A photon's perception of movement?
Pardons, but can we truly guess at what a photon percieves? Whether it perceives at all?
Were it to percieve, then the same could be said for all other particles as could be said about it. Electrons, Protons, Quarks, all 6 neutrinos, they
would all have the 'perception' that they do not move, and that they have no speed.
According to your proof that light feels no speed, and no time, and no movement, all particles feel no speed, movement, or time, thus, nothing
anywhere is moving, nothing anywhere ever has! It is just instant skip from A to B for absolutely everything!
Unless of course you can somehow differentiate between the perceptions of photons and electrons, then I may just wish to give you the Nobel prize.
Next, I don't know why you think I didn't read the thread or the links that people posted, you seem to think my contrary stance makes me an asshole!
I am a skeptic, and I know what I know, and read what is given, you have given me the supposition that light really moves everywhere instantly, so our
consciousness therefore is also instantaneous! There is no proof that consciousness is made up of light, or anything else for that matter, there is
only supposition and allegation.
And to Billybob: There are many things which cause a flower to choose ts colour, though they generally aren't 'chosen'. As evolutionary theory
predicts, the flower would have a certain colour, and survive with a certain degree of success. Every once in a while a DNA reformation malfunctions
and a change occurs, occasionally, it affects colour. If the change enhances the being then the being shall thrive and overtake its predecessor, if it
is a disadvantage then the change shall be wiped out. After the hundreds of millions of years plants have had flowers, it seems natural that those
colours they choose are quite successful.
As for chameleons, I believe it has something to do with the molecular structure of their skin, when hit by a certain wavelength of light, it reflects
that generalized wavelength. That is why they do not become invisible, and merely change to the general colour, once again, they do this because this
happenstance mutation was beneficial.
As for your note on cognition, feygan, random thoughts can easily be prescribed to randomnity itself. Chaos theory shows infinite possibilities, but
it shows a general trend in when and where those possibilities are divided.
Also to note is, as you have brought up my apparent non-knowledge of, quantum theory. One of the key principles of Quantum Theory is the Uncertainty
Principle, stating that the lesser the extent of observation on a particle, the less effect we have on it and the surer we can be of its state, but
the greater the extent of measurement we have on an object, the more we affect it, and the less sure we are about its state. In this way we come to
realize that there is no certainty, only a range of probabilities. Inside our heads, things quite probably have attained a unique balance, where,
rather than having all thought and reaction rely on guessable and measurable stimuli, as the brain of, say, a cat or a dog, thought has been passed on
to the state of the particles making up our brain, which, indirectly, are affected by stimuli and have, at best, a random range of outcomes. This
accounts for you seeing an object, and 'deciding' whether or not you need to move it, in certain cases actions are predictable as simple equations,
but in others actions are completely undetermined.
Realize now that this is only my supposition, and while it is a perfectly logical and normal way for the physics of our universe to, within our given
'perceptions', explain consciousness, and that I harbor no need to go off into tangents of instantaneous ultradimensional projected
It isn't exactly simple logic, but there is always a logical explanation.
I apologise for writing in a way that 'attacks' you through my use of the words 'simple logic', but you all seemed to be pulling things
senselessly out of thin air based on your own intuition when you could have explained it with logic, and been equally, if not more sure of
[Edited on 25-1-2004 by Viendin]