So far as explanations go, saying that something is an example of a field exactly becasue it does not meet the criteria for being a filed is... odd. — Banno

You limit "field" to "a physical quantity", then complain because Wayfarer's proposed "field" doesn't meet the criteria of your definition. But your definition is incoherent because "physical quantity" is self-contradicting.

Sometimes I wonder if there is even any actual visual images in a dream. I'll wake up from a dream and think that the thing in the dream which was my house, or my home didn't look at all like my home. Or, the person in my dream who was supposed to be my brother didn't look at all like my brother. Then, when I start to think about it, I realize that I can't really say what these things, or people actually looked like in the dream. So I start to think that maybe there wasn't even any actual visual images, I was just thinking that I was with my brother, or in my home, but I never really saw any of that in the dream, and that's why I can't describe what they looked like.

Yes, I find this question of how the brain operates, relative to the conscious understanding of self, and how the sense of "I" as an agent, is related to this relation, to be very interesting.

Also something less than opinion: When one sees a house in a dream, one does not see the house due to photons being picked up by the retina and thereby due to retinal input. — javra

So this would constitute a big difference between "seeing" in your sleep, and "seeing" when you are awake. How do you think that the house is caused to appear to the person in a dream, without the photons being picked up by the retina?

Suppose that this creation of "the house" in a dream, is an aspect of "procedural memory". How is this any sort of real memory, when the brain seems to be just creating random things rather than consciously remembering things? Rather than a type of memory, which is what the conscious awake mind is doing all the time, remembering things, dreaming seems to be a completely different sort of activity, where the brain is just exploring all sorts of weird things, maybe like a trial and error activity.

I have no way to prove this opinion, but I find it likely in part on grounds that people who do not sleep for long periods of time don't only become extremely exhausted but also tend to have psychotic breaks, i.e. go insane, which seems plausible if procedural memory is not properly processed. I also don't personally know of a more plausible evolutionary explanation for why REM dreaming evolved to begin with given that mammals at large as well as birds exhibit REM sleep. — javra

So if dreaming is allowing the brain freedom to go off on exploratory adventures, without be pent up by the rational inclination of the conscious mind to process sense information in relation to memories, as is what the conscious mind does, then maybe it is the case that we need this sort of release in order to prevent ourselves from going insane. It could be sort of like too much work causes severe stress and anxiety, so we need a vacation to let the brain relax and do its own thing to maintain mental health. If this is the case, then the question is, what exactly is this, what is called "its own thing", when the brain is free from the constraints of the conscious mind forcing it to be what it believes constitutes "rationality".

We all experience our dreams uniquely in many a way, but I've certainly heard of cases wherein the dreams of a sleeping person were affected by that which surrounded them in the external world, including sounds and smells, even though they were not at the time in any way conscious of what was taking place in the external world. Then, also, there's the alarm clock, which at first unconsciously wakes you up into consciousness from sleep and the dreams therein had. (A good shove can also due — javra

I agree. In my experience, the senses other than sight are more likely to cross the boundary of being asleep, and the input can enter into the dream, and have great influence over the dream. Since a dream is only truly remembered when I awaken, it appears from my memory of the dream, that the sound, smell, or even taste which enters into the dream actually causes me to awaken, because I come to notice the sensation when I do awaken. However, it may be the case that these senses commonly influence my dreams without me even knowing it, because I do not awaken to notice it.

These instances, when sensations influence the dream, would be cases of the brain receiving, and dealing with sense information, in a way which is totally inconsistent with the awake (what I called "rational" way). This implies that the brain actually has different ways of processing sense input. The conscious way is to channel the energy through some recognition process, but the sleeping way is to channel the energy off somewhere else, to be absorbed into the brain with minimum affect on its working activity. This is sort of like the difference between paying attention to something, and not paying attention. I think that since so much energy is entering the brain through the eyes, the best way to maximize "not paying attention" is to have eyelids. Eyelids seem to be a feature quite low on the evolutionary scale, and whether their primary function is to keep things like dust out of the eyes, or to maximize "not paying attention", I think is debatable.

That said, we do all experience dreams differently. It is not utterly uncommon for some humans to have dreams in which they fly through air at will. I too have had such dreams growing up. I remember them being rather serene and euphoric for the most part. And I distinctly remember being therein endowed with a supra-human capacity of will, hence volition, to travel through the air as I wanted simply by so willing it. In dreams such as these, there is certainly found a free will (or at least a sense of free will for the free will deniers) in which one chooses as one pleases between alternatives. In this case, alternative paths of motion and different destinations. — javra

OK, I see the point. There definitely is something within the dream which constitutes the self, "I", and the self is clearly doing things, therefore agential. But the self is doing things which appear to be irrational, and the things which are happening to the self are equally impossible to make sense of.

