My thinking was more that one can recover linear time from the cyclic times of many bodies. — Kenosha Kid

Let's, for my sake, stick to gravity and its effect on space-time. Gravity can bend space, right? Does that mean with the right amount of gravity we can make space curve into a circle? The near-circular orbits of planets suggests this is the case.

If this can be done then, is it correct to say that the very popular idea of time dilation in physics can be interpreted as curvature in time? I watched the movie Interstellar and in it the astronauts age more slowly when they're on this massive planet near a black hole. I visualize this relativity effect in terms of straight and curved timelines. Imagine an astronaut in deep space, in zero gravity. There's a straight timeline betweeen faers 20 year old self and faers 30 year old self. If this astronaut is now moved to a place with high gravity, his straight timeline curves which means it takes longer now for him to go from being 20 to 30 years old.

Does this make sense?

If it does then time can be curved with gravity and with sufficient mass, time will loop back to where it began, just like space.

My background is highschool physics and math with the odd youtube video on relativity so, take this with a grain of salt and dollops of patience.

What's the alternative?

That wouldn't be a problem in my opinion. NDE, if it turns out that there are such things as souls, is relevant to metaphysics, ontology, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of mind.

Do you mind explaining a little bit more about your visions etc.? I'm quite interested in hearing more. — Yozhura

clairvoyant — Jack Cummins

To both of you

While the subject of visions and premonitions fascinates me to no end, I'm, to my relief, not the type who'd experience such phenomena. That said, there are times, when I'm alone, I engage in conversations with myself (like the economist Adam Smith was known to do) and I find myself talking nonsense - the words of just come out of my mouth and, mind you, I'm fully aware during these episodes and hence my conclusion that it's nonsense. I feel a compulsion to speak that which I speak and a part of me feels that the words spoken in these trance-like states mean something and that they describe reality truthfully but there's the other part of me that recognizes the nonsensical nature of my soliloquy. :chin:

Minkowski is flat spacetime. In general relativity, it is spacetime that is curved, not just space, so, yes, time is curved as well. — Kenosha Kid

So, time can be circular then?

Firstly, your explanation for the want paradox is just a case of bending/breaking the rules of language. There being two aspects to language I'm familiar with viz. syntax and semantics, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the error is not with syntax. The problem seems to be semantical in my view and also logical to some degree, I'm not completely certain. Are you aware of any linguistic concept that is relevant to the paradox?

D = I don't want anything = N = I want nothing

Now that I think of it, since we're concerned with the logical equivalence of statements D and N, the problem is one that has to do with both semantics and logic.

My drive-by results:

1. To want and To not want are contradictory and can't be substituted for each other. Ergo, there's an egregious logical error in replacing "I don't want..." with "I want..."

2. There's an attempt, by ordinary language users, to compensate the error I referred to in 1 by using the complement of sets. This appears as "anything" being replaced with "nothing" and we get from D, the allegedly logical equivalent, N

3. The world can be neatly divided into (necessarily) things that one wants and things that one doesn't want. If I were someone who would utter the statement D = I don't want anything then, everything would be in the class of things I didn't want and, as it turns out, nothing in the class of things I want. This is my explanation for why D = N.

What's your take on this?

Secondly, regarding how want/not to want itself can't be valid objects that can be wanted/not wanted, we must look at how it all began, the Buddhist goal of extinguishing want. It basically states: I don't want to want but notice that this statement already assumes that want is valid object for want by not wanting it. Hence, I'm not doing anything out of the ordinary when I claim that "I don't want to want" = "I want to not want".

What say you?

I am an explorer of consciousness — Jack Cummins

That's all I need to hear. Good luck! Explorer!

I think mysticism is a the atrophied tail of philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Nice!

Care to share? Your experiences?

I think I remember something now. Even back then, when I was teenager-20's, I was especially drawn to what I can only describe as the brick wall - the wall that you walk/run into and get knocked out cold. That sudden analysis paralysis, the state of utter confusion, the incomprehensibility, the befuddlement of it all, that's what attracted me to mysticism.

These days it's the exact opposite. I dread and loathe confusion of any sort and get all worked up when I can't wrap my head around something I'm working on. I miss the old days when I enjoyed being confused :sad:

To tell you the truth, memory is not going to aid us in distinguishing the past from the future simply because, in terms of the experience of recall, there doesn't seem to be difference between it and visions (of the future). I mean if, god forbid, I'm a clairvoyant, my visions of the future can't be told apart from my memories of the past. It's something like having one TV which displays both past events and future events - how the hell would anyone know that they're looking at the future/the past?

Just saying...

Just so you know, I'm very drawn to mysticism and the like and, to my regret, it's been extremely unproductive. That said, it wasn't like I put my back into it so I can't say with full conviction that all mystical ventures, without exception, are hopeless dead ends in and of themselves.

My relationship with the mystical was so long ago that I can't even recall a single experience that left me wanting more as I suppose I did. Perhaps that's what it's all about, eh? The title "The cloud of unknowing" gives off a sense of the mind-emptiness you mentioned earlier and that explains my inability to recollect my mystical mind-states.

