I didn't read where anyone referred to it as spacial though....
Dimensions have types, it doesn't make them any less definable as so...
But you are correct, it can be represented mathmatically but riddle me this..

If at that constant speed of light, our frame of reference is changed thus we in fact, "Take our time with us." the there are still measurements being taken, we've merely stepped outside the viewers frame of reference.

But those same atomic measurements apply to us....those seconds...those minutes..
A second will be a second from my frame of reference....
Same as the person viewing me....hence the effect of time dilation...

Which is something tangible...so can we not really consider that time is intangible? That it is an illusion?

General Relativity clearly displays time as a spatial dimension with math, supported by physical observation.

So far the current model is based on demonstrable observation. There are four spatial dimensions: length, breadth, height and sitting there to begin with (time).

But then, you haven't really considered that I read any Nietzsche, or thought about what he wrote, from an entirely different angle than you, did you? All you decided was that they didn't match what you were taught.

At times in my life, I've found them incredibly reliable, such as when someone says "because I'm your friend, I'll do such-and-such for you", then they are usually screwing you over, doing something for you, that is less than they would do for a stranger. I've found that when friends do favours for you, they never even mention the friendship, because it doesn't NEED mentioning that they are doing favours for you because you are a friend. That's why they're doing them for you.

I am not well versed in Deleuze and Guattari but the little I know of their works leads me to wish I did. I do know that many labeled their work as postmodern which I am not sure fits well with the "concepts". I like their idea of the "Rhizome"much better than Dawkins memes simply because it forces us to observe and approach phenomona as if it was a jungle and we are somwhere in it. The best beginning is in the middle and see where the strands lead I suppose. Like I said though I wish I knew more of their works.

"History is always written from the sedentary point of view and in the name of a unitary State apparatus, at least a possible one, even when the topic is nomads. What is lacking is a Nomadology, the opposite of a history" (A Thousand Plateaus)

You tell me about your lifestyle, when you voice your opinion.

One cannot guarantee the conclusions exactly. So one has to form a deduction based on multiple different statements, to put together a cohesive whole. Also, one only gains a probable lifestyle, as it is not guaranteed. But one can deduce much from someone's statements, simply if one is willing to consider multiple stated opinions, paying particular note to the details of how those opinions are expressed, and one use careful analysis, so as to be very careful to not be too eager to draw unlikely conclusions.

I have read enough of those quotes to realise that according to Nietzsche, the Nazi viewpoint was simply to promote their chosen desires, to raise themselves to be a master elitist overlord over everyone else.

Ironically, Nietzsche's own words state that Hitler was just someone trying to promote his own desires.

Many religions have already expressed this idea in another manner, in the form of a consciousness of a whole people. I have read enough religious texts to say that the idea of a group consciousness has been made clear many, many times.

If the philosophers you cited do not consider such a consciousness as being possible, even if similar to an assembly of machine parts, then you would be right to state that the ideas you were citing were not the ideas I was referring to. Is this what you meant, that such consciousness is not possible?

That is your right.

It is merely an outgrowth of the moral obligation to help others, that wish to be helped. If you have no desire to do so, then that is your choice. But I would regard it no differently than helping an old woman across the road, who shows that she wishes to be helped across the road.

Bear also in mind, that my mother's grandparents were from Europe, one from Vienna, one from the border of Poland and Russia, and so many of my family were wiped out in the Holocaust. So I am not using these terms lightly.

Put up, or shut up. If I really have a problem, you should inform me, in order that I might do something about it. If not, then every action that I take in that vein, is with your open approval.

You have neither the justification nor the right to make any declarations in my name, nor to imply my tacit approval for your doing so.

If you don't think it is close to murder, to have someone you know say that they don't mind murdering someone, and you say nothing about it, then that is your philosophy. But I think it is. If you have a chance to stop evil happening, merely by informing someone, then it only makes sense to say something politely. It doesn't mean that the person will definitely listen. But it will be something that is then brought attention to their consciousness, and will be something that plays on their mind. It will make a difference.

Neither is the familial structure the main source of consciousness or of bonding in religion. It is simply the most commonly found unit of bonding in the populace. As religion needs to take account of biological structures, the family unit becomes important to consider, when it is beneficial, and when it is destructive. If you peruse religious literature, then at least in some religions, if not all, one finds that the main unit of bonding and of common consciousness, is shared values and shared goals, nothing more, nothing less. Only when the family has those shared goals and shared values does the family exhibit a consciousness, but normally, such a consciousness is described only in the identification of an entire people, or a large sect that treats itself as if it was a people separate from the rest.

