From my faint memory, Descartes wasn't too keen on Aristotelianism. Maybe Leibniz was.

I have a few old paperback copies by Derrida. It is "The Derrida Reader - Writing Performances" - Edited by Julian Wolfreys, Edinburgh University 1998. pp.231 - 232.

Sure I do. It's an object. It's on your desk. You just perceive more details than do I. — noAxioms

The point is that you don't know anything about it apart from it is an object. And you know even that much, because I told you about it.

Hence, the object I am seeing, doesn't exist in you.
It doesn't exist in you either, unless you ate your desk. — noAxioms

"It doesn't exist in you." means it doesn't exist in your mind, not in your stomach.

Since this topic isn't about epistemology, no, I don't see any problem. Said object exists under E2,3,4,5,6, and perhaps meaninglessly under E1. That's the whole list. — noAxioms

Existence is the result of perception. Of course it is about epistemology too.

But you indicated that the telling of time was necessary, not just an option, for said object to exist. Maybe you meant something else by that wording, but rather than clarifying, you seem to be doubling down on the assertion. — noAxioms

Time is always implicated in perception. You just don't seem to be able to understand it.

Where did you get that idea? Elaborate more please.

which we dream and affirm that it is necessary that all that is be somewhere in some place and occupy some khôra; and that that which is neither on earth nor anywhere in the heaven is nothing." — Plato, Timaeus, 52a-b

Derrida mentions Khora as the images we see in our dreams, which sounds interesting. Is that where our dreams come from?

Perceiving X means perceiving of the time X was perceived. Hence all existence exists in time, and time is perception.
None of this is logically valid. I might think of something while being totally unaware of the time. Even if I was aware of the time, only under E4 or E5 would existing things be in time, and not even then since proper time itself exists under E4 and yet does not exist in time.
Your assertion doesn't even work under E2 (the only one based on perception) since you consider time to be a concept, and your mind does not exist within a concept. — noAxioms

I am looking at an object on my desk right now. I can say I know what it is because it exists in front of me. Or conversely, because I see it exists, I know what it is.

But you can't. You don't see it, and you don't know what it is. Hence, the object I am seeing and is existing concretely and solidly, doesn't exist in you. You don't even know what it is. Where do you see problem in my argument here?

When I see the object, I can also tell the time of seeing it. The time I read belongs to the concept of time. It is not a concept of time. It is a read time, which instantiated at the moment of reading and noticing. So you seem to be confusing between the concept of time and read time.

"existential quantification"? Surely that is not time itself is it?
No, it has nothing to do with time. 35 is not prime because (∃x) (x is non-trivial factor of 35). That's straight up existential quantification, and an example that makes no reference to time. — noAxioms

When 35 is perceived or stated as a non prime, its instantiation of the idea emerges with time perceived. When the perception ends, and the statement is forgotten, the instantiation disappears or fades away into nonexistence and the associated time fades away too.

Hence it is too simple to say X doesn't exist means there is nothing to it, or X exists means we know it and use it. There are more involved in existence.

Type 4 is more of an E1 definition: All that exists or all that is real. I find that pretty meaningless. — noAxioms

Exactly !!

This is a classical example of a definition that comes from quantum mechanics. — noAxioms

Not a standard definition afraid.

E5 denies the principle of counterfactual definiteness which states that systems are in a defined state even when not measured. — noAxioms

Existence is also nonexistence, and nonexistence is also existence. Something cannot exist without possibility of nonexistence. Nonexistence cannot exist without possibility of existence.

"existential quantification"? Surely that is not time itself is it?
No, it has nothing to do with time. 35 is not prime because (∃x) (x is non-trivial factor of 35). That's straight up existential quantification, and an example that makes no reference to time. — noAxioms

Existence of X means that X was perceived. Perceiving X means perceiving of the time X was perceived. Hence all existence exists in time, and time is perception.

What needs clarification then is your notion of 'time'. — noAxioms

My notion of time is that it is a concept. Can concepts be said to exist? We have concepts, and use them. But they don't exist like trees and cups do.

