From: Madame Ubiquitous (eileen.krasowski@yale.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:14:51 MST
Dear Ken,
>I did not say that time was an illusion. Time is a (or perhaps many) physical
>dimension. The *illusion* is that you are moving in time, or that
subjectively,
>time passes. It is an artifact of the way your memory works. People who's
brains
>cannot form memories are stuck in a nonmoving "now", continually wondering
"how did
>I get here?"
All right, let me shift a bit here and say that because the passage of time
is an illusion, studies of physics, chemistry, etc. are meaningless, for the
same reasons I expressed before, that motion and reaction require the
passage of time. Now, you may argue that such things are based on _time_,
not on the illusionary passage of time. I would answer, however, that this
is inconsequential, in that the only access we have to time is our
perception of it, and therefore, the only basis we have upon which to build
concepts of motion and reaction is this perception. (This, by the way, is
Kantian in flavor, in the sense of the real world and our perceptions of it
being wholly separate identities) If our perception of time is a subjective
illusion, then our sciences are based on such subjective illusions, and
should therefore have their reality as such become rather suspect.
>So, please tell me about the "now" that you are Experiencing. What makes it
>special, and sets it apart from all the other possible temporal points that
>have ever been or will ever be in the Universe? What makes you think "now"
>exists?
You're mixing your qualifiers...or at least the ones which Dan seems so fond
of: "now" would express something functional, while Experience would be of
the spooky, ghost-in-the-machine variety. But I digress :) Actually, you
did something rather interesting in the first part of your email when you
invoked the example of someone who has no memory, and therefore can have no
perception of the passage of time. This may have been an unintended slip on
your part, but you said such people were "stuck in a nonmoving 'now'." I
find this interesting because it serves to reflect how central and
unescapable "now" really is, in that even without a concept of time, that
person would *still* have "now". "Now" has the property of always referring
to the correct thing when I utter it. ("I" and "here" also has that
property.) That is, to use the ubiquitous example, (Dan used a form of this
earlier) let's suppose I were knocked unconscious and tied up and
blindfolded in an cement box buried in the desert somewhere. Let us further
suppose that when I woke, in addition to having no idea where I was or what
time it was, I was also given severe amnesia by the blow to the head, and so
therefore had no idea who I was and was not able to hold any memories, and
so had no real perception of the passage of time. Despite all of this, I
could still say "I am here now" in a meaningful and true fashion.
Now, I imagine you're going to say I didn't answer your question.
You're quite right :) What distinguishes "now"? Why do I think that "now"
exists? Excellent questions, so please forgive me for answering with an "I
don't know." I'm tempted to start with something about subjective
experience, but think that will lead us into problems :) So I'll continue
to ponder and let you know if I come up with something. Meanwhile, I'd be
interested to hear your comments on what I said above :) Suffice to say, my
interest here isn't really centered on the nature of "now" but rather the
nature of time and our access to it. Of which "now" is a part, sure, but
not, I think, the only component.
Best,
Eileen
----------------------------------------------------------------
"We can do no great things; only small things with great love." -Mother Teresa
Eileen Catherine Krasowski
PC '00
POR, FDA, YPMB, SR, QWP, YAGS, ECY, NEXUS
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:07 MST