I think that's probably right, but I didn't want to assume so, because I really haven't looked into it much. So, it might take a year of our time for the cosmonaut to raise his coffee cup to his lips. :cool:

delete

↪noAxioms
Consider:

Suppose I could somehow observe their inner mental activity directly. — RogueAI

Such an observation would be mediated by a signal from observed to observer.. — Banno

Keep in mind that time dilation is a coordinate effect, not something observed. So yes, the OP's request about observing this other person, while not totally off topic, lacks enough details to answer. Something moving relative to me can appear to be running faster as well as slower, as evidenced by blue shift of objects approaching. Determination of the dilation of the object in question is something computed, not something observed.

Yes, a signal would be required to observe anything.
.

That signal is either subject to the Lorentz transformation.

A Lorentz transformation transforms coordinates of specific events from one inertial coordinate system to a different one. Not sure what you intend by trying to apply that to a signal instead of a set of events. It can be done.

The theory says that if you traveled at the speed of light to some distant star and then returned, those on Earth would have aged much more than you. In that scenario Earth is the stationary, "normal" frame and the starship the one at great speed relative to it.. — Janus

As pointed out, this is kind of irrelevant to the OP. Earth need not be the normal frame. The calculation can be done relative to any frame of choice without changing the answer (the relative ages of the twins at reunion), which is frame invariant. This is not dilation (a coordinate effect), but differential aging, a physical effect. The OP is asking coordinate questions, dilation of thoughts due to motion relative to some observer.

It is merely a conceptual matter. If traveling at speed close to c slows down bodily processes relative to those who remain on Earth and mind were completely independent of matter then presumably the slowing down would not apply to the mental processes..

That depends if the mind has a location or not. I gave an example of where it didn't.

It is a ridiculous conversation anyway because mental processes cannot be independent of bodily processes..

I gave an example of where it was.

[/quote]It is very simple―do you believe that if someone could travel in a vessel at near light speeds and returned to earth in say twenty years that they would have aged more or less than those on Earth?.[/quote]I indicated no such thing. I was talking about dilation of Earth people relative to the ship. I was not talking about differential aging, which again is frame invariant.

The twin paradox is a result of the relative acceleration of the traveler.. — Banno

Acceleration isn't relative, and differential aging is not a function of acceleration. It can be done without any acceleration at all. In the end, it is best described as due to lengths (intervals) of the various worldlines through Minkowskian spacetime, which is no more remarkable than two people taking different routes to grandma's house and finding their odometers not matching upon reunion. It's only unintuitive because spacetime isn't Euclidean.

If someone were traveling close to the speed of light relative to me, special relativity says their physical processes would appear slowed down from my frame. — RogueAI

They would BE slowed down in your frame. How they appear to you is an entirely different matter, and depends on more than just speed.

Yes, neural activity slows down with the physical activity. Anything else would falsify the last 1.5 centuries of physics.

You're more on target than pretty much anybody, especially since you give frame references when specifying a speed, and almost nobody else does.

I'm not seeing why this should be difficult. The suggestion was that someone traveling at near-light speed would have a different experience to someone at rest. Pretty clear that's a violation of the Principle of Relativity.

The proof: you are traveling at near light speed relative to some frame of reference, yet you do not experience any difficulty.

End of thread.

It really doesn't matter. All neural activity is subject to physical time treatment of relativity. — noAxioms

What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate with philosophical language?

Not directly, sure, but you still have indirect access. Supposedly a person could be doing the Macarena dance to the music playing only in their mind. Positing that they would not be in sync is preposterous (try it). So given correlation, yes, you have indirect access to the tune in somebody's mind. — noAxioms

The only way you can have access to person's music playing in their mind is let them sing out the tune, or play the instrument the tune in their mind in front of you. Your claim that indirect access to the tune in somebody's mind is possible sounds like some black magic or telepathy stuff.

Positing that they would not be in sync is preposterous (try it). So given correlation, yes, you have indirect access to the tune in somebody's mind. — noAxioms

The only way you could demonstrate your access (be it direct or indirect) to a person's song playing in his/her mind would be, if you could tell what song the person is playing without him/her telling you anything about the song, and if you could sing along the song in the person's mind as it plays along.

↪SophistiCat
Apparently you misread what I wrote. I had in mind the commonly imagined scifi scenario, where you are traveling at close to the speed of light and all processes. including bodily processes, are slowed down such that you are aging much more slowly than those who remain on Earth.

I was attempting to point to the absurdity of thinking that the bodily processes could be slowed down while the mental processes continued at the "normal" speed, which is also to point to the absurdity of thinking that the mental processes could be independence of the bodily. It would save wasted time if people read more carefully. — Janus

I think you are still confused about reference frames. Time dilation is an observer effect. If you are traveling at a constant speed of 0.99c relative to Earth, nothing interesting is happening to your body or your mind, as far as you are concerned. Your body and your mind cannot possibly get out of sync, unless your mind was somehow left behind on Earth when your body took off on a rocket ship. But as long as you are staring at the world through your eyes, you will observe everything as the theory of relativity describes. Metaphysics of mind is a red herring here. You can assume reductive physicalism or Cartesian dualism - and it won't make a wit of difference.

look, we cannall nit pick the dumbest shit, obviously you dont know what you're talking about because light doesn't move.

Light moves locally — noAxioms

Blah blah blah, try coming with something worth a shit?

light doesn't move — DifferentiatingEgg

:meh:

You are just repeating what I had already said...that the thought that mind and body could be completely independent of one another is absurd...while apparently imagining that you are somehow disagreeing.

When we resort to language games to nitpick... Which is more or less the dogshit Axioms tried bringing here via the immortal unreason. (Heh, noAxioms except the axiom of causa sui of grammar psychology)

An emission establishes a boundary of influence that expands and shrinks depend on the quantum of strength behind the emission.

Consequently Emissions of Light aren't movements...
When we say “light moves”, we smuggle in grammar metaphysics of being and unity: substance, identity, and temporal persistence.

All three fail.

Furthermore...

“Light moves” implies light exists before its effect, then acts, then continues to exist while acting (grammar psychology of a doer doing). But lighy has no proper time, no internal persistence, no "self" that carries across moments.

Thus saying "Light moves" is merely, as Nietzsche would detail this failure of reasoning: "the original sin of reason."

The immortal unreason that freezes becoming and multiplicity into being and unity.

I can safely assume that he and you think sound moves too.

Or perhaps you're simplifying your language to get a basic fucking point across without having to delve into the various fucking details that make it seem like light moves so you just say light moves. That Axiom wanted to jump a homie for oversimplification in language then be a complete jackass about it after I admitted poor expression.

Well guess what, I'll rub it in his face that he lies to himself through grammar psychology, especially about the manner he fashions himself in: noAxioms. The same game, I just know how to play it better...