which is Pleasure and Pain? The machine in you. Do you decide which is sweet or not sweet? If an experience is Painful, do you keep repeating it? No, you stop doing it because it is a threat to your survival.

Yes that will explain sadomasoquism. Not all pleasure is oriented towards survival. You're your "soul", you mind, your psique, call it what you want, and through those you make statements such as the previously that's the freedom that you've, free will is discusable, material freedom is not, it's the essence of the higher individual that we humans are.

[Quietus]

No, for another topic.

Ok.

Again your summarazing your views, not reality of the law. The law is just pragmatic, good and bad are things for the individual to measure.

No, it's not my view, it's a social consensus. I don't make the laws. People vote for lawmakers, hence it is a consensus. Lawmakers won't ban pornography because the social consensus is that it isn't "evil".

Yes that will explain sadomasoquism. Not all pleasure is oriented towards survival. You're your "soul", you mind, your psique, call it what you want, and through those you make statements such as the previously that's the freedom that you've, free will is discusable, material freedom is not, it's the essence of the higher individual that we humans are.

That's the illusion part. Example:

Which came first, your Hunger or your Stomach? In other words, are you hungry because you have a stomach or you have a stomach because you are hungry?

Your body creates a chemical illusion of hunger that makes you eat. What you eat isn't your choice either.

If I tell you I have a lump of white substance in front of me, would you eat it? You won't decide to consume or avoid it until you know what it is because it wasn't never your choice after all.

The illusion part is where you look at the white substance and determine whether you can eat it and not die and THINK, you're actually doing all the picking.

[Soulforged]

No, it's not my view, it's a social consensus. I don't make the laws. People vote for lawmakers, hence it is a consensus. Lawmakers won't ban pornography because the social consensus is that it isn't "evil".

Of course as always common sense.

laws are the social measure of "good" and "evil"

By a general rule the law must adapt to the equity, wich is a type derivated from morality, but the law itself, again by a general rule, doesn't and shouldn't contain measures of good or bad, the idea of justice is very far from positive law. Common sense doesn't serves in all cases Quietus, here is one of them, moral and law are separated.

Which came first, your Hunger or your Stomach? In other words, are you hungry because you have a stomach or you have a stomach because you are hungry?

Errr...The hunger comes from the metabolism in your cells wich sends signals to your brain, not from your stomach. In any case I don't see your point here. Where's the illusion?

Your body creates a chemical illusion of hunger that makes you eat. What you eat isn't your choice either.

Huh? Of course not I can eat and egg or a piece of meat. Clearify.

If I tell you I have a lump of white substance in front of me, would you eat it? You won't decide to consume or avoid it until you know what it is because it wasn't never your choice after all.

What was never my choice, eat the lump or the lump existence...

The illusion part is where you look at the white substance and determine whether you can eat it and not die and THINK, you're actually doing all the picking.

Illusion? It's all certain, I decided to eat or I decided not to eat it, ultimatelly you'll see it in my actions.

lmao.. so someone's desire to twist their theory until it conforms to reality suddenly equates to a good, objective, view of the world and it's properties?

Phylosophy is all about twisting things, and modifying the very axiological points of human thinking.

[Quietus]

Of course as always common sense. By a general rule the law must adapt to the equity, wich is a type derivated from morality, but the law itself, again by a general rule, doesn't and shouldn't contain measures of good or bad, the idea of justice is very far from positive law. Common sense doesn't serves in all cases Quietus, here is one of them, moral and law are separated.

The meaning of "good" and "evil" changes and it can be reflected in the laws.

Errr...The hunger comes from the metabolism in your cells wich sends signals to your brain, not from your stomach. In any case I don't see your point here. Where's the illusion?

The illusion is the hunger. It's out of your control. Can you choose not to be hungry? For long can you hold on? You'll eat eventually.

It's not your brain that is really important. It's the machinery inside you. Your consciousness is simply an illusion to aid this machinery, so it can survive and reproduce.

Huh? Of course not I can eat and egg or a piece of meat. Clearify.
What was never my choice, eat the lump or the lump existence...
Illusion? It's all certain, I decided to eat or I decided not to eat it, ultimatelly you'll see it in my actions.

It's not you who decided what to eat, it's your DNA. You only eat what your body can utilize. Do you eat wood? It has energy just like steak. All the foods you mentioned are digestible. What determines what is digestible? Your DNA.

The illusion is, you think, you're making a choice, but in reality, the choices were already made. Have you ever seen yourself eating your own clothes? Clothes are made of fiber (just like wood, and not digestible).