We can ask, then, what is creating these imaginary scenarios. It is a sort of "self", which knows little if any bounds of rational thought. Above, I distinguished between conscious, rational thinking, as the activity of the mind, and I was careful to describe the dreaming as the activity of the brain. This was done with the intention of separating the conscious "mind" from the unconscious activity of the brain in sleep. The brain in sleep would be a brain free from the influence of "the self" which is a product of the conscious mind. However, I now see that the self cannot be excluded from the brain activity in that way. I think, that even if we tried to totally exclude the trained habits of conscious rational thinking, from the brain, and allow the brain freedom to do what it wants (notice I can't even exclude the agential self in speaking because something has to guide that activity), it still produces a mental "self", and does not seem to be able to avoid this, even if allowed to act in the most random way.

Indeed. It's not our conscious mind that makes us sleep. Our conscious mind often fights it in any way it can. Eventually failing. — Patterner

Perhaps it is as I describe above, the brain gets tired from having to adhere to the restrictions of the conscious mind forcing it to be "rational". The brain needs periodic "vacations", to do its own thing, in order to maintain the mental health of the individual.

I don't think this is the case, not when one regards seeing as necessarily consisting of input from the retina. I think the way we see things in dreams is often a more vivid form of the way we see things when daydreaming or imagining. Only that when dreaming the unconscious mind assumes far greater agential control over what is in thus manner seen. — javra

You don't think that there is input from the retina in dreams? What do you think the so-called rapid eye movement is all about?

It gets tricky here, in part due to often numerous ways in which terms can get understood. But, in principle, though we are not of a waking state consciousness while dreaming, we as a first-person point of view (as consciousness in this sense) are yet present in our dreams. Not only that but, as a somnio-consciousness (a term which I coined that I think nicely enough expresses our dreaming consciousness), we almost always yet have some degree of agential power (i.e., ability to accomplish) - hence, some degree of voluntary, rather than involuntary, volition. With one possible extreme of this degree of dreaming volition being that of lucidly dreaming. — javra

I don't think I agree with assigning agential power to the somnio-consciousness. I agree that there is such in the case of lucid dreaming, but this is done through an intentional act which I believe degrades the dreaming. In other words I look at lucid dreaming as an act of intentionally converting one's dreams into something which isn't really a dream.

When I dream I find that the experience is one of having something happen to me which I am powerless to control. This is why, when it is a nightmare, the overwhelming anxiety of not being able to do anything about it, forces me to wake up. So in my dreams, I am doing things, but I am not at all in control over what I am doing. I am really not deciding where to go, or what to do, in my dreams, or anything like that, I am just finding myself in situations which draw me into them like a curiosity or something like that.

ou are not the person to be giving out physics lessons. — Banno

I was not giving a physics lesson, only pointing out your equivocation with the word "field".

Particles are the excitations of electromagnetic fields. — Wayfarer

Photons are the excitations of the electromagnetic field. Each different type of particle has its own type of field. The real difficulty for quantum physics is in establishing the relations between one field and another. For instance, quarks and gluons are supposed to be distinct fields, essentially massless, yet through the strong nuclear force they make up hadrons which are massive. And due to the nature of the strong nuclear force they cannot actually be separated in practise.

After a limiting distance (about the size of a hadron) has been reached, it remains at a strength of about 10000 N, no matter how much farther the distance between the quarks.[7]: 164  As the separation between the quarks grows, the energy added to the pair creates new pairs of matching quarks between the original two; hence it is impossible to isolate quarks. — Wikipedia

So the gluon "field" actually represents the strong nuclear force which is responsible for creating massive hadrons from quarks which are almost massless.

The interaction between quarks and gluons is responsible for almost all the perceived mass of protons and neutrons and is therefore where we get our mass.

https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsquarks-and-gluons

Moreover, if it has no units, how does one get from the field of subjectivity to the measurable values of the electromagnetic field? Where do they come from? — Banno

Since fields are massless, the real question is where does mass come from.

Of course all comparison needs criteria for what is norm. If not, how can you compare anything? — Corvus

So the point is that the ability to recognize a piece of music as at a speed other than the norm, is not an innate ability. It requires the criteria of the example which serves as the norm, and this example is not provided innately.

Well, if you played the above 2x recordings to someone (a indigenous tribe man in a jungle or someone who doesn't like western classic rock music) who never listened the song in his life or a tone deaf, then he won't be able to tell the difference. In that case, where is the general capacity? — Corvus

The general capacity is not demonstrated here, because that capacity is the ability to compare, and there is nothing being compared in this example.

If you still cannot tell the difference, either you have never listened to Led Zepps in your life, or you are a tone deaf. — Corvus

You are comparing it to the norm.

A general capacity for what? It sounds vague and unclear. — Corvus

The general capacity to compare something to a norm. You don't seem to be paying attention to my post.

Keeping one's eyes open is, generally speaking, fully voluntary - meaning that it is subject to our conscious volition. — javra

This is the point then. If keeping one's eyes open is "generally" a matter of conscious volition, why would we conclude that the sense perception of seeing is unconscious? It would seem like "seeing" is something controlled by the voluntary act of keeping one's eyes open.

