Subj : Re: Extent of the Argume To : Todd Henson From : Chuck Pierson Date : Fri Oct 27 2000 09:33 am MSGID: 1:236/111.9999 a4cdb489 PID: TerMail 4 EVALUATION Hi TODD HENSON, hope you are having a nice day 27-Oct-00 02:50:00, TODD HENSON wrote to CHUCK PIERSON Subject: Re: Extent of the Argume TH> * Copied from: PHIL >> > How is it different? You're projecting the way humans >> > perceive time in you >> > assumption that the universe has had an INFINITE >> > amount of time to increase >> > it's self-knowledge. >> >> JW> Sorry I miised that. Where did you assume this, Chuck. C'mon 'fess TH> up! >> >> Probably in my comments about time being relative. However, I believe that >> comment was actually mine refering to something Todd said. I really need TH> to >> hold on to my mail packets longer so I can go back and look at these TH> things. TH> The comment I made was in regards to the LENGTH (infinite vs finite) of TH> time, and you inserted TH> comments about what different people may "feel" about a given length of TH> so many years. Those TH> are to completely different categories. I then explained that to you TH> again. TH> You still didn't get it. TH> You still chose to insert things that were not relevant to the premise at TH> hand, which was TH> whether the universe had a finite or an infinite amount of time to "get TH> to know itself". TH> I made some commentary about John's premise, exploring possible TH> implications if that said TH> premise(s) was true, and then you started making irrelevant comments TH> about how I was doing TH> the same kind of projecting that you did when you brought up the "mind of TH> man work's like TH> God's" example, which is a completely differerent issue and context TH> altogether. My understanding of the premise was that the universe was an intelligent being which created itself and all creation. In this case, the universe would be taking the place of God's, and thereby the comparison I made would be accurate and therby no irrelevant. TH> So, after repeated attempts to keep the conversation on track regarding TH> the implications of an TH> infinite vs finite amount of time, and after repeated attempts by you to TH> take the conversation off TH> on unrelated tangents, it seemed pretty clear that you weren't listening TH> to what was being said. TH> That, coupled with comments comparing me to an 11-year old didn't paint a TH> real pretty picture. While infinite and finite amounts of time are measureable things, I think that dealing with those subjects by intelligent things necessarily requires that you take in account perception of the relativeness of time as regarding intelligent individuals, which was the point I was trying to make. I was listening to what you were saying, but just didn't accept the premise of infinite time without reguarding perception of time, which it didn't appear to me that you were listening to. As far as the comment about the 11 year old, I apologize for that. Upon further reflection, it didn't come out quite right. I wasn't intentionally trying to compare you to my 11 year old daughter, but the conversation was getting to have similarities to ones I've had with my children in the past when I've tried to explain things to them and they've grown tired of listening. My 11 year old especially uses "Oh well" as a favorite brush off remark. TH> I don't know if it's just a bad case of getting signals crossed or what, TH> but I became TH> understandably skeptical of your intentions. But since all we have in TH> FIDO is text, and none of TH> the vocal tones, expressions, etc to convey the rest of the message, I TH> don't have ill intentions toward you at all. :-) Nor do I. As I've said in the past, I often deal in hypothetical situations, and when I do so, especially when I'm coming from viewpoints I don't actually hold myself, I sort of tend to become one tracked in explaining my point. -=> Yours sincerely, Chuck Pierson <=- ___ Terminate 4.00 * Origin: The NEW Terminate will -=> FAX <=- almost anything! (1:236/111.9999) .