Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Baba Kueria
Posts: 3146

time, perception, immortality

After a bit of a revelation the other day, figured I'd run this past some of you philophiles here to see what you reckon...

Firstly, you know how time seems to speed up as you get older, right?
Well the reason for that has to do with each year being proportionally less of your total memory than the one before. That is, when you are 10 going on 11 the year is 10% of your total experience, and when you are 20 going on 21 it's only 5%... so perceptually, it goes twice as quickly. This seems to hold true to experience, each year is quicker than the last, but the rate of acceleration is decreasing. If you were to graph out perceived time over actual time, it looks like this:

The interesting part is what happens right at the start. For an instant there, your perceived time is travelling at 90 degrees to actual time. Whether that instant is the moment of conception or the firing of the first neuron in the brain or whatever... perceptually, that first instant lasts for eternity. Perceptually we have already lived forever, but with no senses, nor any experience to reflect on in that instant, we can't possibly remember it.

Now, perceived time is not nearly as linear as the above graph shows, that's more of a general trend over the course of a lifetime. Remember those dreams that seemed as though they lasted for years? If you've ever been knocked unconscious and remembered your waking moments you'll know excactly what I'm talking about. I've heard of some sensory deprivation experiments where perceived time in test subjects has spiked dramatically. I've also heard this time distortion passed off as confusion caused by the mistakes within the brain, but I am not so sure.

What I currently believe is this: Lack of activity within the brain, whether from lack of sensory input, lack of oxygen or both, puts the mind into an accelerated sense of time. Taking advantage of this knowledge correctly could lead to a second infinite moment at the point of death, but unlike the moment at the point of birth, this one could have self awareness intact. So we live forever after all, even if we do it in 70 odd years.

heh. There's heaps more to this, but that will do for starters. So, Sp00ky, paint, et al. what do you think?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26378

Good shit.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1010

I have thought things along the same lines, but not to that extent. Good theory.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2570

So...are you coming to Newtown tomorrow night or have you already been?
Or both?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Bangor, ME
Posts: 10153

that was fucking cool

and explains the last scene in american beauty

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35560

quote:

---

Originally posted by slight


Now, perceived time is not nearly as linear as the above graph shows, that's more of a general trend over the course of a lifetime.

---

Last edited by Smug Git on 08-27-2001 at 12:08 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 15123

I'm not old, I've just experienced more time than you.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16670

It was a good read.
I read somewhere some one say something to the extent of "as long as there is time there is suffering" maybe its the other way around, maybe as long as there is suffering there is time and when we are finally old enough and wise enough to stop dwelling in sorrows and start enjoying the experience of life amid your bliss time is fleeting.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

taste the fucking rainbow

Last edited by euphorbia on 08-25-2001 at 03:16 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location:
Posts: 1925

That last bit of your post reminds me a bit of the end of 2001. As man approaches a being of pure thought (?), foetal imagery is juxtaposed. End of life (which seemingly disobeys basic temporal laws) and the end of life. Are these the same two points you considered in your post? The asymptotes reached at t = 0 and t = t ?

you (slight) said that there is heaps more to this, id like to hear it, its pretty interesting

thanks

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16670

I was hoping this thread would be prolific too...

*rubs sticks together*

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: sydney
Posts: 2202

i m in love with the graph ... this whole thing is flawed though , but like i know i cant put my finger on it right now
maybe later

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9453

quote:

---

Originally posted by slight

What I currently believe is this: Lack of activity within the brain, whether from lack of sensory input, lack of oxygen or both, puts the mind into an accelerated sense of time. Taking advantage of this knowledge correctly could lead to a second infinite moment at the point of death, but unlike the moment at the point of birth, this one could have self awareness intact. So we live forever after all, even if we do it in 70 odd years.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Bangor, ME
Posts: 10153

Ah, I remember this thread. Thank you Nute for bringing up something that involves more then wading through knee-high shit.