Do you think that it would be the case that the neurological system is "seeing" all the time, unconsciously, regardless of whether the eyes are open or not? And, the volitionary act of keeping one's eyes open is a sort of conscious control over this activity? This might provide an explanation of dreaming as the unconscious continuing in its activity of seeing, after conscious volition has shut down, and the eyes are closed. Where do you think that the images which are "seen" in the act of dreaming derive from? Do they come from the eyes?

How do you know slowed or fastened reproduction of the music is not normal? I was pointing out, it is a priori concept of temporality in our minds which can tell they are not normal, rather than the music itself.
Hence human mind has innate temporal knowledge of time? Would you agree? — Corvus

No, I do not agree with this. If the music is sped up or slowed down only a miniscule amount, I cannot tell the difference without comparison to a designated "normal". If given two different samples, of the same piece, one altered slightly, I would not be able to tell which one, I would be guessing.

In fact, fifty or sixty years ago it was common practise for recording artists to alter the speed a little bit, in some songs they released. As a listener you would never know that a song was altered, until you tried to play along, and found out that you had to change the tuning of your instrument.

So I do not believe it is an innate ability to recognize that the speed of a recording has been altered. I believe that to recognize that the speed has been altered requires comparison with some designated "normal". So this ability is a feature of learning how to compare a sample with a "normal". This itself, the ability to compare a sample with a normal, may be an innate knowledge, but it is a general capacity, and doesn't amount to the specific "temporal knowledge" which you are talking about.

When are you going to wake up to the fact that I understand Kastrup's 'arguments' perfectly well, and yet do not agree, in fact find them nonsensical. — Janus

You ought to consider that if an author's arguments appear nonsensical to you, you in fact, do not understand the author. This is because to understand requires acknowledging what the author intends, and no author intends to argue nonsense. So if you find an author's arguments to be nonsensical it implies that you do not understand the author.

A field is a mathematical function assigning a value to every point in the given space. — Banno

That's becasue in physics a field is a space with a value at every point. — Banno

The question is not apt because the notion of a field of subjective experience fails to match with what is meant by "field" in physics. It has no values. — Banno

You are clearly not distinguishing between "field" in mathematics, and "field" in physics. In physics, "the field" is the thing represented by the mathematical field. Here, you are insisting that the mathematical function called "field", is the field in physics. That is incorrect.

This is explained quite well by physicist Richard Feynman for example, when he explains how an electrical charge moves through the electromagnetic "field" which surrounds a copper wire, rather than moving through the copper wire itself. This is the principle which drives the induction motor for example.

Now, the field is active, and this activity is represented by the changing values of the mathematical representation. What "a field" actually is, is not well understood by physicists. The field is active, and the activity of the field is understood, and represented as if it is a wave activity. That wave representation allows for predictive capacity. However, since the medium of these waves (the aether) has not been identified, the supposed "field" itself, within which the apparent waves are active, remains elusive to the human intellect.

Since "a field" in physics refers to a thing (not a mathematical construct but what is represented by that construct), and the existence of this thing has not been supported by principles which are logically coherent, its essence (what it is) remains a matter of speculation. This allows many different metaphysical theories, (such as the one Wayfarer proposes) to propagate.

Barring exceptions such as those of sleep paralysis and sleepwalking wherein the individual can be asleep in part or in whole with eyes wide open, such that they actively take in visual information of the external world, I’m at a loss as to the significance of the question. — javra

The question is, if visual sensing is really part of the unconscious mind, rather than the conscious, why do we need to close our eyes to go to sleep? You would think that visual sensing could continue along, just fine, when the person is a sleep, if it is a feature of the subconscious mind.

Hence, we will willfully close our eyes when we intend to fall asleep to assist in so doing. — javra

Yes, I agree that when we intend to fall asleep we close our eyes, to aid this. However, I think that this is because we know that having eyes closed is necessary for sleeping. So for example, when a person does not intend to fall asleep, yet starts falling asleep, one cannot keep one's eye's open. It appears like the eyes are forced to close by some unconscious process. Or, does keeping the eyes open, in general, anytime, require conscious effort?

I wasn't talking about difference in perception of live music performance and reproduction of the music from the records. I was only talking about the perceptual differences and the judgement of the listener on the same music reproduced in different speeds. Please listen to the recordings of the same music played in different speeds. — Corvus

Of course we're going to notice the difference, it changes the pitch. It's like Alvin and The Chipmunks. They take a recording and speed it up. It's noticeably not normal.

A person listening to an artist playing an instrument rapidly (decreased time between particular notes), will hear something completely different from a person listening to a recording which is speeded up.