I said nothing so ambiguous as any of the definitions being applicable or not to time. — noAxioms

The list of 6 definitions of Existence you listed are made up of ambiguous words, that need to be clarified.

I listed three very well known and very different kinds of time, all three of which are heavily defined, used, and discussed in literature, and are not obscure at all. Hence my ability to render a meaningful opinion about how the various definitions of 'exists' might apply to each or not. — noAxioms

Where are the 3 definitions of time you listed? I cannot locate them in the thread, and I have not been reading all the posts in the thread but just have been replying to your posts to me. Could you list them again?

Interestingly, your description of time in the prior post seems to correspond to my third kind, the kind whose existence I put on par with the tooth fairy. I suspect that it is this definition of 'time' is how you're using the word. — noAxioms

It is not the tooth fairy at all. If time is a concept, then how we use the concept in our statements and propositions reflect time. If our temporal statements are to be meaningful, then time must be real in the statements.

For instance, what do you mean by "part of objective reality"?
That's E1, which I did not list for anything, since I do not identify as a realist. As for what it means, that is unclear. The meaning needs to be clarified by anybody who asserts it, but from my standpoint, a thing that has this property is indistinguishable from a things that doesn't have it, but is otherwise identical. — noAxioms

Now you are trying to clarify the definitions of Existence, which is good. E1 saying that

E1 "Is a member of all that is part of objective reality" — noAxioms

sounds like tautology or circular. Objective reality sounds also unclear. Isn't reality supposed to be objective, if there is such a thing as reality. But what is objectivity? What is reality? Can we ever get to know the reality? If E1 doesn't make sense, should it not be dropped, and move on to E2?

E2 "I know about it" — noAxioms

E4 "Is part of this universe" or "is part of this world" — noAxioms

If you know something, is it Existence? I know a name called Pegasus. Is Pegasus existence, because you know, and I know it? Pegasus has predicates too. It is a horse, has wings and suppose to fly.
Or if someone comes along and say he is a Pegasus, is he the real Pegasus? Or is he someone pretending to be a Pegasus, therefore a fake Pegasus? Can he be qualified as the existence of Pegasus? Hence these definitions present us further questions than firm definitions.

In the history of Christianity, for example, the orthodoxy emphasized using reason to prove God's existence while the mystics spoke of intuition and being one with God. See the article on intuition in the Catholic encyclopedia (new advent website) for more information. I am not against reason, but there are higher levels i believe. Nous is higher than logos, dialectic above understanding — Gregory

Not sure if God's existence could be proved using reason. In Kant, space and time is intuition, and God's existence is beyond reason. God belongs to the world of faith.

I agree with the gist of what you are saying. — ENOAH

:up: :cool:

Even calling it linear or dialectical is just as illusory as time itself. But as long as we're born into history, we can't but move in that world of codes. — ENOAH

Agreed.

How is it possible for me to believe, when I am asleep, that something is real, which is completely distinct from, and inconsistent with, what I believe is real when I am awake? — Metaphysician Undercover

Beliefs can be groundless, irrational, misleading and blind.

Am I a completely different person when I am asleep, from when I am awake? — Metaphysician Undercover

No.

The title of the OP "The Relationship between Body and Mind" implies body and mind is separate, but because of the fact body is material, it implies mind is material existence too.

In the era of AI dominating the world, material mind is not impossible. But it would depend on what mind actually is.

Orthodoxy frowns on intuition more often than reason because it is seen as esoteric — Gregory

Why is intuition esoteric? In what sense? Do you think it makes sense?

E1 "Is a member of all that is part of objective reality"
E2 "I know about it"
E3 "Has predicates"
E4 "Is part of this universe" or "is part of this world"
E5 "state X exists to state Y iff X is part of the causal history of Y"
E6 "existential quantification", where 51 is not prime because there exists an even divisor that is neither — noAxioms

If you want my opinion, Proper time exists by E2,3,4,5,6. Coordinate time exists E2,3,6 The time you mention above exists E2,3 (pretty much the same score as the tooth fairy).
E1 thus far is meaningless and I cannot assign that to anything. — noAxioms

I am not sure if E1,4,5,6 make sense or are meaningful for existence of time, when they are made up of abstract and obscure concepts which need clarification.

