Of course, not, but that is trivially true...so what? — Janus

What do you mean by trivially true? Why is it trivially true?

It says nothing about the ability of a mind to imagine anything. — Janus

Isn't it obvious? Imagination is a mental operation which is one of the functions of mind. How else would you imagine something without mind?

What allows the mind to create for itself, a multitude of distinct and completely inconsistent realities at different times. 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? Am I a completely different person when I am asleep, from when I am awake? — Metaphysician Undercover

You still need a biological body and functional brain to be able to have dream. Therefore could dreams reflect the state of your body and brain? The perceptual functions of brain might be dormant during sleep.

But some brain functions such as imagination could still be active, which triggers all sort of images and activities happening in random manner, and feeding the created information into the dormant perceptual and memory functions?

Hence dreams can be the operations of your imagination while the other parts of your brain functions are dormant.

Being an extreme case doesn't in itself make a logical fallacy. — RussellA

It wouldn't be accepted as valid or meaningful arguments on the basis of either non relevant or highly unlikely example.

The Argument from hallucination deals with an extreme case and is used as an argument against Direct Realism. That it is an extreme case does not mean that it is not a valid argument. — RussellA

Again, the other party can reject the arguments on the basis of highly unlikely example or irrelevant example for the main point.

I don't think that society would willingly accept a legal system that was immoral. I have no evidence, but I am sure that this is the case. — RussellA

No one forces a society to accept their own legal system. The members of the society accept sets of legal system and laws themselves. Do you honestly believe someone else who are not a member of the society or country forces certain legal system or laws into the societies and countries?

Being an extreme case doesn't make it a fallacy. — RussellA

Appealing to Extremes is a formal fallacy.

For my point there, any common sense use of the word will do. You cannot claim the time does not exist (or is not real) merely because people can fail to recognize it as such: that's a bad argument, and that is exactly what you are doing when you bring up indigenous people who fail to understand that they age. — Bob Ross

I never claimed time doesn't exist. Your perception seems not quite accurate here. The OP wrote it as a suggestion for discussions and consideration.

I think I have given you a good example to consider making analogic inference. For aging, you don't need time. For you to get aged, you or someone must notice the aging. It is a momentary perception of realising that you have aged. You don't need time to notice your aging, or aging of wine.

Beyond that point of contention, I would say that what is real and what exist are different; because there are things which have being but are not a member of reality (e.g., the feeling of pain, the phenomenal color of orange, a thought, the a priori concept of quantity, etc.). — Bob Ross

That doesn't prove time is real or time exists. You just keep saying the content of your perception as if they are time. Time is a concept.

You cannot say time is real. It would be like saying water is real. Water is hot or cold, not real or unreal. Likewise time is not real or unreal. You either know what time it is now, or yo don't.
You could say it took too long time, or time passed fast. But it is all your linguistic expression of your psychology. You are not saying anything about time itself.

Time is a concept. Concepts are not real or unreal. You either know a concept or you don't know it.

How could deny change as a mere concept? It exists in the natural world. Are you an idealist? — MoK

Change was not denied here. The actual change itself cannot be captured by physics and math. That was an assumption. No denial.

Are you an idealist? — MoK

No, I am not an idealist. I think I told you before, but you seem to have forgotten already. I am a bundle of perception.

Time does not cause a change. It allows the change. — MoK

No. Again wrong. Time is a concept. Time doesn't allow anything. Change and motion can be described in time.

No, physical changes take place in continuous time. — MoK

That is an illusion from your latent memory. Change takes place in an instance physics and math cannot describe, capture or understand. The moment of change takes place in co-existing moment of unchanged state and change.

You are mixing psychological time with subjective time. There is also objective time. — MoK

What is the difference between psychological time and subjective time? Can you mix time? Time is not liquid or powder. You cannot mix time.

No. I was suggesting time is a concept. It is a way to describe changes, motions, movements, and durations and intervals too.

Because time is a concept, it cannot cause any physical objects or events to change.
It can only capture them in perception, and describe them.