This is because increasing the speed at which you play an instrument does not change the way that the notes are created so it does not effect the frequency of the individual notes. But increasing the speed at which a recording is played does change the way that the notes are produced from the recording medium, therefore the frequency of the individual notes is altered.

https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/dsp-book/dsp_book_Ch10.pdf

Music played faster or slower speed than the original version will sound not right. Nothing is different than the speed of the playing in the music implies that human mind has perceptual ability to detect the correct speed of music just by listening to them? — Corvus

Time and frequency are directly related, the basis of the Fourier transform. Increasing or decreasing the speed actually changes the pitch, ask Alvin and the Chipmunks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_time_stretching_and_pitch_scaling
So changing the speed of a recording is a completely different thing from changing the speed at which a person plays the particular notes.

These details aside, (maybe as you yourself imply (?)) I so far don’t find all this much mattering though when it comes to basic appraisals of the unconscious mind and consciousness’s dependence on it. — javra

If the activity of the eye is part of the unconscious, why, in your opinion, do we need to close our eyes when we sleep?

I would be surprised if there were a proof to the contrary. Isn't all of non-analytic philosophy speculation? — jgill

But your example is not a speculation, it's an arbitrary designation: 'this photo represents an instant'. If you said that a real instant in time might look like a photo, that would be speculation. But we really do not have any idea what a real instant would look like, because we haven't determined any parameters yet. Our models of time represent it as an infinitely divisible continuity.

I think I see where you're going with this. A sound engineer could say (quite correctly), "Well, we hear a range of frequencies between A430 and A450 as an 'A', so even though this range includes mostly pitches that are technically sharp or flat, for all practical purposes we can specify this range as 'A'; just about no one can hear the difference." Is that what you mean? — J

Yes, that's what I mean, there would be a range which would qualify for any given pitch. But remember we are talking about a machine using software to detect distinct tones, not a human ear. With human hearing, the issue is much more complicated, as you note, with your reply to Banno.

The whole issue is much more complicated than it seems, because it's extremely difficult to produce a pure tone. It's always contaminated with overtones etc.. This is the subject of the Fourier transform. But the shorter the time period, the less certainty there can be about the frequency, and this problem manifests as the uncertainty principle.

https://tomrocksmaths.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/unravelling-the-secrets-of-musical-tones-with-fourier_s-methods-lai-yuk-chiu.pdf

Ideas are faint copies of the matching impressions. — Corvus

That looks like an arbitrary distinction. Faint/clear?

Your saying "we sense motions" sounds like contingent acts of guessing. Not accurate perception. Your visual sensation can never capture the motion of a flying bullet. You would be just guessing it. That is not perception. What does it tell you? Continuity is an illusion created by your mind, and it is a concept. It doesn't exist in reality. — Corvus

Perception is not accurate, that's the point. We create accuracy with conception, and that is why we need proper principles to distinguish between perception and conception. This allows us to understand how conception obtains such a higher degree of accuracy. Kant for instance, proposes the a priori intuitions of space and time, as the condition for sense impressions.

Trump is being used as a patsy to carry through some harsh but necessary foreign policy decisions. An exit from Ukraine is one of them, just like Trump facilitated the ugly but much-needed exit from Afghanistan.

I see a lot of Americans putting all the blame on Trump, and then on Putin who must have blackmailed him, trying to exculpate their country from this utterly blatant act of Machiavallianism. — Tzeentch

I believe Trump sees himself and Putin, united, as capable of creating one superpower of world dominance. However, they both know, that ultimately there's only room for one at the top, so even within their partnership they are each strategizing and maneuvering to gain the upper hand.

The way I read it is that Putin has something disgusting on Trump and when he realised that he was going to have to push harder against Putin if he’s going to get a deal. He immediately went to the plausible deniability that it was a set up orchestrated by the Biden’s and that he isn’t as depraved as he appears in the video. He might even claim it’s a deepfake. — Punshhh

Russia put a significant amount of effort, over a long period of time, into providing for Trump, the presidency, in the first place. There was most likely significant strategizing and collaboration, much of which is probably documented somewhere (the proverbial "laptop"). On the other hand, many MAGAs refuse to believe that the movement which they are a part of, is nothing more than a plot hatched by some wily Russians. Disillusionment can be devastating, so is is resisted as long as possible. Release of that information ("laptop") at the appropriate time, could be devasting to MAGA, as well as Trump himself, and possibly the US in general. So Trump is in a position where he needs to ensure that Putin still needs him for as long as possible, to avoid that devastation, and Putin seeks the time of highest impact.

What I see on that page is the following:
"In 2023, just over 50 percent of Americans had an annual household income that was less than 75,000 U.S. dollars. The median household income was 80,610 U.S. dollars in 2023."

It then says:
"Preliminary estimates show that the average poverty threshold for a family of four people was 26,500 U.S. dollars in 2021, which is around 100 U.S. dollars less than the previous year. There were an estimated 37.9 million people in poverty across the United States in 2021, which was around 11.6 percent of the population."

There is simply nothing there to support your claim that the average American is struggling to make ends meet. It appears like you are trying to create that illusion with disinformation. Why would you be doing this? Having to budget one's finances is basic household economics, it is not struggling to make ends meet.