BUT, I would see memory as a bell-curve, the beginning and end of life seem faster in the mind. Only in the middle does it seem lasting. Again, you are compairing a life and death situation to having fun in an eviroment where there isn't any danger. (ramble) When you are having fun in an eviroment that seems safe, you let yourself be caught up in life. When in a life or death situation, maybe the brain slows itself down to live your life to the fullest before you die.

(this was a pure ramble, but is a welcome relief from the he said she said)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9453

how can your brain tell if it is life-or-death? Running as fast as you can in a race is fun, but running to escape a deadly foe is different. Are you suggesting that our conception of time is run through our systems of meaning evaluation first to determine the danger? That doesnt sound very efficient to me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9453

A chat log.....

---begin----

[23:13] (slight) a graph physical time as x and call y perceptual tiime
[23:14] (Nute) i blew off the graph
[23:14] (slight) but your perception of time is actually the red line of the graph and the y axis is a nonsensical fabrication
[23:14] (slight) the graph is the clincher
[23:14] (Nute) i just went with the phenomenoligial explanation of the experience
[23:15] (slight) the phenowhat?
[23:17] (slight) If this is the case, where does the synthesis of the mind come from? YOu could argue that the mind springs forth with the first neuronal blast, but then you have activity defining it. Surely we don't accept that minds exist "just there" waiting to be activated by neurons?
[23:17] (slight) OK
[23:17] (slight) this is exactly what it's all about
[23:17] (slight) the graph, if correct, proves that your consciousness comes quite literally from another dimension
[23:18] (slight) one that is 90 degrees out of phase with time
[23:18] (Nute) don'T try to make up a graph and pin it on reality, bub
[23:19] (Nute) I might fall for it if I was sober and you didn't tip your hand, but you told me already and I'm drunk
[23:19] (slight) well, i could be lying
[23:19] (slight) infact, im not 100% sure myself
[23:19] (slight) but i suspect a flaw
[23:20] (slight) the cool thing is, if I can define the flaw, and accurately label the y axis of my graph, then I have discoverred the plane from which our concsiousness comes
[23:20] (Nute) check your premises, bro
[23:20] (slight) well, not so much discovered, but named
[23:20] (slight) yea
[23:21] (Nute) i think that etheral bases minds lined up for activation, while plausible, violate Ocham
[23:21] (slight) i dont see it that way
[23:22] (slight) there is no queue if there is no time
[23:22] (slight) we come from a place where time does not exist
[23:22] (slight) and maybe we go back there, maybe we dont
[23:22] (Nute) why would pre-existant minds be more likely than a mind that sprind into awareness upon the initiation of nural activity?
[23:24] (slight) because for any 'thing' to spring into existance violates several laws of physics. if we accept the awareness as a 'thing' then it should follow the same laws as everything else
[23:25] (slight) but you say 'pre-existant' as though you think it exists before it exists, im not saying that at all
[23:25] (slight) there is no before or after when you are diplaced by 90 degrees from time
[23:26] (Nute) who says mind is a thing? I vote for "state" over "thing"
[23:27] (slight) my definition of 'mind' would be a developed awareness
[23:27] (slight) so mind may be a state, but awareness which is the root of mind, is a thing
[23:27] (slight) IMHO of course
[23:28] (Nute) how can awareness be a thing?
[23:28] (slight) for all we know, i dont think we (as a species) have answered that one conclusively yet
[23:28] (Nute) knowledge isn't embodied outised of of writing
[23:28] (slight) how can it not be?
[23:29] (Nute) how can it be?
[23:29] (Nute) are emotions things?
[23:29] (slight) OK. do you think energy is a 'thing'?
[23:30] (Nute) more of a force
[23:30] (slight) i see a universe containing only 3 'things' matter -) energy -) awareness
[23:30] (slight) thats what i mean by 'thing'
[23:30] (Nute) if forced, I would concede only energy
[23:30] (Nute) often embodied by matte,r but its all energy at the end of the day
[23:31] (slight) yes, it's all levels of the same thing
[23:31] (Nute) awareness is different though
[23:31] (slight) thats why i think awareness should be subject to the same laws
[23:32] (slight) in what way exactly is it different?
[23:33] (slight) brb nute
[23:35] (Nute) lemme know
[23:36] (slight) bak
[23:36] (slight) still thinking?
[23:37] (Nute) energy (and matter) run without brains. no need for awarness
[23:37] (slight) awarenes runs without brains too
[23:37] (slight) why does a flower open to the sun?
[23:37] (Nute) flower has mind?
[23:38] (slight) no, but it has awareness
[23:38] (slight) it has 'life'
[23:38] (Nute) life isnt much more than chemistry
[23:39] (Nute) i think the onus is on you to convine me of energy)matter)awareness
[23:39] (Nute) I'll buy the first two, but you got to sell me on the last step
[23:39] (slight) you got the order mixed up there. the order is important
[23:40] (slight) or perhaps not, perhaps i see it in the wrong place, who can say
[23:41] (slight) OK, is there such a thing as matter?
[23:41] (Nute) of course
[23:41] (slight) is there such a thing as energy?
[23:41] (slight) is there such a thing as awareness?
[23:41] (Nute) see above
[23:41] (Nute) sure
[23:41] (slight) what else is there?
[23:41] (Nute) unicorns
[23:41] (slight) hahaha
[23:41] (Nute) and dragons
[23:41] (slight) bless your unicorn heart
[23:41] (Nute) fag0rt
[23:42] (Nute) where are they? is a unicorn real? is it "just" a thought? does that mean it is energy? matter?
[23:42] (Nute) or are they trapped in a world of awareness?
[23:43] (Nute) we should take this to wota or #UH
[23:43] (slight) i think we are off the subject here
[23:43] (slight) but i'm happy to go with unicorns if you are