The physical changes take place in a slice of moment, where the cause and effect co-exist in the window of the change. Lumping them altogether, and seeing them as process or continuity would be categorical illusion from the latent memory in the brain.

The law could state that the punishment for stealing anything valued up to £50 was the amputation of the right hand. — RussellA

Isn't this an appeal to extreme case fallacy?

Are you arguing that a particular law must be followed by a society even if that society believes that that particular law is morally wrong? — RussellA

Isn't the law formally accepted legal system by the people of the society? Wouldn't it be self contradiction to say your country's legal system is wrong, when the people have accepted their legal system to protect the society?

No, as only moral laws are valid. It is not morally wrong to break a law that itself is not moral. — RussellA

Morality only judges the moral actions of the folks. Legality judges the acts and also hand down the punishments according the law, hence legality precedes morality. It matters to folks' life physically. Morality only affects the folks reputations. Hence legality comes first. Would you not agree?

Breaking a law not founded on moral principles is not morally wrong. — RussellA

Well, Socrates wouldn't agree with that claim, I guess.

Even if the system is morally wrong? In abiding by a system that is morally wrong, then one is condoning it, meaning that abiding to a morally wrong system is in itself an immoral act. — RussellA

Morality and legality is not the same. Just because you feel your country's legal system doesn't suit your taste, it doesn't mean the moral system is also wrong too.

↪Janus Yep. — Banno

That is not a philosophical posting, is it?

The part of your claim that is unargued is as to why it should be impossible to use a mind to imagine something that has no mind. — Janus

If you had no mind, would you be able to imagine a world?, or be able to imagine anything?

I don't think the public would accept a legal system that was not fundamentally moral. Sooner or later they would revolt and overthrow the system. — RussellA

Isn't it itself an act of moral wrongness to break the law, revolt and overthrow the system? You are committing more serious moral wrongness under the excuse of moral wrongness. It sounds like a contradiction to me. According to Socrates, even bad law is law. Breaking law is morally wrong.

True. I have no choice, regardless of whether I believe the system to be immoral or not. Though I could emigrate. — RussellA

Emigration? What if the new country had more hidden injustice in the system? Would you not regret? There is no utopia or paradise in this world. It is a product of dialectical transformation from the ancient beginning. You have options to get adjusted to the system whatever system you live in, and flourish under the system knowing it and abiding by it.

It doesn't sound illogical to me, so I wanted to know why you think it sounds illogical. Do you think it just sounds illogical but is not, or do you think it not only sounds illogical but is illogical. I see no logical contradiction in saying that we can imagine that the world is independent of mind or even that we can imagine a world independent of mind. — Janus

A world independent of mind is a world which exists without mind.
Imagination is a function of mind.
Without mind, there is no imagination.
Therefore a world independent of mind cannot be imagined. (or It is impossible to imagine a world independent of mind.)

That was my argument. It seems to be free from logical inconsistency here, but you claim, it doesn't follow. I was asking you why you assert it doesn't follow. What is your ground or reason for claiming that it doesn't follow.

Logic. — Banno

Isn't it Wittgenstein who believed that anything you can express in language, exists. Therefore past facts and events exist. Is it the case? I am not too familiar with Wittgenstein, but just guessing here.

If you cannot see this to be a problem, then there is no point in continuing. — Banno

As I said, your point seems to be coming from the concept of identity in relations rather than identity in properties. Would it be Wittgensteinian or Quinean?

The existence of OP is not main point of topic. You can still keep discussing on the other side of the topic, because it is wide and versatile theme in history of philosophy from various schools, as long as you don't participate or support the gormless strawman posters.

If you don't agree, and still see no point, then fair enough, discussions could be closed with you. No worries.

Time is made of moments but time is continuous. — MoK

OK, think of a movie in the traditional roll films. You have thousands of moments of stills image in each single film in the long continuous roll of films. When you look at the cut of the film of the glass breaking, there will be the single film which contains the glass in contact with the stone.

The stone hit the glass, so it is in contact with the glass, but glass is still unbroken until the stone further pushed into the glass. The moment of the contact is what I am talking about. That moment is the actual breaking. Not before or after.