For instance, what do you mean by "part of objective reality"? Are we supposed to be able to understand and grasp the full meaning of objective reality? What is "this universe"? How far and how much "this universe" supposed to cover, or be? "the causal history"? What do you mean by that? "existential quantification"? Surely that is not time itself is it?

I complained before about the necessity of bringing a point of view to reading Plato. Even in the original, one can't tell whether a speech or argument is actually Plato's belief or just that of the dramatic speaker in the dialogue. Is the receptacle part of Plato's overall scheme or is it a tall tale from the Pythagorean sophist Timaeus? When it is emphasized as likely, is likely to be taken positively or negatively? — magritte

Plato's original texts had been written in archaic Greek, which even Greek folks living now don't understand unless they study the archaic language.

So for us non Greek readers of Plato in English translated copies, they must be translated from the original archaic Greek to modern Greek, then translated again from modern Greek to English. Hence unless one reads them in the original archaic Greek, could it be seen as reading the actual text?

I try to base my reading on coherence to other things Plato said elsewhere in other dialogues hoping that his philosophy was logically founded. — magritte

When I read the classic philosophical texts, I try to read them interpreting from my own view rather than trying to understand them under officially accepted interpretation. Not sure if this is good way of reading them.

My preference is for something like the SEP article Timaeus written by two experts who have a definite approach to Plato. Their view however is still only their view. — magritte

That looks a good article for the topic too. Thank for the info.

What do you think of Schopenhauer when he says the world IS our Will? — Gregory

This is my brief understanding on Schopenhauer. The only way we can access and interact with the world is via our Will.  Our will is supported by intelligence, thoughts and reasoning, as well as bodily desire for pleasure, reproduction and survival..

And have you ever listened to Jim Newman the non-dualist? He's got lots of stuff on youtube. He's ideas are fascinating in light of Schopenhauer — Gregory

I am not familiar with the name afraid.

Where do we empirically find the prime mover of caused events? — Gregory

The world don't care about us, and it goes its own ways. But we do what we can.

What's the difference? — Gregory

Materialism is a way to interpret the world. Realism is also an interpretation suppose, but it includes and emphasizes on the direct action, and interaction with the world. Not just interpretation.

That's the perspective of materialism yes — Gregory

No. It is called realism.

Yes i think all religions point to faith. There are times when i believe faith can literally move mountains, but my mind is never strong enough to endure the confusion. OCD addiction to thinking i suppose — Gregory

Faith itself doesn't do anything, It is just beliefs on something. To move mountains, you must hire some cranes and bulldozers, and dig them out with your own labor.

There is no ontology of time, simply because time as an independent entity simply does not exist.
Time is a concept derived from the change, the flux, the process and becoming of nature.
In a universe where there was no activity, no flux, the concept of time or the word time would simply become meaningless. Much the same could be said of the concept of empty space (no such thing). — prothero

Nonexistence is also existence.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

Listening is an empirical sensation, but the judgement on the listened music as normal or not normal is a mental operation from the innate capacity.

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

Not sure what you mean. There are 2x piece of guitar solos given above in the recording. The top one is 30% slowed down in speed, and the bottom one is the normal one. Anyone can have a listen to both recordings and make comparisons.

I don't because I didn't participate in that topic, and this one isn't about time specifically, especially when 'exists' has not been defined when asking if any particular thing exists or not. This topic is about the necessity of doing that, and the justifications or lack of them for the various definitions. — noAxioms

Fair enough. Existence seems to be an ambiguous concept. X exists, can mean many different things. X doesn't exist, doesn't mean X is denied.

Time doesn't exist, doesn't mean time is denied. It could mean we don't perceive time, or time could be a priori condition for our perception of external world ... etc. Present exists, but it disappears before we notice it. Past exists in our memories only. There were some folks who confuse the archive of events or objects as pasts, and some words denoting future as future itself. That's daft.

