[Amnell]

Hmm, see it sounded to me like we were talking about perception. All that stuff about how it takes time for information to go from your eyes to your brain, then to be interpreted by your brain, then for you to think about what to do about it, etc.

What you said was that our consciousness is about a second behind reality because it takes time for our consciousness to percieve, and so we can never truly experience "reality". That's incorrect. Perception is instant. We live in reality. Our minds know reality. What they do with respect to reality is what takes time.

So, yes, ordered process is necessary. Here it is: perception, reaction, analysis, reasoning, decision-making. Perceptiong being instantaneous, reaction very fast, and the rest proceeding relatively slowly.

All cells were included in his statements. Basically because you can take one cell from anywhere in the body and make a carbon-copy of the original (cloning)."Instant" means just that--the instant that something happens within your perceptive "area", you percieve it in the same instant, even if you haven't consciously noticed it. This is how those tv magic tricks where you pick a face out of a bunch of faces and the guy says which face you're thinking about work. They have a person, whose face appears in the choices, standing in the camera background where you don't really notice him, but you percieve that he's there and your consciouss mind selects the face from all the others that seems most... "near", I guess. Anyway, instant is a literal term in this instance.

And I said that I agree with you that consiouss thought takes time, but that's about all that takes time.

If you were talking about the process of analyzing, reasoning, and sorting something in your head (consciouss thought), then you should have made that more clear.

The notion that our every experience is only lived because of memory, or every perception experience because we remember experiencing it before, is ludicrous. That creates a chicken/egg paradox! "Wait, you have to have memory to have experience, but you have to have experience to have memory?!" You said something about the process of recording experiences begins in the womb. This is possible, but in the womb, you can't see anything, you don't understand what's happening in the outside world (you don't know you're in a car or that your mother is watching tv and not talking to another person).

Maybe it's just the concept is both hard to explain and hard to grasp, but so far what you've said about consciousness makes no sense....

None of what I've said or what the experts said invalidates what you're always trying so hard to explain to me. All it does is force you to reevaluate and revise. Philosophy is supposed to be self-correcting, just like science. Not that I'm saying that any of the data I presented is true--it's theoretical right now, heavily substantiated etc., but not guarenteed to be truth. So you can discard it if you wish, though I myself would not.

*sigh*

I know I'm frustrating you, Tenchu-senpai. Honestly, I don't mean to!!! I'm trying to understand what you're telling me, but I'm also trying to make sure it fits with what I understand of the world. So if you're really sick of this discussion, you may end it if you wish, but I'll be left hanging ^_^; .