Physical sciences have no problem with independent and dependent
variables because processes are reversible to the extent we are
dealing with equal and opposite reactions. In other words for the
purposes of sciences of material interactions and behavior, we can
make any circumstance an independent variable and any other a
dependent variable or vice versa according to experimental objectives
and convenience.

Differential Cognition and the Arrow of Time
----------------------------------

Physical sciences have no problem with independent and dependent
variables because processes are reversible to the extent we are
dealing with equal and opposite reactions. In other words for the
purposes of sciences of material interactions and behavior, we can
make any circumstance an independent variable and any other a
dependent variable or vice versa according to experimental objectives
and convenience. However this does not apply to sciences dealing with
sentient behavior.

The reason is that here we do not deal with equal and opposite
interactions. We deal with differential interactions. And the results
of differences are not interchangeable with the antecedents of those
results. Consequently we are left to deal with an irreversible result
whose lack of reversibility represents an inherent property of the
process and defines a temporal direction.

This means we are faced with an arrow of time, a temporal direction
whose direction is governed by the nature of differential processes to
the exclusion of other directions. This represents an anomaly in
relation to physical processes of material interactions. These are
either completely reversible or like classical thermodynamics only
supposed to be irreversible because we do not understand how energy
differences can increase.

This arrow of time is a consequence of differential causation. With
reversible processes we do not actually have any definitive direction
of time to the exclusion of other directions and all measures of time
in such connections are simply dependent measures of the behavior of
physical interactions in relation to one another.

In the context of sentient behavior however we do in fact have a time
whose direction is definite in the progression of differences but
whose magnitude is problematic and probably unmeasurable. So it would
seem we are faced with two distinct kinds of temporal characterization
one measurable but directionless and one of unambiguous direction but
unmeasurable.

Sentient beings are said to possess or have time in this regard
because the nature of differential cognitive processes giving rise to
their nature as sentient beings define some temporal flow or
progression of irreversible differences and of course when those
differences cease the temporal flow or progression ceases as well,
sentience ceases, and the organism dies.

Regards - Lester

Differential Cognition and the Arrow of Time
----------------------------------

Physical sciences have no problem with independent and dependent
variables because processes are reversible to the extent we are
dealing with equal and opposite reactions. In other words for the
purposes of sciences of material interactions and behavior, we can
make any circumstance an independent variable and any other a
dependent variable or vice versa according to experimental objectives
and convenience. However this does not apply to sciences dealing with
sentient behavior.

The reason is that here we do not deal with equal and opposite
interactions. We deal with differential interactions. And the results
of differences are not interchangeable with the antecedents of those
results. Consequently we are left to deal with an irreversible result
whose lack of reversibility represents an inherent property of the
process and defines a temporal direction.

This means we are faced with an arrow of time, a temporal direction
whose direction is governed by the nature of differential processes to
the exclusion of other directions. This represents an anomaly in
relation to physical processes of material interactions. These are
either completely reversible or like classical thermodynamics only
supposed to be irreversible because we do not understand how energy
differences can increase.

This arrow of time is a consequence of differential causation. With
reversible processes we do not actually have any definitive direction
of time to the exclusion of other directions and all measures of time
in such connections are simply dependent measures of the behavior of
physical interactions in relation to one another.

In the context of sentient behavior however we do in fact have a time
whose direction is definite in the progression of differences but
whose magnitude is problematic and probably unmeasurable. So it would
seem we are faced with two distinct kinds of temporal characterization
one measurable but directionless and one of unambiguous direction but
unmeasurable.

Sentient beings are said to possess or have time in this regard
because the nature of differential cognitive processes giving rise to
their nature as sentient beings define some temporal flow or
progression of irreversible differences and of course when those
differences cease the temporal flow or progression ceases as well,
sentience ceases, and the organism dies.

Regards - Lester

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:28:58 +0000 (UTC), Neil W Rickert
rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:

Physical sciences have no problem with independent and dependent
variables because processes are reversible to the extent we are
dealing with equal and opposite reactions. In other words for the
purposes of sciences of material interactions and behavior, we can
make any circumstance an independent variable and any other a
dependent variable or vice versa according to experimental objectives
and convenience.