Time flows to the future. In this statement, time is an existence, flows is a copula and future is the predicate. This is an example statement of EPP.

Why would he mention that explicitly? — noAxioms

Why not? Even the ancient Greek folks mentioned on the existence of time.

even you don't know which kind of time you're denying despite not having that excuse. — noAxioms

When did I say I denied anything? I have been just asking questions to various folks for their opinions and ideas, so I could compare them in order to learn more about it.

There are lots of you-tubes claiming time doesn't exist, but I don't watch links whose arguments are not summarized by the posters, so I don't know what they're denying or how they go about it. — noAxioms

Well, you need to have listens to, think and learn about them rather than just be narrowminded and trying to twist everything said.

You are comparing it to the norm. — Metaphysician Undercover

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

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

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?

You don't seem to be paying attention to my post. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do. But when I see vague points or ambiguities in the post, I will point them out. :)

Well usually faith is motive for actions for some practices aiming to achieve something or know something. But some folks don't have that for their beliefs in something, and just have faith with no reason or sense. We call the faith in that case as "blind faith".

I still don't know what kind of time is asserted to not exist. — noAxioms

What does Meinong say about the existence of time?

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wonder if you are familiar with Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven song. If you are, then the above recordings will demonstrate that they sound totally different from the top (30% slowed down) and bottom (normal) guitar solo in the song. And one can tell which one is the normal speed. and which one is slowed down in speed.

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

but it is a general capacity, — Metaphysician Undercover

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

Try this: imagine you're in the 60's and you are tripping on acid. You have thoughts of a round triangle. When you sober up the idea lingers. Now reason may say such a thing is impossible, but something opened that got you "out of the box". I propose this as chemically induced faith. — Gregory

That sounds like hallucination rather than faith. Faith is also underlying motive for the actions aiming at certain achievements or enlightenment. Faith is not purposeless.

Hold on, we shouldn' jump to conclusions if there is any doubt. There is knowledge. It is always contingent, — Gregory

Knowledge requires verification and evidence for its validity. When the object or existence under investigation is lacking such requirements, but still folks think or believe in the truths or existence of such objects, then they have faith rather than knowledge. No?

beliefs that may transcend reason perhaps are not irrational but maybe a-rational. — Gregory

What do you mean by "may transcend"? a-rational? Isn't it just another way of saying irrational?

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

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?

1) is faith an emotion or a thought? What if it is neither — Gregory

Could faith be irrational and unjustified beliefs? Rational and justified beliefs are knowledge.

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 — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

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. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I agree. But still I was talking about how the different speed of the same music reproduced via the recordings will be noticed by the listener as incorrect and correct just by listening to them. That judgement comes from a priori concept of temporality or musical aesthetics in human minds rather than the music itself.

So changing the speed of a recording is a completely different thing from changing the speed at which a person plays the particular notes. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure. Good point. However, what you are talking about seems to be the reproduction of music theory. My point was more on the perceptual aspects of the music listeners.

Compare that with the normal speed version.

Yes. Music makes a good laboratory to examine some of our intuitions here, because (most?) acousticians accept the idea that the "movement of sound" is an illusion. — J

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?

You mean the "ontology of time" topic. I didn't post to that since time was not defined clearly. — noAxioms

The OP started with little assumption and open mindedness on the definitions, because it is known to be historically abstract and contentious topic. It was looking for good arguments from different angles for exploration, which could offer us better understanding on the concept of time, and possible solid definitions and conclusions.

Professor Donald Hoffman and Rupert Spira discussions above were really clear and good explanations on the topic. I was totally enthralled by the clarity and lucidity of their ideas and explications, which I agreed on every points.

The second video on their discussion put down the final nail on the coffin of the time realists shallow and misled slogans where their misunderstandings come from.

Youtube is not perfect. It gets bad names for the commercialism and mindless ads sometimes, but there are also excellent academic discussions videos like these ones. One just has to look for the rare diamonds in the muds. Saying all Youtube videos are ads are from the shallow minded folks with no genuine effort to search for the gems in the platform.