"When I fail in my duty, I readily acknowledge it, saying, I am used to do so. I shall never do otherwise if I am left to myself. If I fail not, then I give God thanks acknowledging that it comes from Him" — PTPG

I understand and can relate to that but isn't it having it both ways. If both the failure and success in one's duty is acceptable then, as some would say, anything goes, right?

I don't believe you have discovered for yourself that suffering pushes you towards God. — unenlightened

Pew Research

One theory is that people naturally become more religious as they age (more suffering) and approach their own mortality.

I don't. — unenlightened

Why not? Is it because you think it's pointless or because it's a tough nut to crack? In both cases, explain yourself if I may be so bold as to ask.

So I will repeat what has been quoted and further indicated in all three cases as a direct and solemn warning that to attempt to understand anything of this with thought alone is worse than useless, positively injurious. If you do not sense the significance of the topic, leave it alone for it will only confuse you. — unenlightened

Did you read my post?

Possibly. I should have known better than to quote him at the top. Ok, Krishnamurti was a charlatan or an idiot or a lunatic. Now go read the God stuff chaps! — unenlightened

What I've discovered is this: suffering pushes, shoves in fact, people with greater force toward god than the happiness pulls, draws, us toward god. The power of happiness to attract us to god is, sadly, less than the power of suffering to repel us toward Him. Why do you think this is?

More intriguingly, is suffering the attractor and happiness the repulsor?

To each his own then!

Yes. Krishnamurti at least, rejects authority, including his own, in favour of a scientific approach. Do it for yourself, and find out for yourself. Don't rely on reports from anyone else. But added to this is the rejection of the thinking brain as the agent of transformation, and this latter is very much common ground with the Christian mystics cited above. Thus...

For whoso heareth this work either be read or spoken of, and weeneth that it may, or should, be come to by travail in their wits, and therefore they sit and seek in their wits how that it may be, and in this curiosity they travail their imagination peradventure against the course of nature, and they feign a manner of working the which is neither bodily nor ghostly—truly this man, whatsoever he be, is perilously deceived.
— Cloud, 82 — unenlightened

Krishnamurti seems to be, dare I say, under some misconception then. First he asks for real criticism which, to my reckoning, seems to recommend rational analysis and then, according to you, he, with the same breath, claims that's not the what he meant. What does he mean, I wonder? :chin:

Where does mysticism come in, in this?

Any ideas?

If I understand your analogy correctly, a physician loses power of all consequence when a disease becomes incurable - but the intent to save the patient in question sustains. Is that it? — Aryamoy Mitra

Yeah!

I have no beef with him personally. But just as I don't have the right personality for being a mod, neither does he, imho.

My last comment on the matter. Made my suggestion, said my peace, on to the next thread. — Hippyhead

Well, to be frank, he says sensible stuff; it's just the way he says it that's the problem. I've known this for as long as I can remember and I still haven't got the hang of it. :sad: You can imagine...

Imho, being bored by nukes is the pinnacle of the insanity. — Hippyhead

Notice how the arms race is evolving. It seems that we've maxed out on destructive capability with nukes and now it's about the delivery system - how fast can we make the rockets so that the missile shield can be penetrated and the nuclear payload delivered to the intended target. If the human race had a mother she'd probably say, with resignation, "well, as long as they don't hurt themselves I guess it's alright to play like that".

I believe there's an ointment for that. — tim wood

:rofl:

So it's not news that aiming nuclear weapons at each other is an act of insanity — Hippyhead

Perhaps the alternative would be more insane. Consider the scenario that there are two rivals, X and Y. If X develops nukes, it would give them an advantage that Y wouldn't be able to tolerate and so Y would develop nukes too. The same happens if Y develops nukes. Perhaps not seeing that nukes are disadvantageous to both is the insanity you refer to.

I like StreetlightX.

The wine tasted like wine and the supper tasted like fish and chips. What's missing that can't be put into words? — Isaac

A bird is a bird. Tautology. Nothing is being said in fact.

If you are walking along a cycle that’s big enough and you are small enough the cycle appears a straight line. — Benj96

You can say that again.

I think another poster mentioned MInkowski space-time and while I'm neither a physicist nor a mathematician I must say that if space can curve I see an opening for space to loop back onto itself and we get spherical/circular space. Can we do the same for time? It's common knowledge now that massive objects curve space and the temporal counterpart to that is time slowing down. Can we draw some kind of an analogy between the curvature of space, with every turn in it threatening to return us to the starting point of space, and time dilation, if precisely tuned, somehow returning us to the beginning of time?

Any ideas what the geometry would look like?

Money used to have value in gold. Nowadays that is not the case. Global economy is based on the sole reason that we give value to money. Binary 1 means money has value, binary 0 means it has no value. We are just printing money these days. — Yozhura

:ok: Thanks

cannot be adequately described in words, but they can be evoke — Olivier5

This seems to be a contradiction to me. There are two things to consider. The description of a qualia and the evocation of that qualia. These are two different things. If we fail at the former we come face to face with the ineffable. The latter is, from personal experience, child's play.

real criticism is required; not acceptance — J. Krishnamurti

And then...