I don't agree with that. Normally you want independent and dependent
variables to reflect causal relations.

With equal and opposite reactions any circumstance is either cause or
effect according to ones view and experimental objectives. We have

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:

Physical sciences have no problem with independent and dependent
variables because processes are reversible to the extent we are
dealing with equal and opposite reactions. In other words for the
purposes of sciences of material interactions and behavior, we can
make any circumstance an independent variable and any other a
dependent variable or vice versa according to experimental objectives
and convenience.

I don't agree with that. Normally you want independent and dependent
variables to reflect causal relations.

With equal and opposite reactions any circumstance is either cause or

In article <400b110e.34507037@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes

Differential Cognition and the Arrow of Time
----------------------------------

Physical sciences have no problem with independent and dependent
variables because processes are reversible to the extent we are
dealing with equal and opposite reactions. In other words for the
purposes of sciences of material interactions and behavior, we can
make any circumstance an independent variable and any other a
dependent variable or vice versa according to experimental objectives
and convenience. However this does not apply to sciences dealing with
sentient behavior.

The reason is that here we do not deal with equal and opposite
interactions. We deal with differential interactions. And the results
of differences are not interchangeable with the antecedents of those
results. Consequently we are left to deal with an irreversible result
whose lack of reversibility represents an inherent property of the
process and defines a temporal direction.

This means we are faced with an arrow of time, a temporal direction
whose direction is governed by the nature of differential processes to
the exclusion of other directions. This represents an anomaly in
relation to physical processes of material interactions. These are
either completely reversible or like classical thermodynamics only
supposed to be irreversible because we do not understand how energy
differences can increase.

This arrow of time is a consequence of differential causation. With
reversible processes we do not actually have any definitive direction
of time to the exclusion of other directions and all measures of time
in such connections are simply dependent measures of the behavior of
physical interactions in relation to one another.

In the context of sentient behavior however we do in fact have a time
whose direction is definite in the progression of differences but
whose magnitude is problematic and probably unmeasurable. So it would
seem we are faced with two distinct kinds of temporal characterization
one measurable but directionless and one of unambiguous direction but
unmeasurable.

Sentient beings are said to possess or have time in this regard
because the nature of differential cognitive processes giving rise to
their nature as sentient beings define some temporal flow or
progression of irreversible differences and of course when those
differences cease the temporal flow or progression ceases as well,
sentience ceases, and the organism dies.

Regards - Lester


Have a look at this thread over in bionet.neuroscience and consider what
you are doing after reading some of it.

news:FIYNb.10156$q4.8490@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...


Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net
From: "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net
Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience
l.earthlink.net> Subject: Observation [was Re: Proof of Tapered Harmony
- LONG [was Re: The Neural 4-Space [was Re: Consciousness]] Lines: 126
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:41:41 GMT
Xref: news.demon.co.uk bionet.neuroscience:8974

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:00:41 +0000, David Longley
David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

In article <400b110e.34507037@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes

Differential Cognition and the Arrow of Time
----------------------------------

Physical sciences have no problem with independent and dependent
variables because processes are reversible to the extent we are
dealing with equal and opposite reactions. In other words for the
purposes of sciences of material interactions and behavior, we can
make any circumstance an independent variable and any other a
dependent variable or vice versa according to experimental objectives
and convenience. However this does not apply to sciences dealing with
sentient behavior.

The reason is that here we do not deal with equal and opposite
interactions. We deal with differential interactions. And the results
of differences are not interchangeable with the antecedents of those
results. Consequently we are left to deal with an irreversible result
whose lack of reversibility represents an inherent property of the
process and defines a temporal direction.

This means we are faced with an arrow of time, a temporal direction
whose direction is governed by the nature of differential processes to
the exclusion of other directions. This represents an anomaly in
relation to physical processes of material interactions. These are
either completely reversible or like classical thermodynamics only
supposed to be irreversible because we do not understand how energy
differences can increase.

This arrow of time is a consequence of differential causation. With
reversible processes we do not actually have any definitive direction
of time to the exclusion of other directions and all measures of time
in such connections are simply dependent measures of the behavior of
physical interactions in relation to one another.

In the context of sentient behavior however we do in fact have a time
whose direction is definite in the progression of differences but
whose magnitude is problematic and probably unmeasurable. So it would
seem we are faced with two distinct kinds of temporal characterization
one measurable but directionless and one of unambiguous direction but
unmeasurable.

Sentient beings are said to possess or have time in this regard
because the nature of differential cognitive processes giving rise to
their nature as sentient beings define some temporal flow or
progression of irreversible differences and of course when those
differences cease the temporal flow or progression ceases as well,
sentience ceases, and the organism dies.

Regards - Lester


Have a look at this thread over in bionet.neuroscience and consider what
you are doing after reading some of it.

news:FIYNb.10156$q4.8490@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...


Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net
From: "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net
Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience
l.earthlink.net> Subject: Observation [was Re: Proof of Tapered Harmony
- LONG [was Re: The Neural 4-Space [was Re: Consciousness]] Lines: 126
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:41:41 GMT
Xref: news.demon.co.uk bionet.neuroscience:8974

Unfortunately my newsreader doesn't give me access to backlisted
threads. But I recall seeing The Neural 4-Space on sci.cognitive so
I'll keep an eye out for it.

Regards - Lester

rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

Try shining light into an incandescent light bulb and having that
cause the wall switch to flip.

So what is your take on causality in material interactions? If
electricity flows one way through a light switch and causes it to turn
on, reversing the flow would reverse the process although we could
limit the function with diodes or in some other way.

It is my basic contention that material interactions cause each other
in a fully reversible manner provided all relevant circumstances are
reversed and the selection of dependent and independent variables
depends on what and how you want to test one thing in terms of others.

It is my basic contention that material interactions cause each other
in a fully reversible manner

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:28:58 +0000 (UTC), Neil W Rickert
rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:

Physical sciences have no problem with independent and dependent
variables because processes are reversible to the extent we are
dealing with equal and opposite reactions. In other words for the
purposes of sciences of material interactions and behavior, we can
make any circumstance an independent variable and any other a
dependent variable or vice versa according to experimental objectives
and convenience.

I don't agree with that. Normally you want independent and dependent
variables to reflect causal relations.

With equal and opposite reactions any circumstance is either cause or
effect according to ones view and experimental objectives. We have

Try shining light into an incandescent light bulb and having that
cause the wall switch to flip.

So what is your take on causality in material interactions? If

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:32:58 +0000 (UTC), Neil W Rickert
rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

It is my basic contention that material interactions cause each other
in a fully reversible manner provided all relevant circumstances are
reversed and the selection of dependent and independent variables
depends on what and how you want to test one thing in terms of others.

That the mathematical equations of physics are reversible does not
imply that reality itself is reversible.

No, it just implies that the interactions described by the equations
are reversible.

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:
rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

Try shining light into an incandescent light bulb and having that
cause the wall switch to flip.

So what is your take on causality in material interactions? If
electricity flows one way through a light switch and causes it to turn
on, reversing the flow would reverse the process although we could
limit the function with diodes or in some other way.

It is my basic contention that material interactions cause each other
in a fully reversible manner provided all relevant circumstances are
reversed and the selection of dependent and independent variables
depends on what and how you want to test one thing in terms of others.

That the mathematical equations of physics are reversible does not
imply that reality itself is reversible.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:14:38 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:

It is my basic contention that material interactions cause each other
in a fully reversible manner

Not according to thermodynamics.

Sure. Classical thermodynamics is based on increasing entropy and

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:47:05 -0500 (EST), "Wolf Kirchmeir"
wwolfkir@sympatico.can> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:14:38 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:

It is my basic contention that material interactions cause each other
in a fully reversible manner

Not according to thermodynamics.

Sure. Classical thermodynamics is based on increasing entropy and
increasing entropy is based on billiard ball mechanics for its
understanding of energy. Pretty much cause and effect I'd say.

Regards - Lester