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?

breaking a glass is a process. — MoK

The glass was not broken until the moment it was broken. The moment of breaking and not breaking is in the state of sorities paradox. How could a paradox be a process?

Are you denying the loss of information during the process of cell division? — MoK

That is a type of change in physical and biological level. It is not a perception of your Aha moment.

I didn't say that the broken glass is a process. I said breaking a glass is a process. — MoK

Breaking glass is a motion. A mass traveled into the glass in speed which increased the focused energy onto the mass. When the mass came into contact with the glass with the force, the force broke the glass. The breaking action should be looked as a motion with energy. Not a process.

If Legal judgment is not founded on moral judgment, where does legal judgment get its authority? — RussellA

Legal judgements and punishments for the criminal acts comes from the set of criminal laws of the country, and only the appointed legal judge can hand down the decisions on the details of punishment. That process is nothing to do with morality.

It is a change. The information of DNA is not preserved completely during the process of cell division. This is the cause of aging. — MoK

Aging is a perception of change, not the change itself. The wine aged well, they say. You cannot tell it was aged well until you taste the wine.

No, that is very unlikely because of the second law of thermodynamics. Does a glass change when you break it? Sure yes. Do you expect parts of the broken glass to come together and form the glass? It is possible but that is very unlikely. — MoK

Broken glass is not a process. It is the result of the breakage. You are trying to revert the physical consequence to the original physical state. You can't.

You could perhaps try to glue them back if desperate. But it wouldn't be quite original state would it? Same applies to you MoK trying to age back to the state of egg. The law of physics wouldn't allow you to do that.

But aging is a concept. You realise or notice you have aged by looking at the mirror with the increased amount of wrinkles on your face, or empty patches of your head due to lost hair, or missing teeth no longer able to chew the chocolate you used to enjoy, or feel your body is groggy and not energetic without any valid reasons like when it used to be. There is no time involved for that perceptual Aha moment.

Accepting that aging is a change then it follows that aging requires time since any change requires time. — MoK

Aging is a concept. It is for describing a body or food has been changing via time. Because it is a concept, it doesn't affect the actual physical process of change itself. It doesn't require direct intervention of time. It is a perception and realisation or description of your state of change via mental reflection on you or your food or drinks.

Aging is a process by itself but can also be considered as a mental representation of a process. We need to make a distinction between these two. — MoK

Aging is not process. If something is a process, then it can go back to the original state. Can you age backwards to your newly born state or even to an egg?

Stoning to death is a legal punishment for adultery in Iran, and therefore normative within Iran today (Wikipedia - Capital punishment in Iran).

Some within Iran may disagree with this law. That some disagree with the moral normativity of the society that they live in, does it follow that this makes them necessarily morally corrupt or morally insensitive? — RussellA

Again you are not telling the difference between moral judgement and legal punishment.
The example demonstrates, that adultery is universally judged as moral wrong. Moral judgement ends there.

The punishment is a legal judgement. It has nothing to do with morality. Legal punishment is all different from country to country depending on what religion mainly they practice, and what the effect of their traditional legal customs are, and how much they stick to their own legal customs. Nothing to do with morality.

Some society would have only moral judgement on certain acts, but other countries societies would brush the acts under the legality too.

Sure, but you don't have to know about aging to get old. Your body still gets old, whether you know about aging or timing, or totally unaware of it like the indigenous folks.
What does it tell you? Aging is just mental awareness, and it is doesn't have any relation or control of the physical body getting old.

If you were unconscious next 50 years, and suddenly you woke up. You didn't know anything about the passed time. But your body would still be 50 years older than now.

Aging is a representation? Correct. Representation only, not the real entity of any kind.

For those who suspect math underpins the character of nature, then the passage of time might well be understood in mathematical rather than philosophical discourse. — jgill

Math can describe the motions and movements of objects in numbers and functions. But they are not time itself, is it?

But does that mean that they were in fact either morally corrupt or morally insensitive? — RussellA

Moral normativity is effective for the time period and the societies we live in. You don't go back in history, and bring in some strange and weird practices they used to have in the history books, and claim as if they are relevant to us now, and as some meaningful examples for the current moral normativity. That would be a fallacy of anachronism.

