Raymond Tallis

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

jayjacobus
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:51 pm

The brain creates a model of time through the depiction of movement and memories but the depiction of movement is independent of memories and are only connected in cognition. People deduce time. They do not see time.

Is the deduction real? No, but it is explanatory and useful.

The average person does not deduce the fourth dimension and the fourth dimension does not explain reality better then non-dimensional time. In fact space does not explain movement either orthogonally or in parallel to reality.

jayjacobus
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:06 pm

An object cannot be at two different locations at the same time. Yet an object can be at two different locations at two different times. This occurs by objects moving to new locations. But maybe one object disappears and an identical one appears in the new location. What are the causes of the disappearing objects and the appearance of the new objects? The energy to replace is different than the energy to move and the energy to move has been measured while the energy to replace has not. The object in the new location comes from movement rather than replacement.

This may apply to speculation about the fourth dimension.

jayjacobus
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:02 pm

Consciousness is here and now. The brain brings reality and the past to consciousness. The brain can't bring the fourth dimension to here and now because other dimensions can't be perceived and only the past that was in perceivable dimensions can be remembered. The perceivable dimensions were three dimensions. The fourth dimension is deduced but not necessarily real.

Making it real seems unlikely.

Impenitent
Posts: 1610
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by Impenitent » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:05 pm

the fourth dimension is time.

here, now, then

-Imp

jayjacobus
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:11 pm

As I explain why the fourth dimension is not real, those who do believe will lose patients with my explanation. If you believe, you believe.

jayjacobus
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:55 pm

Most of the universe operates automatically. Each step follows the last step without thought. The past is not be evaluated by inanimate objects. Memories and interpretations arise in the brain so that the past and the meaning of trends are a factor in thinking animals' actions.
What this means is there was no useful time before there were brains. One might say (I do) that brains create time.

People who say that time actually exists should realize how the brain reveals tiime and what it dooesn't reveal.

jayjacobus
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus » Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:44 pm

To be more precise the brain creates memories with a rough order. The order doesn't have an index. The index is a numerical interpretation of the order. So to be accurate, time coms from memories but is a conceptualization and not memories themselves. One might say that time is a side effect of memories.

The brain provides consciousness with information which consciousnesss interprets. It's obvious that animals have memories but they don't understand the concept of time. Yet animals interpret memories. People do both.

Without memories animals would not know what anything is. They would simply be biomechanical So, memories are crucial to the funtion of animals with brains but time is not.

Impenitent
Posts: 1610
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by Impenitent » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:15 am

are you saying that everything exists as a function of the brain?

-Imp

jayjacobus
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:23 pm

No. The brain creates representations of reality that are present and also representations of realities that are not present but are in memories. The rpresentations have forms that are recognizable to consciousness while physical reality is not recognizable to cosciousness. Memories are second hand representations and should not be interpretted as direct representations.

But the brain doesn't create reality. What I mean is the brain creates a model of reality. The model is a function of the brain. Reality is a function of physics.

Impenitent
Posts: 1610
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by Impenitent » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:34 pm

how do you know the brain creates models? do you have direct access to "reality" to make the "comparison"?

are you saying that sensory data is different from that which your brain says it is?

-Imp

jayjacobus
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:34 pm

How do the representations in one form become sense data in another form? This seems to suggest that the effect determines the cause.

It might take a little thought but lightwaves can't be in a dark brain. Light is a representation of unknown form that comes from lightwaves but is not lightwaves. The same logic applies to all senses.

Impenitent
Posts: 1610
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by Impenitent » Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:49 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:34 pm
How do the representations in one form become sense data in another form? This seems to suggest that the effect determines the cause.

It might take a little thought but lightwaves can't be in a dark brain. Light is a representation of unknown form that comes from lightwaves but is not lightwaves. The same logic applies to all senses.
you said "The brain creates representations of reality that are present... "

present to what? the senses? immediately sensed?



you said "The rpresentations have forms that are recognizable to consciousness while physical reality is not recognizable to cosciousness."

the brain creates recognizable representations which are recognizable to consciousness while that which is directly sensed is not recognizable?



you said " Memories are second hand representations and should not be interpretted as direct representations."

momentarily?

-Imp

jayjacobus
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:09 pm

you said "The brain creates representations of reality that are present... "

present to what? the senses? immediately sensed?

Yes.



you said "The rpresentations have forms that are recognizable to consciousness while physical reality is not recognizable to cosciousne

the brain creates recognizable representations which are recognizable to consciousness while that which is directly sensed is not recognizable?

Physical objects are not recognized as physical objects but as images of physical objects. Senses become recognizable when they become representations that consciousness can discern.

you said "Memories are second hand representations and should not be interpretted as direct representations.

momentarily?


Memories are about the past but are not directly connected to the past. This is because the past is indiscernible. The past should not be viewed as discernible.



-Imp
[/quote]

Impenitent
Posts: 1610
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by Impenitent » Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:26 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:09 pm
you said "The brain creates representations of reality that are present... "

present to what? the senses? immediately sensed?

Yes.

and when the immediate moment has past, all you have is "indiscernible"



you said "The rpresentations have forms that are recognizable to consciousness while physical reality is not recognizable to cosciousne

the brain creates recognizable representations which are recognizable to consciousness while that which is directly sensed is not recognizable?

Physical objects are not recognized as physical objects but as images of physical objects. Senses become recognizable when they become representations that consciousness can discern.

all you can discern is the representation of that which is directly sensed, yet your claim is that you cannot recognize that which you directly sense.




you said "Memories are second hand representations and should not be interpretted as direct representations.

momentarily?


Memories are about the past but are not directly connected to the past. This is because the past is indiscernible. The past should not be viewed as discernible.

in each moment, the present is gone... what remains?


-Imp
[/quote]

jayjacobus
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Raymond Tallis

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:45 pm

Perhaps you are confirming what I say but with different words.

But what's left is the present which is an accumulation of past movements and changes. The past changes are reflected in the present but you can't unbreeak an egg or discern past changes.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests