Subj : Re: Extent of the Argume
To   : CHUCK PIERSON
From : TODD HENSON
Date : Sun Oct 29 2000 06:40 pm

>  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.



Ah, no, not relevant in the slightest. You're not reading what's being
typed. That's the 
first problem. Secondly, the ultimate origin of the universe wasn't really
dealt with yet, but it was 
something that I had intended on commenting on before you got distracted.
Thirdly, as long as 
we're on the subject, nothing can create itself. A thing cannot bring
itself into existence, 
because that requires it to do something even though it doesn't exist yet.
So that's not logical.

Fourthly, I agree, characterizing the universe in a sentient way DOES make
it take the place of 
God. :-)


>  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 


You ignored the point while trying to make this one. An infinite amount of
time is an infinite 
amount of time, period. But, if you have a theory that a hypothetical
universe that has existed 
for an infinitely long time might have some kind of "perception" issue
where it somehow sees it 
as finite, thereby limiting the amount of time it's had to learn, I'm all
ears.


>  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.


Gotcha. :-)


>  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.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr4
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345)

.