Some would say that 1 + 1 = 10 — RussellA

Morality is also based on what is called "normativity". Without it, morality derails into subjective denialism.

It depends on what number system you are using. — RussellA

Of course. But we must stick to what is called "normativity" when discussing morality. There could be folks who don't even know what morality means. What is the point of talking about the extreme ends, when the whole issue is about normativity?

But, how can you justify in words why that X harming others is morally wrong? — RussellA

It can be justified based on practical reason, which all humans supposed to share, and accept the certain moral codes as the maxim. Of course there would be folks who don't agree, or understand the maxim.

In that case, it is not because it cannot be justified, but because they might have different criteria of reason, or indeed they have no understanding of the moral code why it is right or wrong, which is not universal or shared or agreed, or just unintelligent.

In that case, they would be treated as morally corrupt or morally insensitive, or even folks with no morality by the rest of the society.

Why is harming others wrong? — RussellA

It would be like asking "Why 1+1=2", wouldn't it?

Moral codes can be described but not justified. — RussellA

Doing X harms others, therefore X is morally wrong. Could this be not a justification of moral code?

Being perceived is not what it is for something to exist. — Banno

Why not? What is it that qualifies and proves for something to exist?

So... that's an ordering in terms of time, which you say doesn't exist... — Banno

Events or objects in the past exist in different state and properties to the ones at present.

Now you have moved on to identity. I grew up, over time. — Banno

When you keep insisting about the OP when it was created still exists, you were talking about identity of the OP, were you not? I was just trying to let you know that the OP exists now with different properties. The OP when created had time stamp of "1 minute ago". It had no replies.
Now the OP has time stamp "11 days ago", and has 523 replies. They are not the same OP.

Your thesis is that what is not part of your immediate perception does not exist. This is in error. — Banno

It is not an issue of "not exist". It is an issue of "different state of existence". Error is your not being able to tell the difference on nature of the existence.

You are a busy man. OK no probs mate. I don't think Hume is directly linked to the OP. So no worries.

As I said, the only reason I quoted Hume was because you asked me, if I am an agent. Whenever someone asks me what I am, my answer has always been, a bundle of perception. Because that is what I believe who I am.

I used to interpret Kant's experience as "perception". Kant's CPR has problem of translation from the old German to contemporary German, and then to English, so some parts of CPR is unclear in linguistic level. Hence I put down CPR, and relied on the academic commentary books and articles on the topics.

So you agree that there is a present of experience where conceptualization occurs simultaneously with perception? — JuanZu

No, I still believe that experience and perception is different. Perception happens now at this moment. Experience happens in the form of reflection on the contents of the perception when the perception is over. Experience has explicit label of beginnings and ends.

For example, if I am packaging my visit to Japan 10 year ago into experience, then the arrival of Narita Airport via JAL flight would be the beginning of the experience, and then my stay in central Tokyo, visiting Nagoya and Osaka area for meeting with my friends in the cities, and then the moment of boarding my return flight would be the end of the experience.

The packaged experience would be in the form of reductive capture of the perceptual contents of the duration and events in the linguistic format this instance of experience.

There would be also the other types of experiences which are in the format of knowledge (knowing-how) being able to deal with the tasks at hand which require sets of skills for solving the problems and achieving tasks etc in the real world.

Perceptions wouldn't have that sort of labeling or reductions. What you see, feel and sense themselves now are all the contents of your perception.

I am not an expert on Hume either.  I just read some parts of his books, and agreed with some of his points. 

We read the original works be it Hume, Kant or Nietzsche, so we could try to find the parts which resonate with our own ideas on understanding the world.   The readings would be pointless, if we just read them, and parrot them away as if they are the holy grail verses from the Bible.

The original classic works are being read by the contemporary readers like us, because we would like to find the resonating points with our own ideas on interpreting and understanding the world, truth, mind and knowledge, which could be achieved by our own interpretations.

One of the ideal original thinkers, who is good for our own creative interpretation, is Nietzsche, because his works are written in poetic sarcasms and metaphors and rhetoric in large part.