"Well, if 'a frequency passing into a designated range' is not a standard understanding of what pitch is . . . then what would you suggest?" — J

I noticed in your reply to Banno, that you accept the idea that the wave would have to hold that frequency for a period of time to be recognizable as the designated pitch. So, wouldn't it be necessary that the source maintain a spcified frequency of vibration for a duration of time, in order for us to have a "pitch"?

Now take the example of the slide. Suppose that throughout the duration of the slide, there is an even, and continuous changing of frequency. From this premise we wouldn't have any pitches at all, because each moment would provide a new frequency, and there would be no duration of any specific frequency, therefore no "pitches" as defined.

However, notice that I spoke of a "designated range". Having a range of frequency which provide the criteria for any specific "pitch", adds another parameter. This allows that the machine could detect some pitches, because the frequency of vibration could be within the designated "range" for the designated period of time. Then, the breadth of the range, and the speed of the slide, become important factors.

So we have three very important factors, the specified range, the required length of time within the range, and the speed of the slide. Two of these are very clearly completely arbitrary, the range, and the required duration within the range. These would be programed into the machine through some arbitrary choice. The third factor, the speed of the slide, appears to be somewhat objective, because it is the object being analyzed, but it's really not. The described slide is simply artificially created from the purpose of the thought experiment, and not representative of anything real. We assumed something unrealistic in the first place, a perfectly even, continuous slide.

Isn't sensing via impressions, and the matching ideas for thoughts, reasoning and reflective analysis in Hume? So, there is a clear division between the live sensation and knowing, thinking, reflecting, remembering in Hume. The former are via impressions, and the latter by the matching ideas. — Corvus

The point being that ideas and perceptions are not properly separated or distinguished.

Doesn't it depend on how fast the movement was? — Corvus

No I don't think so. The fact that some motions are too fast to sense doesn't affect the fact that we sense motions.

How to isolate an instant? Take a photo. — jgill

As I've explained above, that is an arbitrarily created "instant". So it provides nothing toward proving that real time consists of a succession of instants.

Only 15.7% of Americans make that much. 57% of Americans make that or less. — frank

The page you referred does not show what you claim here at all. That's just more misinformation.

I wish you all the best in your attempts to help Banno to resist the bad habit of equivocation, but I'm afraid it will be fruitless.

But I think you're questioning whether even the most sophisticated software can "hear the pitches." That is, you're wondering if "discrete pitches" is something a perceiver brings to the auditory stream, rather than locating or identifying them there. — J

The issue, is that the software will definitely hear "the pitches", but only because it is designed to pick those designated pitches out. So the hearing of distinct pitches is a feature of the software, and that's not necessarily a feature of our sense apparatus. The device would be set to distinguish specific frequencies as they occur, and it would record "hearing that pitch". The problem is that the machine would not be distinguishing that as a distinct and separate note, it would just be registering the time when the transmitted frequency passes the designated range. So it's an artificial and arbitrary creation of "a pitch".

A fair question, but then there would be nothing special about this question as applied to music. It would be the huge, overhanging question of the extent to which our subjectivity creates the reality it seems to encounter — J

That's right, I see nothing special about this question as applied to music. The same issue, in a more general sense, is what I am discussing with Corvus. That is the question of whether we sense distinct and discrete perceptions, impressions, or ideas, (as described by Hume), or whether we sense a continuity of changing information.

Nobody was talking about working for a living. Ssu was saying America is rich because of its global influence. I was saying the average American isn't rich. — frank

Now you're contradicting yourself. You said:

"The average American struggles to make ends meet. They worry about how they're going to afford to retire."

That is intentional misinformation, unless by "struggles to make ends meet" you really mean "has to work to make a living". The average American has to work to make a living. And, the average American manages a comfortable lifestyle on the average American income which is around $65,000 annually.
https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/average-salary-in-us/

Furthermore, if they pay their taxes they automatically pay into social security so "worry about how they're going to afford to retire", is completely unfounded. Unless the acting president has indicated that he may sign an executive order ending the social security program, such worry is irrational.

But in Hume, reflection and inspection on perceived ideas are also perceptions. Every mental event is perception. — Corvus

This is indicative of the problem I am talking about. Hume does not acknowledge the difference between sensing (simple observation as time passes), and the analysis of what has already been sensed. By saying that for Hume "every mental state is a perception", you confirm that Hume does not recognize the difference.

What I am arguing is that sensation consists of a continuous flow of change and motion, whereas the analysis consists of representing this continuity as distinct states, perceptions, impressions, or ideas. There is a fundamental difference between these two, the continuous flow of sensation, and the succession of discrete impressions. This difference implies that this type of analysis is fundamentally flawed. It's based in the false premise, or assumption, that a continuous activity can be truthfully represented as a succession of discrete states.