That might be your view. It is not mine. AFAIK, philosophy is composed of ideas. So are scientific hypotheses. Some of those ideas can be tested via analytical methods, such as experimentation.

Granted, that might be a rather radical viewpoint. But I have always tended to think that where it could be possible, a scientific approach might lend light on an issue.

If people are not careful to realise that with the removal of religion, that the same type of intellectual authority is removed as well, someone can easily replace scientists and other academics in their place, and this can be observed directly with the historical development of societies where religion has waned, or been removed altogether. Religion, and G-d, threaten the power of the academic to claim that others should accept his views, merely because he claims to know more, because they project an alternative authority to listen to, forcing the people to think before they accept the word of an academic.

I know you will keep doing what you want. Nietzsche tells us that the Will to Truth is a result of the Will to Power, that our claims are to support our lifestyles. If your lifestyle dictates that you wish to live in harmony with others, then your opinions will reflect that. If your lifestyle dictates that you wish to refuse to acknowledge that not everyone agrees with you, then your opinions will reflect that. You tell me about your lifestyle, when you voice your opinion.

Many religions have already expressed this idea in another manner, in the form of a consciousness of a whole people.

If you want to, no-one will stop you posting libel here. Plenty of posters have made accusations against me. If you don't want to post such things in public, because you do not want to embarrass me, then there is still a moral obligation upon you, to inform me of me weaknesses, by mailing me directly, so that I might change my behaviour. If you wish to claim that I won't, then I formally state here, that I will adapt to whatever is a genuine moral complaint. My mailing criteria is completely open, so that is no barrier either.

Put up, or shut up. If I really have a problem, you should inform me, in order that I might do something about it. If not, then every action that I take in that vein, is with your open approval.

Such a "human machine parts" approach, is just a possible explanation for an existing religious idea. It might, or might not, hold merit. The scientific method can aid us in constructing scientific experiments to determine if this approach is valid or not.

I think that it should not matter who says an idea of philosophy, whether they are Anglo-American, Continental, or African, whether educated in a university, or no education, or growing up in a simple agricultural village, whether religious, theist, spiritual, agnostic, or atheist. It would be nice if everyone else seeks to gain knowledge and understanding wherever it may be found as well.

I understand he is attempting to connect the individual and social levels.

If you said that to my face, I'd be punching you right now. A lot. I won't bother going into my family history, or what they did during the war, but suffice it to say that's one of the worst things you could possibly say to me.

One night I came home late and went through three stop signs

You attract whatever you put out and it sounds like you are getting EXACTLY what you believe is true...which IS the Law of Attraction in a nutshell. What we see outside of ourselves is EXACTLY a perfect reflection of what we believe is true. Change your mind, change your reality.

And when coming back to earth, the craft needs heat sheilds and a parachute to slow it again, which at least is easier then dealing with the moon with no atmosphere. Where are the heat sheilds and parachute?

"The null hypothesis means that the burden of proof is on the person asserting a positive claim, not on the skeptics to disprove it. I once appeared on Larry King Live to discuss UFOs (a perennial favorite of his), along with a table full of UFOlogists. King's questions for other skeptics and me typically miss this central tenet of science. It is not up to the skeptics to disprove UFOs. Although we cannot run a controlled experiment that would yield a statistical probability of rejecting (or not) the null hypothesis that aliens are not visiting Earth, proof would be simple: show us an alien spacecraft or an extraterrestrial body. Until then, keep searching and get back to us when you have something."

For instance, the Historical Association said that the #2 biggest myth in history is that many Europeans believed the Earth was flat, and historians Stephen Jay Gould and Ronald Numbers said that this was never believed by Christian scholars of Europe

Now professor at Harvard University and curator of its Museum of Comparative Zoology, Gould attended Antioch College, then returned to Manhattan, for graduate work in paleontology at Columbia University. For his doctoral thesis he investigated variation and evolution in an obscure Burmudian land snail, anchoring his later theorizing in intense scrutiny of a single group of organisms, as Darwin had done with Barnacles.

Mathematicians were never comfortable with the concept of the infinitesimal.

I'm going to read Kant anyway. But if anyone has a good primer on his biography, and on continental rationalism, and on the main works of Locke and Hume, I'd appreciate a short-list. I have only so much time to read.

