Page 4 of 4
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:49 pm
by AYHJA
^^
Bud...Both you and Kant are ill if you believe that...Repeat what you just said, and then read the question again...
We need both mind and ears to INTERPRET sound
vs
If a tree falls in the woods does it still MAKE a sound
Next..!
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:07 pm
by raum
finally, d put in a question to answer.
Time, as you have learned it, plainly put, is a hypothesis, and nothing more.
it works as well as the bohr model of the atom,.. even though the highest forms of science demand that there is no such things as electrons.
String theory, Synchronicity, and even Mendelbrot Sets and Julian Strains are not possible given what we experience as temporal perception.
Entropy,.. don't even go there. :-$
time exists outside our minds,.. but our perceptions of time originate in the mind. We have standardized our measurements of times to make up for the fact that our perceptions of it can not be identical.
The only way to really approach it outside of your mind is to "leave" your "mind" behind; if only momentarily. ](*,) and you can't force it to happen.
As far as Kant,. his main flaw was he based his philosophy on mind, not life. His idea of time includes unfailable destiny, and predeterminism is one of the biggest loads of bunk you can sell in the game of philosophy.
vertical,
Raum
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:30 am
by trashtalkr
Wow..this is deep....
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 4:10 am
by capnstick
Wow..this is deep...