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. :)

The Banno just born 50 year ago doesn't exist now.
— Corvus
Well, it was more than fifty years, but I am still here. — Banno

Banno as a newborn 50+ year ago = Banno as a man after 50+ years from his birth ?
They don't look the same Banno to me. :D

Seems to me that the more you say, the more confused your position becomes. — Banno

It seems the case the confusion is in you. :)

So you are an idealist. So you are not made of physical? — MoK

I am not an idealist. I don't belong to any of these isms. My ideas are flexible depending on what topics we are talking about. I am perceptions means that when I try to find my own self, all I can find is a bundle of perceptions about me i.e. perceptions on the body and the content of mind. There is nothing called an agent in me at all. You need to read Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature to understand this point.

How could you have memory? Memory must be stored somewhere. — MoK

There is no place called memory. Maybe there is biologically and physically, maybe you can locate where the memory functions happening in your brain. But I suppose it would be a topic of brain science, rather than Metaphysics.
When I can remember something, I call that function of mind as memory. The object which is remembered is called "the content" of memory.

How could you construct any coherent thoughts if you are mere perception? Any coherent thought requires a memory of ideas you experienced in the past. It also requires a process on the memory as well. — MoK

Again you need to read "A Treatise of Human Nature". Everything that appears in your mind is perception including ideas and impressions on the external objects in the world, the contents of memories and imagination, feelings and sensations, emotions etc. They are all types of perception.

What is the mind to you? — MoK

Mind is, again, a bundle of perception. If you don't have perception, then you don't have a mind. You just have a body. Mind needs its body where it is generated from. When the body dies, the mind evaporates too.

Are you aware that the experience is given in the present? — JuanZu

You could say that you are experiencing something at present.  But it is a way of expression to mean that you are perceiving something.  In actuality, we have experience of something by reflection of thought on it, when the perception or participation of activity is over .

 It would be like a process of conceptualisation on the content of the perception or memory of your participation in an activity.  The conceptualisation would then be packaged into the envelope called experience, which could be revealed to other people in linguistic format, or just kept in your memory.
So, No experience is not given at present.  I was explaining about this in the other thread started by @MoK.

Hence I was telling you, you can get old without knowing anything about aging or time.

That's because time still exists even though they haven't figured it out, Corvus. — Bob Ross

Not sure if you were meaning about aging. But I know those indigenous folks in the jungle with no concept of time, doesn't know anything about their age, or aging, but they all were getting old like rest of us.

Let me get this straight: you're saying that people with special abilities can experience something like this? — JuanZu

I would suppose so. It is from speculation actually.

You say that the events of these worlds happen in the present and then you say that they don't happen in the present. — JuanZu

You must start it from present logically, which is the starting point of all the other time dimensions. If you were already in the time frame of subconsciousness, then why would you try to experience the time frame you are already in?

I'm really not understanding you. — JuanZu

In order for you to be able to experience different time dimension, first you need to start from present. You will need some special mental capability to be able to experience that suppose. It is not for the ordinary folks. But I was only giving you a hypothetical example scenario since you asked for it.
I would imagine extra multidimensional time experience would only be useful and possible for the only the few folks who are esoteric magicians or abstract artists.

So we are still in the three dimensions of time. You haven't actually added any. You have added worlds but not dimensions of time, right? — JuanZu

If you read it again, it happens at present, but once you are in the other dimensions, the present is supposed to disappear. So, not quite right.

But do any of those times have a direct relation to the present that you and I live in? I mean, of the explanatory kind and with truths that can be discovered? — JuanZu

All of them must happen at present. Without present, no other time can exist in any forms. But once you are in the other dimension of time, the dimension of time you are in becomes present replacing the real present. The real present then are eliminated from the dimension until you return to it. In some cases, it may never return you to the real present, which could be a bit scary state to be in then. Some folks live in the alternative time believing it is the real time. They must have super rich imagination, meditation or hypnotic tendency to be able to do that, suppose. This is, of course unproven hypothesis, which could be ignored. :)

Do they have a direct relation to the present you live in? If you were a relativist and extreme idealist, it could have, I suppose. If you are a realist and empiricist, it may not. If you were an esoteric magician or abstract artist, then it could definitely be very meaning way to conceptualise the multidimensional time for the process of invocation, evocation rituals, prayers, sermons and creating the arts viz. novels and poetry.

Can you give me an example of another dimension of time other than the past or the future? — JuanZu

For example, we could add super or subconscious time, and imaginative time into the dimensions making it truly multi dimensional views of time. Super or subconscious time could mean time as captured by super or subconscious states which could be totally separate temporality such as the invocated time when we noticed in the meditation or reasoning to unite with divine beings.

Imaginative time could be time which might have existed during the active imagination in the creative process. If you were to write poetry or novel, you could jump into the imaginary time frame when all the historical, present and imaginary future figures co-exist in the same imaginary time span living, working and socialising creating together.

If uniting with divine beings and creating abstract arts are also events taking place, which require time, then the concept of extra dimensional layers of time would give you more room for the practice in real world.

Of course these are just some impromptu hypothetical examples as you requested. Time doesn't exist implies, it doesn't exist in real being, but it exists in many different abstract forms.

So, in your view, "End of story, really." is a legit thing to say, but "End of History" somehow is not? — Arcane Sandwich

A good question. :up:

That sounds like a large topic of its own. If you would open a new topic with it, I would follow it through.

Some past beings don't exist at present for sure. Socrates existed in the past, but doesn't exist now. Most of humans existing now, will not exist in 100 years from now.

They are the same identity, but in different state.

So they aren't actually different. — frank

The OP is the same case. The OP when created 10 days ago, is not the same OP the now which caused 400+ replies in the thread.

Somehow Banno seems to think what happened in the past is the exact same thing that exists now. I have been saying they are different.

So they aren't actually different. — frank

I believe so. Banno cannot be a baby 50 year ago, and at the same time Banno, a bloke who does gardening and drinking beer in the pub with his pals now.

Well, didn't you say the Banno from the past is different from the Banno in the present? So they couldn't be in the same room at the same time, right? They have to be separate? — frank

They don't need to be separate to be different. They are different Banno in time, not in identity.

Have you considered that it is simply another dimension? A dimension where there is no present. And that is precisely why we cannot perceive it. Since consciousness only lives in the present. But we cannot say that it has no content, nor that it has no truths. — JuanZu

I would think that you can add as many dimensions you would like, because they in the level of conceptual domain when you are thinking in dimensions. However, I would think present should be always present in the dimension to make sense and be realistic, unless it is in the world of possibilities, or abstract arts and postmodernist novels.

What do you think? Give us some examples for such existences please. Thanks.

Perhaps you might try setting out what you means by "exists". — Banno

Perhaps the OP existence is not a good example. OK, let us suppose, Banno was born 50 year ago.
The birth of Banno was an event in the past which doesn't exist now. But Banno exists now.
These are different nature of existences. Banno when just born is not the same Banno as now. The Banno just born 50 year ago doesn't exist now. The event of the birth existed in the past.

ok thanks.

I would only be interested in their nature and status of existence in ontology and epistemology.

I am afraid I am not familiar with dragons.

MoK a Dragon, what do you expect? — Arcane Sandwich

Do dragons have horns? Never seen one with the horns must admit.
I thought it was some type of bird, but not sure now. Could we call it drabird? A mixture of dragon and bird? Better ask MoK himself on that, suppose.

Do dragons exist? When saying X exists, it must be supplied with at least three properties.
1) The location of existence (In mind or in the world)
2) The structure of existence (what it is made of)
3) Time of existence (past present or future)

Without the qualities of existence, claim of existence sound unclear.