Memory's Time Constraints

1. 60

   A.Villarasaposted 9 years ago

   ----"Memories pressed between the pages of my mind."
   
   Whoever wrote this first line of Elvis Presley's song titled "MEMORIES" must have been blissfully unaware  of the unfathomable perplexities of quantum mechanics, one of which posits that in the sub-atomic world, memories don't exist because if unobserved, the past is really the present and the future all simultaneously happening.
   
   What he must have been absolutely  aware of is the fact that memories, are not totally mediated via the functioning of the material brain, but most importantly and securely via the factoring of the immaterial mind; otherwise. he or she would have written: "Memories, pressed against the sulci of my brain.
   
   If  MEMORY, and therefore by extension, TIME  is inconsequential in the sub-atomic world, why would it not have the same impertinence in the larger cosmic world. Therein lies the empirical (or ontological, as the case may be) conundrum. For what happens in the transition from the sub-atomic to the cosmic, might conceivably also  be what happens in the transition from the physical to the spiritual

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You mean to say time is an illusion?
      
      <"TIME  is inconsequential in the sub-atomic world, why would it not have the same impertinence in the larger cosmic world.">
      Are you saying here that time is rude?
      
        impertinence
      rudeness, insolence, impoliteness, bad manners, discourtesy, disrespect, incivility; impudence, cheek, cheekiness, audacity, presumption, temerity, effrontery, nerve, gall, boldness, cockiness, brazenness; brass, sauce, sass, sassiness, chutzpah, lip, back-talk, guff; assumption.
      
      I agree!
      I hate time…
      telling me I am always late!
      Such impertinence!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         @Katherine:
         Yours are excellent take on the meaning of impertinence, but what I was mostly referring to was the non-importance or non-meaning of time in the quantum world, in the same way that it is inconsequential and meaningless in the spiritual world.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            "impertinence
            noun
            1. disrespectful behaviour or language; rudeness; insolence
            2. an impertinent act, gesture, etc
            *3. (rare) lack of pertinence; irrelevance; inappropriateness*
            
            Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
            © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
            Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
            Cite This Source
            Word Origin and History for impertinence Expand
            n.
            c.1600, from French impertinence, from Medieval Latin impertinentia, from Late Latin impertinentem "not belonging" (see impertinent ). Impertinency is from 1580s."
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impertinence
            
            I see... you meant the "rare" meaning.
            
            So you DO mean time is an illusion.
            I agree.

            replyreport
   2. 88

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      As all of this depends on the undefined "immaterial mind" and "spiritual world", both currently an unproven concept, it seems unwise to go further and try to apply the same "transition" from subatomic to macro.
      
      Would't effort be better served by first proving the original concepts before saying that what is imagined to possibly happen there might apply elsewhere?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         You must really be living in another universe.  For you to say that the  mind and the  spiritual world is "undefined" or "unproven" concepts is, to be kind about it, thoroughly  and fastidiously untethered from reality.
         
         For ages, since the dawn of human existence, humans have discussed and debated relentlessly  the existence of the mind and spiritual world and have come to the  conclusion that  their factuality and logicality is undeniable.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Define, please, an "immaterial mind", and in such a way that it can be tested for veracity.  Do the same for "spiritual world", in the same manner.  Make sure that the definitions are agreed to all over the world.
            
            Discussions, and particularly debates, do not provide testable definitions and to think that either is "undeniable" comes straight from an ego thinking it knows more than anyone else.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Webster (couldn't get any more universal than Noah's definition) has this to say about the word "mind"---(1) The power or process of reproducing or recalling what has been learned and retained:memory, (2) the part of an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, opines, persuades, judges, wills, and especially reasons.
               
               Now if you are denying that you have a mind based on the above definition, then I would say that your physicalist-materialist/naturalist bent have made you a doddering idiot, much like a zombie, whose relationship with reality is non-existent.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Now what about the spiritual world. Firs, Webster's definition of spirit: (1) alife-giving force; also: the animating principle.:: Spiritual- of or relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit: incorporeal
                  
                  Thus the spiritual world  is bodiless, nonmaterial and nonphysical....all  testable definitions. Your problem becomes: How do you test the existence of something that is nonphysical and nonmaterial, when your perceptions and conceptualizations are all undergirded by the physical and material. You can't. Even Einstein would be scratching his head on that conundrum.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Maybe it could be defined as energy. Then it is testable.

                     replyreport
                  2. 88

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Sorry, but it's not MY problem - it's yours.  You claim it is there, test for it (with a test repeatable by others) and show that you are right.
                     
