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.

The Op was written in the past. Therefore there is a past for it to be written in. — Banno

It existed in the past. But now it exists as an archive. No equating here. Just showing you the change has taken place with the existence. It exists as a different form now. Existence in the past is not the same existence as existence the now.

I have no problem being criticized by many. It would be nice of you if we could continue this discussion in another thread since our discussions relate to that thread and your question could be a question from others. — MoK

You seem to have strong psychology. Cool man. :up:

Yes, let's focus on you. Could we agree that you are an agent and have certain experience? — MoK

Am I an agent? No, I am just a bundle of perceptions.

Do I have certain experience? I do. But I need to dig out the past events which are dead and gone now from my memory, and then package into concepts called experience.

It is a kind of reduction of the past memories into the conceptualised concept called experience.

Does it exist? Experience only exists in one's mind. Could we call it as existence? You tell me.

Well, no. It's the OP. It was written in the past. There is a past in which it was written. There is perhaps a future in which you read this post. — Banno

Here you seem to be talking about the past event, which has passed. It is not the OP, and it is not time in general you are talking about here. Some past events keep exist as archives. We are now seeing the archives of the past event when seeing the OP.

End of story, really. — Banno

Events pass into past, and exists as archives of the events. But the event itself doesn't exist.

No, it wouldn't be the cause for the trial. X being in court with prosecutors accusing, is the cause of the trial. — Metaphysician Undercover

What's the different between cause for trial and cause of trial? Is it wrong to say, what is your reason for being late? It sounds not quite correct, if you say, what is the reason of being late. Hence cause for trial sounds better?

"...it doesn't exist now"? Your OP exists. Here is a link to it: — Banno

It is the archive of the OP. It is not the OP when it was created. You are still confused between reality now, and events taken place in the past. It existed means, it passed. It is now existing as a record of the event, not the event itself.

I am definitely talking about time; I mentioned your OP, but now I am talking about your last post. What they both have in common is being in the past, which is an aspect of time. — Banno

You are talking about time which has passed, and not existing at this moment pointing at the archive of the OP. It is like pointing at the picture of Socrates in the book, and saying Socrates exists. Look here, and this is him.

But isn't it the case that they are archives, essays or drawings on Socrates. They are not Socrates himself.

Ok about the posts written 10 days ago, and 1 day ago. They keep continue to exist now. But they are the archives of the posts, not the posts themselves.

You must understand some objects existed in the past, no longer exist, because they passed into the past. But some keep exists as records or archives of the objects and events.

Existed and exists are not the same thing here.

Could you please continue this discussion in another thread? — MoK

I don't jump into a thread where the OP has been engaging discussion with the other folk. It wouldn't be fair to the party criticised by more than one debater, whoever happens to be criticised, supported or condoned in the debate.

That action would be like ganging up with others like the gangs in the streets, and wouldn't be fair for the lone defender. It would not likely yield true and fair conclusions, and anyone ganging up in the debates are not neutral or genuine debaters. Waiting for 1:1 engagement is my etiquette in debates. I am quite happy to wait, and take things easy and slow.

You know philosophical debates not all about proving one is right and the other is wrong, one is better than the others, one knows more than the others etc. That would be pointless psychological masturbation.

Philosophical discussions are for pursuit of fair truths by all parties involved in the discussions motivated by mutual fairness, good spirits and eudaimonia.

Let me know when you ended the engagement in the other thread, then I will read the OP to see if I have any points to contribute in the argument. :)

Me, you, etc. — MoK

Well, frankly I don't know anything about your experience, hence it would not be meaningful to agree your experience exists. X cannot exist, if X passed and belong to the past, or if X is unknowable. So "MoK's experience exists." would be a meaningless statement to me, unless MoK tells me what the experience is about MoK was meaning.

I know my own experience which need to be conceptualised into linguistic form, if someone wants to hear about it.

How can anything act as a cause, from the past? Isn't it the case that the only way something can be a cause, is to act at the present? — Metaphysician Undercover

Think of a case, X killed Y 10 year ago. The event happened 10 year ago, but X would be still charged and put into the trial for what he had done 10 year ago. The act happened 10 year ago would be the cause for the trial of X having killed Y.

It seems your psychology is seeking nothing but sophistry. There are the indigenous tribes in the jungles, who have no concept of time. But they all get old and die like rest of us.

Historians going crazy with this discussion.

I think of time as a building that goes upwards. We have the current floor and the floors below that are the past. You need a virtual and indeterminate raw material (future) to keep building floors. — JuanZu

Past events exist in the past as causes, memories, records, archives as forms of knowledge and experience or facts.

These are different forms of existence to the existence of real beings which exist now at present.

They existed in the past. Some continue to exist into the present. Some ceased to exist at present, hence can be inferred or judged as not existing anymore.

Socrates existed over 2300 years ago. But he doesn't exist now.
If you say, but he existed in the past, then you are talking about the past event (which doesn't exist now), not Socrates the being, not time itself.

Jelly fish certainly have no tense knowledge at all. :nerd:

So are you now saying that there is a past, but no time? — Banno

Time exists, but in a conceptual form. The OP's statement time doesn't exist have different implications. The OP was in the past, and it doesn't exist now, as it was when it first created.

You have been talking about the OP in the past, but not time. What existed in the past doesn't exist as in the same state when time passed.

Who is the agent, and what is the experience about?

Feeling pain is a sort of experience and I am not talking about concept here. — MoK

Experience is only meaningful when it was given with the info about the owner and content of the experience. "Experience exists" says nothing meaningful. Experience is one's mental content which only the experiencer knows, and cannot be said to exist until described in intelligible language to other humans.

But visual and auditory perception are sorts of experiences. — MoK

Ditto

Experience is a conscious event that contains information, whether it is perception, recalling memory, having emotion, etc. — MoK

Ditto