Changes look continuous because your eyes and brain has something called latent memory when seeing objects in motion. Change itself is not continuous. It is made of slices of many moments.

I explained the change. — MoK

Sure, I think you are seeing the change as unbroken continuity. I am seeing change as continuity composed of slices of moments.

So you will not be putting up your hand? Me neither. — Banno

If you have ran out of what to say on the points due to lack of knowledge or ideas, don't post strawman posts please. That really doesn't help anyone.

Now I see why fdrake retired as moderator. — jgill

Strawman posts will be ignored.

There cannot be any change in the case of a simultaneous process. Change exists. Therefore, the states of physical are not simultaneous. — MoK

Change is composed of momentary continuity. You must be able to see the moment of the actual change, not the pseudo changes you describe (which is the illusion you see when seeing changes).

There is no such thing! — MoK

It sounds like a subjective denialism. :) I can see it perfectly in my reasoning and inferring. The moment of coexistence of the breaking and unbrokenness is the actual breaking in unbrokenness. Physics and math have no ability to see it or describe it.

Hmm. If you cannot see the contradiction in those two sentences, then there is not much that can be done to explain it further. — Banno

No contradictions at all. It is a logical and physical fact.

Mathematics and physics can explain what a continuous change is. — MoK

But obviously they cannot see the moment of coexistence of breaking and unbrokenness of the glass.

There is no moment that glass is broken and unbroken. The change is continuous. — MoK

Time is temporal continuity composed of moments. Not seeing it, means physics and math cannot capture the true nature of time or physical changes.

The OP on my screen may not have the very same properties as the same as the OP on your screen, yet we talk about their being the same OP. — Banno

The point here is that, the OP created on the first day doesn't exist. It exists as OP with different properties. It has not only changed the time stamp, but it also has hundreds of replies. It also changed some of the readers ideas on time too.

I've no idea wha that might mean. — Banno

It means a simple point. When existence stops being nonexistence, it happens in the state of coexistence of existence and nonexistence. There is no time involved in the change. The continued nonexistence is just a concept of the living after Socrates' nonexistence.

That's right. Banno has changed. Who changed? Banno changed. Look at that question with great care. The young man and the codger are the same person - your very utterance assumes that, by referring to the young man and then to the codger with the very same term. — Banno

If being same being means having exactly same properties in every aspect, then they cannot be the same person. There have been too much changes in properties. If Banno +50 year ago is the same Banno after 50+ years, then it means there hasn't been any changes in his properties. But there has been changes in the properties, therefore they are not same Banno.

At this point we could differentiate identity into two different types, if you still want to see identity as a relation from past memories. Identity of properties and identity of relations?

Identity could be a subtopic of existence and time, because they are all related to each other.

The OP is the same OP you wrote, perhaps edited and perhaps with a different time stamp. Which Post has a different time stamp? Which post my have been edited? Why, the OP, of course. Identity persists despite change. — Banno

Above is a contradiction. Banno with the properties (weight, height, looks, knowledge, wisdom) 50+ years ago is not the same Banno with the properties (weight, height, looks, knowledge, wisdom) in 2025.

Is a seed of oak tree same as the oak tree in 100 years after it has grown from the seed?

So existence becomes nonexistence and yet that there is no time. — Banno

Existence stopped becoming existence. Time stopped the moment it ceased to be existence. Nonexistence is in the mind of the living as a concept, not in the existence which ceased to be existence.

No I haven't. I have been saying that the OP you wrote still exists. You can show this by following the links — Banno

When you say X is identical to Y, it is because X and Y have exactly same properties in every aspects. The OP when created, and the OP now has different properties. Hence they are not the same OP. Of course the OP exists now, but with the different property.

Then there is a discontinuity of existence and the end of a mathematical parallel description. — jgill

Yes, exactly. A mathematical description of the existence is not the existence itself. That was my point. Of course, it could be an accurate description. But it is still a description.