The intention seems to be bring about, if my reading is anywhere near the mark, change, not just that but positive change.

To be sure, this attitude and what proceeds from it (positive change), has precedence and, on balance, a good track record and history attests to that. The problem, if I may say so, is that the world is missing a critical ingredient to get this philosophy off the ground viz. the philosopher's holy grail, wisdom that would enable real, lasting, transformation toward the good, the better, and last but not the least, the best. Sans wisdom, it's all going to be knee-jerk reactions and we'll be like blindfolded blind men shooting in the dark with blanks for bullets.

I guess everybody has to start somewhere.

Interesting question. I'd like to frame the intentionalism-consequentialism pairing in, coincidentally, a physician-patient setting. A disease has a history of its own - it begins at one point and progresses with time and then, some say, it reaches a point of no return beyond which all treatment will fail and the patient's fate is sealed. In moral issues the point of no return divides intentionalism and consequentialism.

Money only has value, as long as its binary stays 1 instead of 0. — Yozhura

:chin: ??!! Explain...

Exactly, now we are making everything as small as possible. Back then humans tried to create structures as big as possible. — Yozhura

Less is more philosophy? big is SMALL? Nanotechnology seems to be all the rage or so I'm led to believe.

Yes I would. I would then choose a worthy human to give it to. Unless giving it away means using it. — Yozhura

You mean giving it is a use in itself? Then I could give you empty box and you could give it to someone else, that person could do the same ad infinitum. What's the difference between my empty box and the trillion dollars I was talking about? There is a difference between money, a trillion dollars at that, and an empty box, right? :chin:

Sorry for the late reply, had some life that had to be done :D — Yozhura

I need to get a life :sad:

:ok:

If instead of a zombie, Dennett was a culinary critic with a gift for wordsmithing, he could make an attempt at it. — Olivier5

But would he succeed? I'm not even asking for there to be some kind of judging committee or panel. Can he describe the taste of his meal and wine to a level that will satisfy him?

Can Daniel Dennett describe to us what his supper and the wine he washed it down with, presuming that was/is his evening meal, tasted/tastes like?

My take on qualia is that it's, for certain, 100%, real.

Why?

A simple question follows:

Can you or anyone, even Daniel Dennett, describe, put into words, everything that's going on in your or their or his mind/head?

The answer is a resounding NO!

And that which you can't describe in words - the ineffable aspect - of consciousness is precisely what qualia is.

There seems to be connection with Wittgenstein's private language argument. Qualia can't be put in the public domain and thus, private language argument given due weightage, qualia is beyond the reach of language. What say you? :chin:

Last I read up on problem solving techniques, trial and error method is also known as guess and test. Guessing is random, right?

I suppose it all boils down to the cognitive ability of the problem solver. (By the way, I've lost the plot at this point). A problem is, in essence, a test of intelligence; the point being every problem consists of a core issue - it's heart as it were and once its sighted, the solution method immediately comes into view. Not all problems are such though, no?

Ignorance. — Pinprick

Care to expand on this?

double negatives — Pinprick

I don't see how this is relevant. Double negatives don't show up in the want paradox. The notion of complements is different from the notion of double negatives as far as I can see.

Because “not wanting” is not an action. — Pinprick

Let's go over what I said a couple of posts ago:

Want scenario A
1. I want water
2. I don't want water

Want scenario B
3. I don't want to want
4. I want to not want

In Want scenario A, statement 2 is clearly rejecting water. There's a clear semantic difference between statements 1 and 2. No issues there.

However...

In Want scenario B, statement 3 is rejecting want just like statement 2 in Want scenario 1 is rejecting water. So far so good. But then statement 4 is considered semantically equivalent to statement 3 but the problem is that statement 4 is itself an expression of want.

In summary:
5. I don't want to want = I want to not want
6. I want to not want contradicts I don't want to want

This is the paradox. Can you give this a second look if you don't mind? Thanks

If the parts of the brain that process "redness" decay, break, or lose functionality, then yes. — Philosophim

:ok: Nothing much to argue about there.

My mother's taste in colors have changed over the years. — Philosophim

I don't think qualia has anything to do with one's color preferences. I'm talking about the immediate experience of color whatever color it may be; the so-called redness or blueness or whiteness of strawberries or the sky or snow respectively.

Cerebral achromatopsia — Philosophim

This doesn't seem to be relevant, at least not in the way you intend it to be. Even those with achromatopsia have subjective conscious experience of color no matter how distorted it is and this doesn't change with age to my reckoning.

Tower of Babel — Jack Cummins

The perfect metaphor for non-philosophical discourse. I suppose, for a conversation to be productive, interlocutors must be both on the same page and on the same wavelength.

In perspective geometry, the infinite is brought to a finite piece of paper when two parallel straights are drawn for example :) — KerimF

Nice! :up: