1) There is no future time. What we call the future time is a possiblity that we imagine in memory (memory already in the past).

2) The present is the past pressing forward. There is no way to separate them from each other since time is continuous and indivisible.

I was speaking him holistically, since taking things appear always creates something new. In this regard, God and Natural Evolution are equivalent in that they are both used by their adherents as an appeal to some supernatural force guiding the universe, while the individual letters making up each if these words are not.

I find myself haunted by the possible pointlessness of existence. — Oliver Purvis

This is what philosophy is all about. Too provide meaning. But one must be creative and leave the box.

You cannot argue over similarities, only over differences. I already explained that both are used in exactly the same manner to explain the same thing.

It would be like arguing over the differences between H2O and water. Which word do you prefer? The more "scientific" or the more colloquial? Is there something to argue about?

Quite simply, scientists don't like using the word god so they made up another term Natural Evolution.

There are many reasons we choose to follow, most obviously "to be part of the group". Marketing simply lays the foundation for the group, it is for each one of us to choose whether to follow. For the most part, humans choose to and prefer to follow. Which one? Well that is the difference between great marketing and sales-so marketing.

Equivalence of goal isn't equivalence of proof isn't equivalence of belief. — Akanthinos

No difference between a belief in Natural Evolution as the Almighty Force or God. As for me, I don't believe in either.

It is completely different, in that there is abundant evidence for evolution by natural selection - fossils, DNA studies, geological data - and zero evidence for 'God's design', beyond inference that it is 'what must have happened'. — Wayfarer

There is an abundance of evidence that things change. There is zero evidence for some external super-Natural force that governs change whether it be named God its synonym Natural Evolution. But then again, depending upon the tastes of the adherent (purely a matter of nomenclature) one will prefer one naming device over another.

Both are belief, theories, expressed in a set of propositions. Stating this does not help anyone. The reason one is prefered is not that it is not constituted by beliefs, but because of the reasonnings one goes through in justifying those beliefs. — Akanthinos

There is always goal oriented reasoning whether it be God-based or Natural Evolution based. They are equivalent. One can interchange the phrases without loss. Of course, one will always maintain their reasoning is superior to the other. That is the nature of the conversation.

Evolution is not art. — Akanthinos

Actually it is. It is the creative expression of mind that is exploring. It's pretty interesting what we are coming up with.

These questions are purely speculative, but the fact that modern business is based upon the manipulation of humanity to seek desire cannot be ignored. — Qurious

Creating desire profits is not just modern. It reaches back to n antiquities (hence Buddhism). We all have choices. Whether or not we are content with good conversations with friends or we must travel to some far off lands (and further pollute the environment in the process) are individual choices. Learning to be content with small is a skill that one learns in life. We are manipulated voluntarily.

A couple of points:

1) Explaining human existence as the result of God's Design is no different than explaining human existence by Natural Evolution. Both explanations are based upon faith that such forces exist.

2) In so far as the evolution of the human body and mind is concerned, it is no different than anything else, it is the result of a process of creative experimentation. In other words, just like art, it is a continuous process of learning and change.

Do you feel dual-aspect monism is justifiable? — JupiterJess

Yes. It is precisely what we all experience. Our mind/body acting as a unity of itself and of the universe. Waves within an ocean. The macro manifests within the micro and vice-versa. I am often incredulous if minds denying itself, but I understand it is a game.

In regards to defining consciousness, we can try but all attempts will fail as being inadequate. Consciousness is felt.

Happiness just happens. It is a guide in life.

Do you believe you are a meaningless soup of chemicals?

As far as Dennett is concerned, he found a market where he can spread the word to others seeking confirmation. No different than any other religion. Why do people believe that they are just a soup of chemicals? Exactly the same reason as people believe in an all powerful God.

Some would say your trying to find some deeper meaning to your life, or at the very least your not satisfied with them on face value. Though I understand that the art of living cannot be embraced on an online forum, that is some sort of substitute for a poor and broken mind. — Posty McPostface

To understand life is too become a better sailor. Too learn to become more skilled at navigation. To see more.

Those who limit their learning to drunken learning from books are limited to what a drunk can learn from books.