Somethings being proven to be the case is very different to something just being the case. One is about how we think things are, the other about how they are. This is a very fundamental difference that seems obscured in the thinking of many folk. — Banno

Perception is not existence itself.  To say perception is existence would be a Berkeleian.  Some folks believe it, but it would be regarded as an extreme case of idealism. 

However, even if one is not an extreme idealist, it is perfectly rational to say that perception is the source of the knowledge of existence.  Of course not all perceived events or objects are true or existence. 

But you have a mental function called reason or rationality to be able to discern truth from falsity, existence from illusion.

If you had no perception, then you would have none of that.  You would just see blankness, and hear silence when facing the world.  There would be no knowledge about the world in you at all without your perception.

The OP created on the very first day has different properties from the OP you are seeing now.  The OP when it was created had a time stamp of the day, but now it has today's time stamp.  The OP also has hundreds of replies now.  When it was first created it had no reply.  Therefore you are seeing a different OP now from the moment when it was created.   

You have been saying that the OP when it was created exists now.  This is an unclear statement.  You clearly see the difference between the different properties of the OP.  

Likewise, Banno, born 50+ years ago, is not the same Banno of now in weight, height and looks, and wisdom and knowledge too.  Hence saying that they are the same Banno would be a wrong statement.
The statement "Time doesn't exist" in the OP was a suggestion to explore and to debate.  It was not a claim or conclusion.   You don't start OP with a conclusion.  You start OP with suggestion and assumption.

Existence has ambiguity in its meaning.  Socrates existed. But he doesn't exist now.   Existence becomes nonexistence.  Is it then existence or nonexistence?   

There are many (practically infinite states if we accept that time is continuous) states before the glass breaks into parts. The glass first is deformed without breaking since the atoms attract each other. As time passes there is a moment that atoms cannot hold on to each other so they separate. That is what we call the crack in the glass. As time passes, the cracks continue to extend and there is a moment when we have parts of glass. It is then that the glass shatters and its pieces move differently. — MoK

It seems physics cannot capture the moment of coexistence of the glass breaking and unbreaking. Math cannot either. Logic can.

Your description of the breaking in detail is the physical steps how breaking happens, but none of that step is the actual breaking. The breaking happens at the moment when the breaking and unbreaking coexists. The rest is not breaking itself or unbreaking itself.

The idea that one could fail to recognize that time is real does not negate nor suggest that it isn't real. — Bob Ross

What do you mean by real?

But the criminal justice system will only work if the criminal laws are moral. — RussellA

Why do you think that is the case? Does morality precede legality? Or vice versa?

Would you accept as a citizen of a country criminal laws that were not moral? — RussellA

If you are a citizen of a country, then would you have choice not to accept the legal system?

Let me ask you, do any of those worlds you invented have that function of explaining the present? — JuanZu

They are kind of possible worlds inferred from present state of consciousness. Many folks believe possible worlds exist. If you have no present, then nothing would be possible, and no possible worlds would be available to you. From present, you could remember past, and imagine future. From present, possible worlds get inferred, emanate, invoke, evoke, appear and reveal as you meditate, reason or imagine them.

I will be a bit slow in my postings due to increased work loads in real life here, but will try to catch up all the posts, as things get a bit quiet and free. Later~

It is also a paradox. The moment glass broke, the glass was unbroken.
The moment glass was unborken, the glass was broken.
Therefore the glass was broken and unbroken at the moment of broken and unbroken.

We are talking about logic here now, not physics. Until the moment the glass broke, the glass was unbroken. Therefore glass breaking is not a process. Glass breaking is a momentary motion.

This a gradual process and that requires time for it to happen. There is nothing paradoxical about it. — MoK

The exact moment of the glass breaking coexists with not breaking. How is it a process?

Let's focus on two states of glass, before breaking and after breaking, let's call them S1 and S2 respectively. It is easy to break a glass by which I mean that the glass goes from the state of S1 to S2. Is it possible that parts of glass come together and form the glass, by which I mean a change from S2 to S1? It is possible but very unlikely. — MoK

Have you come across the concept of sorities paradox?