                     From Webster, on the Unicorn: " a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead"
                     
                     Obviously a definition from Webster does NOT mean something is real or actual.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        As per Webster, the unicorn is a "mythical animal", and  by definition/inference , anything mythical is NOT real or actual. When Webster defined "mind" or "spirit"  the word  mythical was nowhere near those definitions. So try again.

                        replyreport
                        1. 88

                           wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           From Webster:
                           
                           Gnome: an ageless and often deformed dwarf of folklore who lives in the earth and usually guards treasure
                           
                           Vishnu: the preserver god of the Hindu sacred triad
                           
                           Shiva:  the god of destruction and regeneration in the Hindu sacred triad
                           
                           Goblin: an ugly or grotesque sprite that is usually mischievous and sometimes evil and malicious
                           
                           Abominable snowman: a large hairy creature that walks on two feet like a man and that some people claim to have seen in the Himalayas
                           
                           Wizard: a person who is skilled in magic or who has magical powers : a sorcerer or magician
                           
                           Witch: a person who practices magic as part of a religion (such as Wicca)
                           
                           All of which must exist and be true, then, because Webster defines them and without the term "mythical" or any associated modifier?  Seen your neighborhood goblin lately?
                           
                           But what is your repeatable test for the "immaterial mind" and the "spiritual world"?  You didn't mention any...

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Everyone agrees, that  not everything that is defined in Webster's dictionary actually exist, and for you to state the obvious is again stupefying.
                              Now if you think that the brain has the sole purview on human existence and persistence, then I'd say that that is as mindless as it can get. Which I suppose is not that stupefying.... after all  you are the one who  does not believe that the MIND exist.

                              replyreport
                              1. 88

                                 wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 "When Webster defined "mind" or "spirit"  the word  mythical was nowhere near those definitions. So try again."
                                 
                                 And therefore it exists.  Because Webster did not include the word "mythical".  Got it.  So what's your beef when I show otherwise?
                                 
                                 "you are the one who  does not believe that the MIND exist."
                                 
                                 Nice claim, but I didn't say that.  I WILL say, however, that the mind isn't the supernatural, undetectable, invisible, spiritual world thing YOU say it is. Because that's what's stupefying - that anyone can claim, with surety, that such a thing exists when they can't show it with the slightest bit of evidence.  Of course, the answer is to hide behind "Not all things can be seen", but that never washes when it is presented as factual.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Please tell me then what the difference is between the brain and the mind... or is there no difference at all as you are implying.

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 60

                                    A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Brain is the mind or mind is the brain.. as you are suggesting. Then maybe we should start saying "brain over matter" or "brain your own business", or "brain games" or" memories, pressed against the pages of my brain", or "I am brainful of the fact that you are one physicalist whose brain MRI is just not the way I envisioned it to be."

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       I should have added... "because your brain on MRI was as mindless as it can be."

                                       report
                                    2. 60

                                       A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       There evolves a stupefying absurdity to conflate "brain and mind".... as you are suggesting it's all brain function and nothing else that gives rise to the mind and therefore your conclusion is that there is nothing immaterial/supernatural/spiritual  about the mind.
                                       
                                       For starters, linguistically, it is absurd to say "I don't brain" instead of "I don't mind"; or "broaden the brain" instead of "broaden the mind" or "make up your brain" instead of "make up your mind" or "losing my brain" instead of "losing my mind", or "I'm changing my brain", instead of "I'm changing my mind".
                                       
                                       The absurdity increases  scientifically for one simple reason:  within each macro brain region there is no single isolated complete function. These brain regions are. so to speak,  bit players on the brain stage, and not autonomous units. As an example, the function of vision can preoccupy over 30 brain regions, thus your idea that a CT scan can pinpoint an exact area of the brain that is responsible for thinking, or memorizing, or imagining, or loving, or hating is simply scientifically absurd.

                                       report
                                 3. 60

                                    A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    There is no denying that the functions of the brain is intimately tied to our sense of self, identity, our memories, and aspirations. However fixating on the brain ie "neurocentrism",( which is the view that the MIND can best be explained by looking solely or primarily at the brain) is counterintuitive for the simple fact that the brain and mind are 2 different frameworks.
                                    
                                    Whatever advances there has been in neuroscience, physicalists/materialists  can not and may not be able to translate any empirical model of brain function into what makes us, mindful humans with intent, rational capacity, morality, self-control, pleasure, motivation, inhibition, memory, and ultimately free-will.