The problem is demonstrated by the example of a movie being a succession of still frames. It may be the case that what appears through sensation to be continuous activity, is really a succession of still frames. But to justify the claim that the apparent continuity really is a succession of frames, requires that we determine the stops and starts, the distinct frames themselves, exposing the mechanism by which the distinct frames are changed and displayed to us one at a time. When in analysis, we simply apply arbitrary stops and starts, we do not base that division into distinct frames on anything real, the frames are arbitrarily assumed and projected onto the apparent continuity. Therefore the whole assumption of a "succession of discrete impressions" is completely ungrounded, because the frames are mental constructs arbitrarily created, and this renders the premise that what appears through sensation as continuous activity is really a succession of discrete moments, as completely unsound.

Think of a security camera monitoring a set space in your garden.  When it detects a movement via infrared lighting, the sensor in the camera triggers recording.  When the motion ends, or goes out of sight, the detection operation switches off, ending the recording of the image of the object which triggered the recording. — Corvus

The sensitivity of the trigger is set at an arbitrary value, and the range of possible values has physical limitations. Also the detector has a limited spatial range. The start and end of the motion are determined relative to these arbitrary features.

Living paycheck to paycheck is pretty common. — frank

Even if that is representative of "the average American", how is it anything other than having to work for a living?

It often comes from a heroin deficiency. — frank

I do not believe that is representative of "the average American".



What do you think Trump means when he said:

"I have determined that president Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations."

Why would he not want American involvement in "Peace" if he feels American involvement in "Peace" gives him a big advantage?

Terminology again . . . we do hear a series of tones, we just can't recognize them. A software program can. — J

As I said, there is only a series of tones in conception, and when that conception is applied. That's what the software program does, applies the conception. We do not hear a series of tones, evidenced by what you say, we "can't recognize them".

So sound is not a physical thing. I give up. — Banno

OED: Sound 1) "a sensation caused in the ear by the vibration...". Sensations are not physical things. Therefore sounds are not physical things, just like colours are not physical things. Get with the program!

As I said previously, we can perform the operation of inspecting a single impression or ideas in our reflecting operations by mind after the perception. — Corvus

The point though is that the creation of "a single impression", is a product of that act of reflecting. It is not the direct product of sensation, so it is not an accurate description of perception, it is a description of how perception appears when revisited in the memory. This makes the "single impression" a mental abstraction rather than a sense perception.

Is continuity a single movement of smooth, undisturbed and conjoined movement from start to the end of the movement? Or is it an illusory appearance of the many instances of the sliced images? What is your own idea on this? — Corvus

There is no real start and end. The start and end are arbitrarily assigned by the sensing being, for whatever purpose.



Here's someone at Oxford who's as crazy as I am, Frank Arntzenius: https://philpapers.org/rec/ARNATR

I argue that, despite the fact that there have been interesting and relevant developments in mathematics and physics since the time of Zeno, each of these views still has serious drawbacks. — Are there really Instantaneous Velocities?

We watch the finger with the slide move up the guitar string. This is certainly "movement" if anything is. What do we hear? A series of tones that change pitch, at intervals that are in fact specifiable acoustically, but indistinguishable to the human ear. — J

Actually, we do not hear a series of tones, we here a slide, which is a sound of changing pitch, consisting of no distinct tones. That's the point of my discussion of Hume's misrepresentation of sense perception. Hume describes sensation as a succession of impressions, which is consistent with "a series of tones". But that's not what we actually sense, which is a continuity of change, a slide. It is only when we apply the conception of distinct tones, to the sound which is heard, that we conclude there is a series of tones.

That it is not a series of tones which is heard, is demonstrable through the Zeno process. If a person was hearing a series of tones in a slide, we'd be able to say which distinct tones the person hears. Since we can't we have to conclude an infinite number of tones, as the slide is infinitely divisible.

Not Banno. Physics and mathematics. — Banno

Yes, it's Banno's conception. You present it, and claim that it's justified by physics and mathematics.

Is the slide or the portamento a physical entity? If not, then I am not sure what else it might be... Calling it a perception is wrong. — Banno

We are discussing what is heard, and that is the perception. The point is that there is no "phyiscal entity" which corresponds with what is heard, because what is heard is a changing sound which is not a physical thing.

Notice that the move can be counted as a unit, and that it is distinct to the individual notes. — Banno

By what principles do you count a move as a unit?

The physical world does not care whether we choose continuous or discrete mathematics to best describe it. — Banno

A philosopher who is seeking truth does care. That is the difference between you and I. You don't care what we say about how things are, so long as what is said serves the purpose at hand. And language has evolved to facilitate common purposes. I want to be able to speak the truth about how things are, and that requires a much more thoughtful and deliberate use of language.

The phenomena of the movement is captured by perception at the moment when it happens. — Corvus

The point though, is that there is no such thing as "the moment when it happened". Movement requires time, duration, temporal extension, whereas "the moment" implies a point in time with no extension. This means that there is no such thing as the moment when a movement happened.

