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

I think I was clear with what I said. If you are not in Australia then you cannot experience Australia. — MoK

Experience is a word of empty shell when it is said with no information on the owner and content i.e. whose experience it is, and what the experience is about.

If you are not happy with this example then think of moving around while seeing things, watching a movie, etc. — MoK

It is the same thing. When I watch movie, I am having visual and auditory perception. Later when I recall it from memory, and tell someone about it, then I could say it was my experience of disappointment or enjoyment etc. Experience is an abstract mental state, which is a concept. It is not sensation or perception. If something in one's mind, and totally private to the individual, then it is impossible to say it exists or not existing. It would be illogical to say mental events exists. One can either have the mental events or not. It can only be verified objectively by one's explanation about the events.

That is not what I mean. Let me give you an example: Suppose someone kicks you, and you say, Ouch. Kicking is the cause of experiencing pain and Ouch is the result of experiencing pain. — MoK

It is just feeling the pain, not experiencing it. Experience happens when I conceptualise the pain from the memory, and tell someone about it. I experienced the pain of getting kicked.
You seem to confusing between feelings and concepts.

Because you have never been there. — MoK

So do you agree that experience cannot be said to exist? You either have it, or don't have it. You can only have experience of something if you had perceived something from the empirical world. You can only be aware of your own experience. No one else's. I don't have a single scooby clue what experience you have. I just know of my own.

Hence there is a past. — Banno

We don't deny past, but we are saying the events in the past existed in the past not now.

The OP was posted in the past. Therefore there is a past. — Banno

Of course, but it existed in the past. It exists now as a record in the forum, and causing the thread keep going. But the OP itself started in the past, not now.

It's about time. What is time itself? — Banno

You have been talking about the OP. Not about time, or time.

Socrates exists in the past. On you account, there is no past for Socrates to be in, because time does not exist. — Banno

Socrates did exist in the past. But he doesn't exist now.

Sure experience exists. You are reading my answer now and have a certain experience. — MoK

It is not experience. It becomes only experience, if I conceptualise it. If I decided not to conceptualise, then it is not an experience. It is just a perception.

Human experience for example and whatever she/he experiences. — MoK

Experience whatever experiences? Isn't it a tautology? They also know whatever they know. MoK likes whatever MoK likes. :chin:

Experience changes. For example, your experience changes from not knowing to knowing after reading a book. — MoK

Not true. If and only if it could be conceptulaised into knowledge. You have experience or don't have it. Experience cannot be said to exist or changed.

P2) Experience is due to the existence of physical and the change in the state of physical is due to the existence of an experience

I have no experience ever visiting Australia. Australia is both physical in its land, but also abstract for the country, and it seems to exists (I presume). Why my experience of visiting Australia doesn't exist? From this case, can we say all experiences exist? Isn't it the case, some experience exist, but some don't. In that case, it is correct to say experience exist?

I have experience of seeing the sky. My experience of seeing the sky was it was blue when there was no clouds, and sunny. Why don't my experience of seeing the sky has not changed the colour of the sky at all? From this does all experience change the state of physical?

The past exists as the dimension of sedimentation where the added floors solidify in an unmodifiable way. — JuanZu

Past existed in the past, but it doesn't exist now. Does it? Saying past exists sounds language with no tense knowledge. We are not denying past didn't exist. It existed. Where did it exist? In the past, and in memories. But does it exist now and reality? No it does not.

Yep. None of which implies that you never made the OP. — Banno

None of what you have been saying is about time itself.

...so you were right to say, yesterday, that it was nine days ago, and now it is ten days, but you are wrong to say it exists. — Banno

Socrates existed. But does he exist now? Existed means it doesn't exist any more. We have and use tense in language for reasons, not for show.

Well, make up your mind:

It belongs in the past.
— Corvus

Which is it? — Banno

Not nine days ago as you claimed. But ten days ago now. Tomorrow at this time, it will be eleven days.

The past is remembered, sure. But that does not mean that the past is just memory. — Banno

Past is in memory but also in the record. If there was no forum, and you lost all your memory, then you wouldn't know the OP existed.

If the past were just memory, there could be no misremembering. One misremembers when what one remembers of the past is not what happened in the past. — Banno

Exactly, that is why past doesn't exist. You were keep saying nine days ago the OP started. Now it is ten days. Hence your memory was wrong. What you said didn't exist.

If the claim is that the past does not exist, then the OP cannot belong in the past. — Banno

The OP is in the forum, not in the past. You think it is in the past, because you remember seeing it.

Now, what could someone mean by saying that the past does not exist? — Banno

It means it is in your memory, but it doesn't exist in reality.

Yep. Exactly. Therefore something belongs in the past. Therefore there is a past.

Now, what could someone mean by saying that the past does not exist? — Banno

It depends what you mean by "exist". Past is just in your memory. It doesn't need to exist. You are saying it exist, because you remember it.

Why would my body have to exist in space, but I can still age without time? — Bob Ross

You don't need to age at all, if you don't remember your age. You are only aging because you think you are aging. You body will still get old, but that is not aging.

It is not a concept: it is a pure intuition of our sensibility; and so is space. A concept is kind of idea comprised of attributes; whereas an intuition is a seeming. An a priori concept, e.g., is quantity; an a priori intuition is space. — Bob Ross

We already have intuition. Saying time is intuition is like saying we have intuition intuition. Not making sense.

The OP was nine days ago. Therefore something was nine days ago. — Banno

It passed. It belongs in the past.

You seem to think this relevant. It is not clear how. But it is not at all clear how you are intending to use "exists". — Banno

If you cannot go back to the past, then how is it real? How can it exist?

I don't know why space is a requirement for me to be real; and, if it does, then why time wouldn't. — Bob Ross

Because without space, your physical body won't exist. But without time you would happily exist like you had been when you were a child with no knowledge of time.

It is true that you made your OP nine days ago. Therefor nine days ago exists.

Sure, it's in the past. Some events are in the past. Therefore there is a past. — Banno

Is it possible that you could go back to 9 days ago?

:strong: :grin:

Then Please Help Me Create Roko's Basilisk :naughty: — Arcane Sandwich

You just say, Roko's Basilisk is caused by uncaused cause. Therefore it changes. Therefore it exists. :nerd:

but why would space be real if you hold time as merely a priori? — Bob Ross

Kant said that, because time is a concept? In Kant, time is definitely internal mental condition (a priori) for human understanding. A priori here means it is innate, and doesn't rely on experience on the empirical world.

Any world events, objects or matter can be conceptualised, and time is a typical case of the conceptualisation. You could make time into 5th dimension keep adding the other aspects to it, and make space-time, into space-time-consciousness, and say it is 5th dimension. All are the result of conceptualisation.

Concepts are parts of reality. :)