                                    replyreport
               2. 88

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  All of which resides in and is an integral part of the material brain.  Or do you have evidence of that "immaterial" part, something beyond a concept?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Has there been any empirical evidence  (via MRI perhaps? or maybe EEG) that shows the brain, opining, feeling, persuading, thinking, perceiving, judging, willing? If you have one... kindly share them with us. I'm waiting with un-sated breath.

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Tons of it - you won't have any trouble finding it on the web.  Lots and lots of tests with CAT scans showing specific portions of the brain go active when specific feelings are experienced.  There have even been tests where stimulating a particular section makes the subject think someone is watching; believers typically report a feeling that God is there with them.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Sorry to burst your bubble, but CT scans are merely used to detect anatomic abnormalities of brain structure, not its physiologic integration and connections ie synapses between axons and dendrites where most if not all of the Neurotransmitters ie dopamine, epinephrine, serotonin, are actively  interacting .

                           replyreport
2. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   <" If TIME  is inconsequential in the sub-atomic world, it is…"> ( My Edit) also inconsequential  <"in the larger cosmic world.">
   What is the "larger cosmic world?"
   Does it include ME the Queen of my life?
   If so, then time is sadly important. It tells me what time the royal guests will be arriving for tea.
   
   
   Furthermore, If the planet did not rotate toward and then away from our shiny big star, we would not have Time.
   Q.Why then, do we age?
   Why indeed. Its so irritating to contemplate THAT!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Katheryn:
      Aging is the result of the materially/physically mandated progression of cellular differentiation from  physiology to pathology and finally, demise. Time has nothing to do with that, if we are to assume that perceptually, time's existence is but an illusion created by a mind that is totally untethered from the material/physical.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         well, yes!
         ...that 's the irritating part.
         However, you hear that some will not age on other planets, or out in space. as in the movie Interstellar
         Would we age anyway in your estimation?
         and the movie's premise is wrong?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            We are aware of the aging process, because we have stored memories of the  physical changes that occurs from childhood, to adolescence, to adulthood, then  middle age and old age. The process of storing and accessing memories are brain mediated via  alteration in gene transcription and formation of new synapses(in the case of long term memory) or  quick chemical changes in the  synapses ie alterations in protein phosphorylation (in the case of short term memory).  Most memory processes are part and parcel of our consciousness of the physical world, but  some do not involve consciousness at all.
            Now what about those movies?.....science fiction tinged with enough razzle-dazzle imagery-mimicry to delude the viewing public that the actors  know what they are talking about.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Can we reprogram ourselves and
               Are we reprograming ourselves in this era?
               I have a feeling I am not aging much. And I have a feeling, when I die I will still look young.
               When I was eighteen I had the feeling I would always feel young …
               It seems to be coming to pass.
               But, then, I eat a certain way, exercise and naturally think positive.
               Truth is, on a certain level I am refusing to age… because I do not want to.
               "Time" will tell...
               ( oh, what a tyrant. )

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  "Mind over matter"...  ie consciousness(mind mediated) over memory (brain mediated)  sounds reasonable, as inferences go.
                  
                  But there is an idea that memory and consciousness form a closed loop: our consciousness is made possible by what we have experienced and learned thus dependent  on existing memories; and the purpose of consciousness is to control the formation of new memories. The theory goes that neuronal networks are produced during  embryonic development under the guidance of our genes that at the same TIME  are independent of interactions of the senses with an environment. In short, we are genetically endowed with everything needed to make a basic neuronal network that can start storing  memories, and start expanding our consciousness beyond the rudimentary form of consciousness that we have prior to interactions with an environment and prior to learning.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     "The theory goes that neuronal (nerve cell) networks are produced during embryonic development under the guidance of our genes …"
                     "We are genetically endowed with everything needed to make a basic neuronal network that can START storing memories, and START expanding our consciousness…"
                     Very Interesting
                     I have also heard that parent traits are (somehow) turned off.  But, some traits from the parent's gene pool do leak through.

                     replyreport
3. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   of course, the soul is beyond time.
   
   ~ so there, Time!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Einstein obviously believed in the linearity of time, otherwise he would not have said this: "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow."
      
      When confronted with the perplexing dicey-ness of quantum physics, he was reported to have said this: God does not play dice with the universe."
      
      Thus the value of memory in imprinting in our minds  the consciously   simple and singular  fact  that,  as with everything else in the material world, the universe had a beginning, and is existing now in the present, and will end at some point....When? only GOD knows.
      
      The spiritual world is obviously another story. People who went through a Near Death Experience (NDE), reports experiencing events simulatneuously happening past-present-future, thus potentially suggesting that quantum mecahnics is the rule, not the exception in the spiritual world.

      replyreport