That's why @Banno's conception of "instantaneous velocity" is self-contradicting nonsense.

Taking out a slice of the movement out of the continuity is only possible in the course of reflection of the ideas.  Human mind can achieve this, because it has memory and reasoning which can recall the perceived ideas and analyze them with the rational investigation. — Corvus

The problem is that there is more than one way to take "a slice of the movement".

In one way, we can assume two distinct states, at t1 and at t2, each with a corresponding description (the room is green, and the room is red, or object is at point A and object is at point B). From this we can infer that a change from A to B occurred during that time period. We can make all kinds of assumptions about what happened between A and B (the room was painted, the particle took every possible path), what caused this change, etc.. But these would just be assumptions without the empirical evidence required to support them.

In another way, we can describe the activity which occurred between t1 and t2 (the room was being painted, the object was moving, the wave function). In this way we are actually describing the continuity between t1 and t2, what happened in that duration of time.

The important point is that the two are very different types of descriptions. And, if we take the first way, the description of two distinct states at t1 and t2, and assume that this way provides a description of the activity which occurs in the duration of time between t1 and t2, we are accepting a false assumption. It does not provide that description.

I don't believe that Hume meant we perceive the movement slice by slice as the broken images. — Corvus

Yes he did clearly mean that. He described a "succession of impressions", rather than the continuity of change which we actually sense.

Hume was explaining how human mind works especially on perception. He was not talking about the reality itself. — Corvus

He falsely described perception as a succession of impressions, rather than as a continuity of activity.

The average American struggles to make ends meet. — frank

Does "struggles" mean that they have to go to work five days a week?

They worry about... — frank

Worrying is self-inflicted anxiety.

This article https://news.mit.edu/2024/study-reveals-universal-pattern-brain-wave-frequencies-0118 describes how scientists have determined distinct layers in the brain, with different frequency brain waves associated with the distinct layers.

High frequency oscillations occur in the upper layers, and this is where new data is received and processes. The information is maintained in the lower layers through low frequency activity. A balance is required between the high frequency and low frequency, with the middle layers acting to accomplish this. The balance is required so that one does not overpower the other, causing "neuropsychiatric disorders". It is suggested that ADHT is when higher frequencies dominate, and schizophrenia is when lower frequencies are too strong.

A balance between top-down and bottom-up activity is required for everything which we do, but you can see how it is necessary for the balance to tip one way or the other, depending on what a person is doing.

The high-level implication is that the cortex has multiple mechanisms involving both anatomy and oscillations to separate ‘external’ from ‘internal’ information.

The phenomenon comes in via perception in the form of impressions and ideas. Hence we are not really seeing the reality, but the phenomenon. — Corvus

The point though, is that Hume represents sense perception as a succession of distinct perceptions. But in reality sense perception consists of continuous activity, because it has temporal duration. And what is actually sensed is the activities which occur in time. The distinct "impressions and ideas" are only created when we impose breaks into the continuity of perception.

So for example, the wall is described as "green" at t1, and as "red" at t2, and these are distinct impressions or ideas. However, sense perception has provided a continuous activity, during which the wall was painted. Whenever we break down sense perception into distinct impressions or distinct states (the colour of the wall was green, then the colour of the wall was red), we completely avoid describing the temporal aspect of change (the colour of the wall was changing). So we intentionally remove the temporal aspect from the phenomenon, to work with a less accurate representation, because it is easier to work with.

Because they we are perceiving the phenomenon in impressions and ideas, we can analyze them with reasoning. We can stop them, rewind them and even predict them too. You seem be talking about the reality which is not accessible via perception totally disregarding the way our perception works. — Corvus

So if we do this, analyze the phenomena as distinct impressions or ideas, we have already imposed those breaks onto the continuity of the phenomenon of sense perception, to divide that continuity into a multitude of distinct impressions. Therefore this analysis is not giving us a true representation of sense perception, as continuous phenomenon, because it is analyzing distinct impressions which have been artificially created by breaking the continuity down.

The first "tone" is an individual, the second an attribute. The attribute of that individual changed - perhaps in pitch, perhaps in timbre, perhaps in volume. — Banno

Looks like equivocation to me.

The colour of that wall is still the colour of that wall, even if it moves from red to green — Banno

Again , equivocation. Consider the difference in the meaning of "colour" in the follow two phrases. "The colour of the wall is green", and "the colour of the wall".

One of the interesting things you can do with language, equivocate.

Did you know that the conscious mind has limited memory so-called working memory? At any given time, it can access only three to five items. — MoK

Trying anything more than that would probably cause a migraine.

Yes, and so perhaps the mind spatializes the succession as well as the continuity — PoeticUniverse

I think that this is the point. The mind spatializes the thing which we sense as a temporal continuity, and it is the spatialization which creates distinct frames in succession. But the spatialization of time does not provide an accurate representation.