My interest in philosophy is not to be wiser, more virtuous, some sort of evangelist of Truth. I am simply here to learn, become a better navigator and express myself through creative thought and actions.

We all make choices as we wander through life.

. I also think most people aren't interested in 'truth', 'wisdom', or positive human traits and virtues — Posty McPostface

This is the part that creates problems.

This is not why I study philosophy. I study philosophy in order to better understand life, and when I say study, I mean by actively participating in all aspects of life including politics, arts, sports, history, psychology, literature, science, health, etc. Personally I don't like drinking though I do go to bars sometimes to listen to music and drink some mineral water

Well, "illusion" is meaningful to many people, — Agustino

Don't I know it. In football they call it a punt.

Well right, if you define illusion as that which doesn't exist, no wonder then that you struggle to say what an illusion actually is or feel perplexed when representation is called maya or an illusion. — Agustino

Not struggling with anything. It is a meaningless word that says nothing about nothing. I call it lazy philosophy, or another way to put it, all illusions are illusions.

There are no illusions and illusions are not misunderstandings. However, I understand the appeal for those who wish to create an aura if mystery. The Hindus call it the Maya.

Well, I wasn't the one to use the word illusion. To me it denotes some sorry if magically trickery. By whom? By what? For what reason? I have no idea why illusions are introduced into philosophy.

There is no exact meaning for anything. Words like illusion are used to to imply the mysterious. For me there is nothing mysteries. Just something that needs to be investigated and observed and better understood. Do you think something mysterious and magical is going on. Or v is it just incomplete and continuously changing?

What is an illusion? Can you offer me an example as well please? — Agustino

An illusion is a word that is inspired by magic. It has a connotation of the mysterious. It is a fun word to use but when I am investigating the nature of nature, I don't use it not do I encourage it. No one is trying to trick us nor are we trying to trick ourselves. We are simply trying to learn the skill to observe more.

An illusion is a misunderstanding. — Agustino

An illusion is not a misunderstanding. When I tell someone that there is a misunderstanding I don't tell them they are having illusions. The two words have different flavors. But I am saying something different. I am saying that observations are real but necessarily incomplete. No illusions because illusions lead no where. It is lazy philosophy.

When we say the representation is an illusion, we don't mean that the representation doesn't exist, only that it's not what it appears to be. — Agustino

We only see bits. Saying that individual observations are incomplete is different than saying that an observation is still illusion. I have a tendency to suspect any inquiry into life that leans on illusion.

Observations are past. They are memory. Everything is constantly changing. It doesn't mean it is some sort of an illusion. The nature of life is that each individual mind is participating and doesn't have a complete view. That is why we share experiences. There is only a problem if one seeks Truth/Constancy in a Nature in flux.

I think that's correct, and I think Kant believed space must be assumed for the world to be coherent. — Hanover

There is no space, as we recognize it in the awake state, when we are asleep or unconscious, but it all forms total existence.

he illusion isn't representation and Will is truth - rather they are both illusions. The Will is just the truth of the representation, but it is not truth in-itself, except perhaps in some partial and incomplete sense. — Agustino

Are you attempting inquiry?

Is all this an illusion?

Everything is exactly as we observe it, but it is not all and it is constantly changing - changing because of the Mind (Will is one aspect) is continuously shaping and reshaping it. Why always with illusions? What is it with philosophers and scientists that they enjoy this concept so much. Because of its mystery?

It's not an illusion but we are only grasping it bits at a time. That is the fun of life. It is detective work, it is mysterious, but it is not an illusion. How could it be? What or who is creating the illusions? Chemicals??

This is obviously a decoupling of truth (and metaphysics) from reality as we see and feel it, and problematizes how far we can know given that we are fooled by the Will. — Agustino

No one is being fooled by anything. There is no 'fooler". The moment one starts anthromorphizing nature, everything gets lost in illusion stories. The Mind is unfolding but all is not accessible and it always changing. The more one develops ones own skills to observe, the more one sees. The biggest problem are those who wish to handcuff our ability to evolve.