More terse writers such as Kant or Hume wouldn't allow that kind of freedom for creative interpretation.  But still, the bottom line is, without your own interpretations and resonations, the original works would be of little value for spending time on readings.  That is just my opinion.  You are free to disagree.

But going back to the OP, the suggestion for a new OP was made purely due to the nature of your questions directed at me.  I just thought the answers are all in Hume's work.  Why not read them, and save time?  After that, if your mind is still filled with lingering interests and curiosities on his work and thought, then why not start an OP to discuss with more members who are the actual experts?

It was just a suggestion. Not a plea or request.  Now you have two good OPs to concentrate on.   After that, if you still feel you would be interested in discussing Hume's work, then let me know exactly what area of his philosophy you are interested in.  We could work out then on the ideal title of the new topic you might want to launch. :)

Although I sometimes quote Hume's ideas, neither I am an expert, nor my main interest lies in his philosophy. I am just a casual reader.

I am not an expert on his work so please feel free to open a new thread and I would be happy to join. — MoK

You don't need to be an expert to be able to create a new OP on Hume. ^_^

Consciousness is a weird thing. I wouldn't be so surprised if it experienced a static structure as moving, especially if the structure is a smooth sequence. As the ontologist Dua Lipa sings, "Illusion, I really like the way you're movin". — litewave

Time as a consciousness would be able to capture the world in metasubjective and creative way dilating, compressing, shredding, titillating, scintillating, stretching and reducing the perceived time, objects and movements in space.

So you cannot report your understanding of his work yet claiming that he addressed my questions? — MoK

Will discuss about Hume with you, if you start a new OP on the topic. Discussing Hume in here would be likely grossly off-topic.

Any questions on Hume's topics? Start a new OP.

The Google dictionary gives another definition as well. — MoK

I don't trust the big companies. They usually have lot of false info too. The sole purpose of these large business are making profits, not pursuit of truths.

Anyway, I am happy to call myself a person or agent. — MoK

Stick with person mate. We need to stick to common language which delivers the clearest meanings. Not cooked up jargons especially in philosophical discussion where clarity is the most critical element of the subject.

Let's put this aside and focus on your understanding of Hume's works. — MoK

I have read enough of Hume. I have a wall of the other books I am reading, and have no time to read Hume again. It is you who seems in desperate need to reading Hume, because you keep asking the questions which the answers all laid out in Hume's books written almost 300 years ago.

An agent is also defined as a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect. — MoK

Why was your definition not in the dictionary?

I am not sure if agent is a technical term to mean what you mean. But if you said you are a person, then it would have been clearer. :D Carry on my friend ~

No, I didn't. I asked whether you are an agent. By agent I mean you are physical with a set of properties. So, again, are you an agent? Yes or no. — MoK

Well if that is your definition of agent, I would day your definition is not quite right. Please consult the dictionary on the meaning.


agent
/ˈeɪdʒ(ə)nt/
noun
1.
a person who acts on behalf of another person or group.
"in the event of illness, a durable power of attorney enabled her nephew to act as her agent"
유의어:
representative
negotiator
business manager
emissary
envoy
factor
go-between
proxy
surrogate
trustee
liaison
broker
delegate
spokesperson
spokesman
spokeswoman
frontman
mouthpiece
rep
2.
a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect.
"these teachers view themselves as agents of social change"

I am a person, and have physical body of course with the usual properties. I am not a dragon or bird, if you didn't know.

I didn't say that there is an agent in you. I said whether you are an agent by this I mean you are physical with a set of properties. — MoK

Of course you did. But as I am not an agent, I was looking around me, and in me and in my mind to see if I am an agent. I couldn't find any impressions or ideas matching an agent at all. At this point, I was wondering what made MoK to imagine I was an agent.

I call all of these experiences rather than perception. Please do not offer me to read a book on a topic that does not address my points. — MoK

I only offered the Original Text by Hume, because it answers everything you have been asking about.

So, how could you have coherent thoughts and memory if the mind to you is just a bundle of perception? — MoK

I thought it was obvious. This is what I mean. The answer is in the book by Hume "A Treatise of Human Nature". Having not read it causes folks in confusion and mystified state of their knowledge on the obvious facts. Thoughts are also perception. :)