The trick with Kant is to imagine that he wants to give other kinds of knowledge the kinds of foundation (certitude) that one has in the more exact disciplines like mathematics. He thinks he can do this in a kind of synthesizing of the empiricist's and the rationalist's view.

All I can say is that one can make a general statement of logic, that would be true whatever Kant wrote, and that if anyone did make any claims about what Kant wrote, and that it was obviously wrong, then it would be easy to prove him wrong, simply by quoting the part of Kant's writings that shows unassailable logic that contradicts his claims, and that if no-one did such an easy thing, then one has to wonder why.

I cannot state that, as I would regard that as an extraordinary claim, and as Carl Sagan pointed out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and I don't see any such extraordinary proofs being proposed.

Mathematics discusses ideas, and mathematical proofs prove those ideas right or wrong, beyond any question. The reason that those ideas that are proved in Mathematics are no longer discussed in philosophy, are simply because they have been proved, and so there is nothing to discuss as to their feasability. We KNOW they are right. What is there more to say?

That still doesn't change logic. Logic is either true, or false. Otherwise, none of us could talk about philosophy without having read the texts on philosophy, such as the many texts on philosophy that were in the Library of Alexandria, that we don't have.

I don't know that everyone would agree with you. I have no knowledge of any credentials that I would trust from you. I have not seen anything in your writing that suggests that you are erudite or knowledgeable about philosophy. I have not seen anything in your writing that suggests a great understanding of philosophical ideas either. Now, that doesn't mean that you DON'T have all that. But it does mean that scientifically, I have no reason to accept anything on your say-so.

I don't care what you think. You've annihilated any reason for me to try and justify my views to you. All I am interested in, is the truth, and so far, this is a likely hypothesis.

I would agree that in terms of intuition that includes the intuition that the Sun is going to come up tomorrow, then mathematics is based on intuition.

However, I would agree that there appears to be a conflict between Kant claiming to support insight and reason, and stating that mathemtical truths are "a priori", and yet, on the other hand, being an empiricist. But criticising pure reason would have the same effect, as one cannot criticise pure reason and state that it is something one can agree with.

If Kant's arguments are valid, then they are valid whether or not Kant said them, and so, can be stated here without having to say "if you haven't read Kant, you cannot discuss the matter". Either they are proved true or are not. If they are proved true, then they can be proved true here. If they are not, then that doesn't make them true.

The other side of that is that Kant was, as kirk763 pointed out, was an empiricist. So his arguments have no application or validity unless we accept all of empirical ideas, such as the idea that Pythgoras' theorem is NOT true, because it is based on pure logic, and NOT on experimentation.

It seems to me that a lot of people believe that if they keep arguing that someone clever said something clever, and they keep saying it long enough, that that will make it universally right.

So his arguments have no application or validity unless we accept all of empirical ideas

You've already put on another thread that you don't want to talk to me anymore. I took you at your word. Either you do wish to correspond with me, or you do not. If you do, then please put that you are willing to have everything you wrote analysed with a fine tooth-comb, and ripped apart like tissue paper, because I don't like to accept cheap arguments, and I would analyse your posts to me with the same analysis that I apply to everything.

I have to say there have been some wonderful contributions to this thread.

The problem is that most people never really get past the early parts of the book where it might appear as though empiricism (in the shape of Hume but possibly more importantly Locke) is exclusively under fire. What ought to be kept in view however, is that Kant actually agrees with the empiricists to a point. But he wants to synthesize elements of the empiricist's view that he accepts with aspects of the rationalist's view that he wishes to preserve.

Hang on. If the Supreme Being is incapable of enlarging our cognition with regards to the existence of things, because it's an idea, and only because it's an idea, then ALL ideas are incapable of enlarging our cognition with regards to the existence of things. As ALL scientific theories are ideas, then ALL scientific theories must be incapable of enlarging our cognition with regards to the existence of things. But hang on. Everything we study exists or not. If science cannot elucide us about the existence of things, then surely it cannot prove the existence of black holes, or atoms, or just about anything, right? But Kant defends science, right? So Kant's in contradiction with himself?

Wasn't Kant a rationalist? I don't see how he could write anything about reason if he wasn't a rationalist and so didn't believe in reason.

Please bear in mind that I haven't read Kant yet. So don't hold this as anything more than mere thoughts of the possible, not solid opinion. Mind you, it seems that I ought to.