I am aware of the toxicity of these drugs -- where the therapeutic dose is close to the toxic dose -- like with lithium. — Bitter Crank

They are all toxic is all forms. The gradual accumulation of these foreign and harmful substances in the body erodes the body's ability to protect and heal itself. It is slow and corrosive which is why the U.S. had the worse life expectancy of all 35 developed nations and people spend more time being sick then they did 20 years ago. We've become a drugged out culture - but people can enjoy their pharmaceutical and medical stocks going up from their hospital beds.

As for alternatives, there are many but insurance only covers toxic drugs.

I was not being clear.

There is no imagining when in a sleep or dream state. The mind simply has switched states of being. It is not observing or aware of the holographic external. It is all internal.

In order to fully understand life in its entirety one has to first accept everything as actual but the mind is moving between different observation and memory different states. One has to accept Mind, our minds, and what it is doing.

Even assuming the drugs are not toxic — Bitter Crank

What do you mean assuming? Just read the inserts, or better yet the actual studies.

https://www.aarp.org/health/drugs-supplements/info-08-2010/toxic-drugs-when-medicine-makes-you-sick.html

Here it is again:

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/189_s08/pdf/Carol%20White%20forward.pdf — bloodninja

Mon dieu!

I think you can pretty much ignore all of the academic interpretations, because no one really gets it because no one studies Bergson anymore so they are grasping in the air. The Dasein is a kind of reworking of Bergson's la durée. In some ways it augments but in most ways it just obscures for no reason other than to create something different.

Just consider Dasein as ongoing Time/Duration (in Bergson's sense) which is taking on the possibilities of Life and Death. Each is a manifestation of the possibilities of Duration. So what we call death is just a transition (demise) into another state of possibilities of the Duration. We c make of each state as we do.

Hamlet's famous soliloquy touches upon this. Philosophers tend to be unnecessarily verbose.

It's because of the philosophical outlook they chose to embrace and couldn't escape from once it became a habit. A healthy philosophy embraces all physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of life and a purpose for full engagement into life. Without it, the spiritual aspect of the mind will fall into atrophy/melancholy.

If you noticed it, take heed of their path and try a different one. I chose sports and the arts as well as my own individual spirituality. One must take charge of their own life. This is where the most important choice lies.

I don't think it's just "business", and I don't think it's just a scramble for privilege and esteem. — Cabbage Farmer

I do. I observe that academics is a business onto itself and it's designed around what can be taught in a classroom. Philosophy can only be learned outside of a classroom by experiencing and observing life as it unfolds. This is something that can be discussed post-graduation, but by this time the academics are so ingrained that people are unwilling for unable to change the habit. Philosophy takes lots of work and time as the ancients practiced it.

As I see it, the "deep" philosophy transcends mere institutions. For me philosophy is almost the essence of being human. — t0m

Yes.

I agree.

I have wrestled with this statement to a large extent, and still think it is generally true. A prime example I ask of is why are males much more representative of prison populations than woman are, around the world? I'm not saying that men are inherently more guided by 'dark forces' or whatever you want to call it. — Posty McPostface

My life experience does not support this point if view. I have never felt I can count on a person more or less because if their sex. Value systems are individually developed. Cultural issues that you site are quite complicated and can be debated endlessly.

I have the same approach. For various reasons we express it differently, but however it is expressed, skilled observation of life has substantial benefits in many aspects of living.

Of course it's possible to imagine any number of "metaphysical" scenarios in which minds and their abstractions exist in some nonphysical world independent of the physical world we seem in fact to inhabit. But it's not clear to me why we should take any of these divergent and often conflicting fantasies more seriously than the others, — Cabbage Farmer

As much reason to take the fantasy of mind emerging from "physical" seriously. I have no idea what you mean by physical things doing mental things. Are they little humanoids?

Yes, this is pretty much it in a nutshell. Those who think in terms of discontinuities are constantly dealing with infinities and paradoxes, which should be a big red flag that something is fundamentally wrong, but they just ignore it.

As you suggested, mathematics is practical but can also be highly detrimental if carried into a ontological context. In such a case, life and nature are totally misunderstood with unhealthy results in the spiritual, mental, and physical realms or bandwidth.

We develop our own value system over time (duration) via a learning process and we mediate our value system with other individuals (friends, family, partners), and with the larger communities. Even our personal value systems will change from one community to another. There are no set rules, just navigation.