RE: this very moment

From: Higgo James <>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 11:03:10 +0100

Either you are, or are not, a dualist.

The words, "believe that both (real) physical and (real)
mental worlds can exist and am I am quite content with believing that
they are, in fact, one and the same" are self-inconsistent.

I don't believe time exists as an objective feature of reality. There is no
evidence in physics for it. Ther eis nothing that is time-irreversible. See
Huw Price 'Time's arrow and Archimedes' Point' or the forthcoming book by
Vic Stenger (to be published by Prometheus, probably late this year).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott D. Yelich []
> Sent: Friday, 12 May, 2000 10:48 AM
> To: Brent Meeker
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: this very moment
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Brent Meeker wrote:
> > This seems like a very extravagant claim. In what sense does an idea
> exist if
> > no one has it. And what is an "idea" anyway - a thought, something that
> can be
> > expressed by a declarative sentence. If the latter, then does the idea
> > expressed by, "This is not an idea" exist? If there is to be a theory
> of
> I think This is not an idea" can exist and can exist as as idea (even
> under your clause above).
> > everything - including ideas - then it seems it would have to be
> something like
> > Russell's neutral monism; in which the basic "stuff" of our lives are
> sets of
> > monads some of which are related so as to represent a physical external
> world
> > (these we mostly call perceptions) and another related set which
> constitue an
> > internal mental life (which we call our thoughts). The fact that these
> two
> > sets are also related to each other in a certain order constitues the
> passage
> > of time (both physical and psychological) and together they constitute a
> > person who we say 'experiences things in time.' A TOE would presumably
> predict,
> > at least probabilistically, these monads and their relations.
> Is it JH who doesn't believe in time?
> I am quite satisfied with believe that both (real) physical and (real)
> mental worlds can exist and am I am quite content with believing that
> they are, in fact, one and the same. The numbers that are given to try
> to prove the multi-verse idea seems silly to me -- because if people
> were to accept that, then any number of other explanations would also be
> plausable.
> So, if we all have our own ideas of what everything is -- how
> do we proceed with discussions on this list?
> Scott
> Version: 2.6.2
> UPRvWPyyKJvldpJm3JfhX0mgMoNriFLJKfnBsy7xUS+UjitG0CjFpEKtdJca+Yut
> MFsRvKt25+CUPaiivfhlfah4wXyGii3B3kwwTS/vIH4KoF5QS1mGfoOca/73e/0w
> 1jL96MUVMks=
> =AuoN

The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and may be privileged.
It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to
deliver it to the intended recipient, this message must not be copied or distributed to
any other person. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
by telephone (+44-20-7337-3500) and destroy the original message. The Gerrard Group reserves
the right to monitor all e-mail messages passing through its network.

This e-mail originates from the Gerrard Group unless otherwise stated. The Gerrard Group
is regulated by SFA and is a member of the London Stock Exchange.
Received on Fri May 12 2000 - 03:26:34 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST