🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <594esa$onl$1@news.hal-pc.org>, cryofan@brokersys.com (Randy) wrote:

> mvcs@gramercy.ios.com (Jeff Baldwin) wrote:
> 
> >Given: Life/conciousness/mind is nothing more than chemical reactions.
> >Then:
> >1) Why/how did/does subjective perception "come to be"?

> I dunno, but I like it. Beats the alternative.

Good answer.
 
> >2) If mind and all its attributes are mere checmical reactions with
> >deterministic, material (and therefore objective) origin, then why
> >does subjective perception at times differ (and markedly so) from
> >objective reality?
> 
> Why does it seem as though  Time  as perceived subjectively varies in
> inverse proportion to the amount of time previously experienced by
> that consciousness?

[good answer snipped]

Good answer, but kind of uninteresting or at least just intuitively
obvious. What is more interesting, less intuitively obvious is how time
perception works at the microscopic level. On the macroscopic level, time
is perceived (correctly) as continuous, unidirectional, and linear, and in
inverse proportion all previously experienced events perceived as
time-ordered. On the microscopic level, the linear order may get
perverted, which is not to say that it ceases to exist, only that it
cannot be perceived in correct order (at least not reliably). One might
have to limit the demominator here to just that time it took to experience
a single time-ordered series of events. At some point, the ratio will
approach 1:1, and no decision as to what came first, last, or in the
middle will be possible based on that calculation. Then, perceived
time-order is more influenced by non time-related factors, like
expectations, suggestions, etc. 

 
> Can you imagine how this effect will play itself out in the distant
> future when people will have conquered old age and disease? How long
> will a month seem to someone who is 50,000 years old?

I'm sure the process stops or slows to a crawl at some point. Does a month
seem much shorter to an 80-year-old than to a 50-year-old? Maybe a little,
but very little. 
 
> >3) Why does "the subjective" (in humans only?) strive to "objectify"
> >itself?
> 
> I dunno, but it's an interesting subject. This reminds of author Tom
> Robbins' conceit; he wondered how the human brain could ever be
> objective when speaking of itself.

Oh sure, just ask the question again in order to drop a name!

I think the best answer to this question is given by Hume in the
_Enquiry_. Briefly and crudely, it's a "curse of nature". But for anyone
interested in this sort of stuff Hume is required reading, provided you
can stand the 18th century English. (I know there are plenty of good
contemporary exegeses out there, but it's not the same without Hume's
"attitude")

-- 
smisch@tiac.net (emoticons implied by context)

'Where in the world are lunatics allowed to bathe naked in the moonlight?' -- R.D. Laing