Yes, that's it. Yet the illusion is extremely strong. — J

Sense perception is the only means we have for understanding the world around us. If the understanding of the world which sense perception produces, is an illusion, then the illusion is bound to be a strong one. As philosophers, we take on the task of getting beyond the illusion. This is illustrated by the famous allegory of the cave. The illusion is so strong that most will not even understand that it's an illusion.

Why shouldn't a tone move? — Banno

If a tone changes, up or down, it becomes a different tone. The same thing happens to colour.

We perceive motion as continuous because it appears as continuous. If continuity means without stopping, then it is not deceiving our senses at all. There are two points on continuity. — Corvus

If what appears as a continuity is really a succession of distinct locations, then the senses are deceiving us.

What seems to be clear is that continuous movement is the result of our perception. Without perception, continuity doesn't arise in the movement, or even the movement itself. — Corvus

Then it appears like you would say that perception is deception.

Whatever the case, time is not needed for the motion logically. — Corvus

I don't understand this claim. How would the ball's existence at one location be distinguished from its existence at another location, other than on the basis of this being at two different times? Or would the ball just be everywhere all at once?

We describe a melody as "moving from start to finish"; we say the pitches "go up" or "go down"; we say that a tune is "slow" or "fast". In fact nothing like this happens -- there is no physical entity doing any "moving". — J

The ear is very complex, and it's parts are moving, so there are physical entities which are moving. It's just that description, that the tones are moving, which is inaccurate. In reality if there was a physical entity called the melody, it is an arrangement of parts, which can't really be moving because that would mess up the arrangement.

Thanks for your input Mijin. "Brainwave states" provides a different perspective. Maybe there is some real science here, instead of the stuff that Christoffer is offering. I assume the higher brainwave states, gamma, beta, represent higher mental activity, and the lower states theta, delta, represent lower activity.

Can we correlate more active brainwaves, higher frequency, with more focused brain activity, therefore stable, rational, thought, and also correlate lower frequency with less focused brain activity, unstable, irrational, fluctuating, like dreams. If so, how do you think it is possible that higher frequency brain activity (rapid change), corresponds with focused, stable thinking?

But are the continuous movements possible without perception? — Corvus

The issue is whether continuous movement is even possible at all. Since we understand and conceptualize movement as as a succession of instants in time, continuous motion is outside our ability to understand. That's what Zeno demonstrated. This produces the issue of whether our senses deceive us when we perceive motion as continuous.

nteresting point.   But think of the old movies shot by 8mm camera with the roll films.  The movement in the film is made of each single still image.  When the single images are run through the projector with the light, it gives us continuous moving motion.  The continuous movement and motion is recreated in our brain by the latent memory.  In actuality, they are just single still images running continuously in fast speed in order to recreate the recorded motions.

Hume is seeing our visual perception in the same way.  His idea of perception is that we have the single impressions and the matching ideas of perceived objects coming into our senses continuously creating the perception just like the old movies made of 8mm films. — Corvus

The point though, is that sense perception is as a continuous movement. So, when Hume represents it as a succession of still frames, he already applies the conceptualized version of motion, across this gap of inconsistency, to represent sense perception in a way which is not true. In doing this, the reality of time is lost to him.

If we take your film example, the sense perception is "continuous moving motion". We have good reason to believe that the reality of the situation is a succession of still frames, because the still frames are produced, and run through the machine. We can stop the machine and look at them. Therefore we have all the evidential backing required to support this conceptualization of a succession of frames as true.

In the case of Hume's succession of perceptions, we have not got the required evidence to support this conceptualization. It is conjecture, speculation. Then, he turns this speculative representation back onto sense experience, to describe sensation this way, with only arbitrary separation between distinct still frames.

Now, the true or real passing of time (when actual change occurs) happens between the distinct still frames, with the film moving from one to another. This is what happens when one frame replaces another. But since the distinct frames are arbitrarily assumed by speculative theory in Hume's representation, the reality of this process whereby on frame replaces another, is completely left out. Therefore we lose the reality of time, which would be the true principles whereby the distinct frames (or moments in time) are identified, and the changing of one to another could be represented.

At any chance, we can stop the perception, and pick the single impression and ideas to investigate its contents. — Corvus

We can do this with the "movie". We can take the film out of the projector and show the distinct frames. However, we cannot do this with sense perception. We cannot remove a distinct frame. We produce an arbitrary frame, by applying the conceptual precepts of description onto the active sense perception. So any distinct impression analyzed is an arbitrarily created object, produced for the purpose of analysis. It it is not a true stopping of the perception, nor is it analogous with stopping the projector and looking at the distinct frames, because of that arbitrariness. And it is that arbitrariness which causes us to lose the reality of time. That time is not real, is a conclusion produced by the incorrect thinking, that arbitrarily created still frames are real.

Also, this is a feature of relativity theory. If we take arbitrarily created reference frames, and arbitrary rest frames as "real", we similarly deny the reality of time. So taking relativity theory as "true", rather than simply a useful way of representing motion, is a denial that time is real.