Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Sending/Receiving email functionality is not going away, you can continue to communicate via any email client with your group members. Learn More
4358Re: Electrodynamic Field Theory
- Aug 12, 2006
On August 09, 2006 5:43 AM, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
However, it worries me when people like McGinn talk of consciousness
being 'non-spatial'. Any account of consciousness that can be fitted
into conventional physics will need at least three quite different
spaces which apply to the same bit of universe but have totally
different mathematical rules and 'belong' to different things. (1)
Euclidean/Minkowsky space (2) Hilbert space (3) Experiential space.
The first two are theoretical constructs which can be used by all
'flies on the wall'. The third is what we think is Euclidean space
but is only a map of it and belongs only to the observer. Which of
these is 'real space' depends on which way you are using the term
reality. Without spelling out these spaces and their relations
discussions of the spatiality of consciousness are self-defeating. I
think there are reasons to believe that Newton and Leibniz both knew
there must be three spaces in their own way. Modern education may
engender a much narrower, more blinkered view, and I think that may
be our biggest problem.
I would like David's PDF too; I forgot to ask last time.
John Smythies touches on these issues in his JCS article "Space, Time and
Consciousness." There are some similarities between Smythies' theory of
consciousness and my own theory.
Jcs-online list-members may wish to read my paper "Temporal Passage":
Target Article 61
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/411 - Release Date: 08/07/2006
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>