---end----

the adventure continues.......

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location: Baba Kueria
Posts: 3146

Logs from Nute and I, posted here for the sake of www immortality.

quote:

---

[00:14] {Nute} did you see my resurrection fo your great time therad/
[00:14] {slight} yea yea
[00:14] {Nute} (i hate this keyboard)
[00:14] {slight} that why i PM you actually
[00:14] {slight} i have to read it again tho
[00:14] {slight} but
[00:14] {slight} the whole thing is a sham, my idea
[00:15] {slight} a graph physical time as x and call y perceptual tiime
[00:16] {slight} but your perception of time is actually the red line of the graph and the y axis is a nonsensical fabrication
[00:16] {Nute} i blew off the graph
[00:16] {slight} the graph is the clincher
[00:16] {Nute} i just went with the phenomenoligial explanation of the experience
[00:16] {slight} the phenowhat?
[00:18] {slight} If this is the case, where does the synthesis of the mind come from? YOu could argue that the mind springs forth with the first neuronal blast, but then you have activity defining it. Surely we don't accept that minds exist "just there" waiting to be activated by neurons?
[00:18] {slight} OK
[00:18] {slight} this is exactly what it's all about
[00:19] {slight} the graph, if correct, proves that your consciousness comes quite literally from another dimension
[00:19] {slight} one that is 90 degrees out of phase with time
[00:20] {Nute} don'T try to make up a graph and pin it on reality, bub
[00:20] {Nute} I might fall for it if I was sober and you didn't tip your hand, but you told me already and I'm drunk
[00:20] {slight} well, i could be lying
[00:21] {slight} infact, im not 100% sure myself
[00:21] {slight} but i suspect a flaw
[00:22] {slight} the cool thing is, if I can define the flaw, and accurately label the y axis of my graph, then I have discoverred the plane from which our concsiousness comes
[00:22] {Nute} check your premises, bro
[00:22] {slight} well, not so much discovered, but named
[00:22] {slight} yea
[00:22] {Nute} i think that etheral bases minds lined up for activation, while plausible, violate Ocham
[00:23] {slight} i dont see it that way
[00:23] {slight} there is no queue if there is no time
[00:23] {slight} we come from a place where time does not exist
[00:24] {slight} and maybe we go back there, maybe we dont
[00:24] {Nute} why would pre-existant minds be more likely than a mind that sprind into awareness upon the initiation of nural activity?
[00:25] {slight} because for any 'thing' to spring into existance violates several laws of physics. if we accept the awareness as a 'thing' then it should follow the same laws as everything else
[00:26] {slight} but you say 'pre-existant' as though you think it exists before it exists, im not saying that at all
[00:27] {slight} there is no before or after when you are diplaced by 90 degrees from time
[00:28] {Nute} who says mind is a thing? I vote for "state" over "thing"
[00:29] {slight} my definition of 'mind' would be a developed awareness
[00:29] {slight} so mind may be a state, but awareness which is the root of mind, is a thing
[00:29] {slight} IMHO of course
[00:30] {Nute} how can awareness be a thing?
[00:30] {slight} for all we know, i dont think we (as a species) have answered that one conclusively yet
[00:30] {Nute} knowledge isn't embodied outised of of writing
[00:30] {slight} how can it not be?
[00:30] {Nute} how can it be?
[00:31] {Nute} are emotions things?
[00:31] {slight} OK. do you think energy is a 'thing'?
[00:31] {Nute} more of a force
[00:31] {slight} i see a universe containing only 3 'things' matter -> energy -> awareness
[00:32] {slight} thats what i mean by 'thing'
[00:32] {Nute} if forced, I would concede only energy
[00:32] {Nute} often embodied by matte,r but its all energy at the end of the day
[00:32] {slight} yes, it's all levels of the same thing
[00:32] {Nute} awareness is different though
[00:33] {slight} thats why i think awareness should be subject to the same laws
[00:33] {slight} in what way exactly is it different?
[00:35] {slight} brb nute
[00:37] {Nute} lemme know
[00:38] {slight} bak
[00:38] {slight} still thinking?
[00:38] {Nute} energy (and matter) run without brains. no need for awarness
[00:39] {slight} awarenes runs without brains too
[00:39] {slight} why does a flower open to the sun?
[00:39] {Nute} flower has mind?
[00:39] {slight} no, but it has awareness
[00:40] {slight} it has 'life'
[00:40] {Nute} life isnt much more than chemistry
[00:40] {Nute} i think the onus is on you to convine me of energy}matter}awareness
[00:41] {Nute} I'll buy the first two, but you got to sell me on the last step
[00:41] {slight} you got the order mixed up there. the order is important
[00:41] {slight} or perhaps not, perhaps i see it in the wrong place, who can say
[00:42] {slight} OK, is there such a thing as matter?
[00:42] {slight} is there such a thing as energy?
[00:42] {Nute} of course
[00:42] {slight} is there such a thing as awareness?
[00:42] {Nute} see above
[00:43] {Nute} sure
[00:43] {slight} what else is there?
[00:43] {Nute} unicorns
[00:43] {slight} hahaha
[00:43] {slight} bless your unicorn heart
[00:43] {Nute} and dragons
[00:43] {Nute} fag0rt
[00:44] {Nute} where are they? is a unicorn real? is it "just" a thought? does that mean it is energy? matter?
[00:44] {Nute} or are they trapped in a world of awareness?
[00:44] {Nute} we should take this to wota or #UH
[00:44] {slight} i think we are off the subject here
[00:45] {slight} but i'm happy to go with unicorns if you are

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9453

Good enough to be read twice (or was that incomprehensiblle enough that it requires two readings before being tossed out with the condoms?)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Bangor, ME
Posts: 10153

eh, just a thought

top?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9453

that's about as much a contribution as we can expect from you fiend.

keep up the good work.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 17889

For all questions of time and physics and science in general I always defer to Mewk Shackleford - Boy Genius and his expanding universe!

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged