Everything that exists

What’s the purpose of the brain and sensory organs then? Leaf, branch, tree, forest… what is conscious there, and what makes the boundary between my consciousness and that of the chair I’m sitting at, or the house I’m in, for example?

My understanding of comtabilisim is that under certain circumstances you can make your own free will choice which is not deterministic. It is a bit like 'eating the cake and having it' but many philosophers
agree with it.

Free will is only 100% free if it is 100% determined. That is 100% determined by the “self” and 0% determined by anything else. Therefore ‘free will’ is not about determinism, but about boundaries of “self" entity, its independence and autonomy.

To get rid of the paradox, you need only to assume that time is not continuous.

That's what I said. But you have Aletheist here who thinks continuity is the solution to the paradox, whatever then is the paradox supposed to be.

And that time is not continuous is supported by the recognition that the past is substantially different from the future. Once the future is recognized as different from the past, the present must be understood as something other than the continuity of future/past, it must be understood as a divisor between them. Then we are left with three distinct things, past, present, and future.

Where did you get that? Continuity of time is just about infinite divisibility and nothing else, nothing more, nothing less.

This is only derived from the faulty definition of "the present" explained above. If we abstract our thoughts from the subjective experience of time, to think about time as it really is, independent from this subjective experience, this conclusion can be seen as completely unwarranted.

It's a logical conclusion implicit in continuous time, regardless of subjective experience. Present time is interval of time between past and future time, and if time is continuous this interval is not interval but an instant, i.e. infinitely small point in time. This is paradox in itself and one more reason to think time is not continuous, i.e. it is not infinitely divisible, and the present time is interval of unit time with actual defined non-zero duration.

By the way, you're talking to a guy who does not see the paradox in Zeno's paradoxes, so obviously there is a problem in fundamental understanding, not something that can be argued as practically you're two are just not speaking the same language.

To take your example, how do I distinguish a signal indicating the existence of a condition causing pain from a signal that says only that a pain receptor is firing? Since they are one and the same signal, I do not see how I can.

Signals, just like words, pictures, and other kinds of representations are meaningless information by itself. Meaning comes from the grounding inherent in a decoder / interpreter system, also called personality, identity, ego, self...

Sentience is a form of understanding, a way of coupling the signal with its meaning, so meanings / feelings are virtual properties, qualia are virtual qualities. Their ontology is virtual like that of Pacman, and in that sense virtual existence offers almost unlimited and arbitrary kinds of different properties or qualities, only visible from the “inside”, or via VR goggles if we ever figure out a way how to connect.

can response to stimulus be an indicator of consciousness

No, because consciousness implies “mental content”, an infrastructure that can internally model or represent itself vs. everything else. There needs to be a virtual reality simulator built on top of the reactive system, but whether such a system can fit in an insect brain or a single cell is still a question.

Also, you don’t run from a bear because you’re scared. You get scared when your body starts to run. Reaction first, experience second, or it might be too late. It’s also why people often do or say things they don’t “really” mean.

In Descartes' Error neurophysiologist Antonio Damasio argues that our knowledge of the external world started as neural representations of body state and evolved into representations of the external world as the source of changes in our body state:

It’s most accurate and pragmatic to call it “virtual reality”, a sort of simulation, but to keep in mind that does not necessarily imply digital computation and computer algorithms as we know them today.

I see three problems with this otherwise plausible hypothesis: (1) It requires one neural state to encode mul­tiple concepts. (2) There seems to be no mechanism thise "solution" could have evolved. (3) Neural states do not represent as other signs do.

From a 3rd person perspective, neural states represent mental content in the form of electromagnetic and chemical signals, just like virtual reality of a simulated content is represented inside the computer in the form of signals between the logic gates and other circuits.

Mechanics of even the simplest form of chemical reactions we call “life” is largely still a mystery. We really have no idea how the machine assembled itself, so it’s too optimistic to expect we could yet explain the ghost in the machine. But if you read between the lines of what everyone is talking about and where all the evidence points, this ghost is really just another machine in the machine, but a virtual kind of machine, and that explains everything.

For those of us who are not physicalists

Just to make one thing clear. There is no such thing as “immaterial” or “non-physical”, it’s a self-contradiction. Instead, it can be undetectable, either due to our limits or in principle, but it must be made of something or otherwise is made of nothing and that means it does not exist.

So, if there is such a thing as soul, it must be physical, it’s the only logically valid semantics, it’s just that substance it is made of is for some reason invisible to us. Any other claim about ontology of “immaterial” is a paradox, simply gibberish. Can we all agree?

What does "ds/dt" mean?

Velocity, p=mv. But we don't need momentum and mass. Velocity = distance / time is sufficient. In either case I think the point is that there is no point of imagining any other concept of time but the one that fits this equation, and I don't see there is much room for interpretation.

A cosmic DNA?

According to the hard deterministic view, there is an inevitability about the evolution of the universe that is the result of the causal chain of events. That chain started at the singularity of the Big bang. In my opinion, that implies that everything in our universe down to my writing these lines was somehow inherent in some initial specific properties of the Big Bang; sort of a Cosmic DNA. Not being a determinist I cannot come to term with such possibility, but logically I find it hard to refute it.

That’s right. Even if the universe is not deterministic there is no denying all this existed at least as a potential reality. Even if the universe emerged from nothing, before the nothing all this still existed somewhere in there as a potential reality. Even if the universe was created by god, before the god all this again existed as a potential reality. As a matter of logic, whatever came first, and regardless of determinism, there has to be some brute fact, something that just is, and all this existed as a potential reality even back then, if not before, whatever is that supposed to mean.

Your description is not really consistent. If the first instant only fades to 50% by the time the conscious person is aware of the second instant, then you can't really say that "a single photograph represents your conscious instant", because the person is conscious of part of the first, and the second, at one conscious instant.

That a single image can hold multiple scenes using transparency does not contradict the claim we are only ever visually aware of a single image. It’s not inconsistency, it’s a genius insight to explain what you thought before was impossible.

The thread topic is not the infinite divisibility of time, or even the continuity of time, but the reality of time

Then you should care how real is virtual time, because discrete simulated time explains Zeno and Planck scale limits, while continuous time only makes no sense and is self-contradicting paradox.

Suppose instead that Achilles and the tortoise are riding in trains on parallel tracks. The tortoise is initially 100 feet ahead and proceeding at 20 feet per second, while Achilles is going 40 feet per second. After 2.5 seconds, Achilles is where the tortoise started, while the tortoise is now 50 feet farther along. Nevertheless, after another 2.5 seconds, Achilles overtakes the tortoise.

You are reinterpreting the situation so to obfuscate the problem and then conclude there is no problem. I think that view is too naive to even be considered as a possible solution. Are you the only person alive who believes that is a reasonable answer to the paradox?

Zeno's false assumption is that continuous motion requires an infinite series of discrete steps, which is precisely what I deny--there is no need to divide space or time infinitely in order to traverse a finite distance during a finite lapse.

That it is not assumption, that is the conclusion, you already agreed with, by the way.

Zeno said “by the time Achilles reaches the tortoise it would have crawled to a new place, again and again”, where do you see an assumption? And how is the question of infinite divisibility of time different from the thread topic?

I guess you forgot that I defined five properties that are jointly necessary and sufficient here.

You are still not explaining how any of that has anything to do with infinite divisibility or Zeno's paradox.

The line is not composed of parts and thus potentially infinitely divisible, but that by itself is not sufficient to make something truly continuous. What part is confusing you?

The part where you forgot to explain your point. True continuity!? It's really confusing why would you fabricate nonsense out of thin air, and how you disagree but forget to explain your assertion. Will you ever tell us about that special one true continuity and the secret of the missing ingredient?

There is a line from point A to point B representing either segment in space or time interval. And this line is then either continuous or discrete, i.e. it is either not composed of any parts and thus potentially infinitely divisible, or it is composed of unit parts and thus is further indivisible.

What part is confusing you?

Sure, but when you mark an instant to divide one second, you get two half-second lapses; and when you mark two more instants to divide those, you get four quarter-second lapses; and so on ad infinitum. In other words, we artificially insert discrete instants to create the parts, which are always continuous lapses.

Yes, that is what "infinitely divisible" means. And you say one second of time is infinitely divisible. That is all we need, everything else follows.

Again, the paradox is based on an incorrect concept of continuity as merely infinite divisibility. Time is not isomorphic to the rational numbers, or even the real numbers in my view.

Numbers have nothing to do with this, especially not the way you look at them. There is a line from point A to point B representing either segment in space or time interval. And this line is then either continuous or discrete, i.e. it is either not composed of any parts and thus potentially infinitely divisible, or it is composed of unit parts and thus is further indivisible. Got it?

Put another way, Zeno's assumption is that Achilles must complete an infinite series of discrete steps, each of which consists of traversing a smaller and smaller distance in a smaller and smaller interval of time, in order to overtake the tortoise--which is obviously false.

It's not assumption as if used to conclude something else, it's the subject of the paradox, hypothesis being tested. You agree it’s false, produces paradox, therefore you agree time is not infinitely divisible, you agree time is not continuous, and instead you are convinced that time advances at certain discrete intervals, or refresh rate, just like the universe of Pacman and Donkey Kong, or any video game.

Recognizing continuous motion as the fundamental reality, rather than discrete and sequential positions and instants, dissolves the paradox because Achilles merely has to achieve an average speed that is greater than the tortoise's average speed.

Infinitely divisible does not actually imply “infinite parts”, it’s only the most essential aspect of continuity, the most specific definition. One second of time is either infinitely divisible or not, there is no third option, so whatever you are trying to say must be just an awkward way to say one of those two things.

Continuity is the subject of the paradox, it can not be the solution to its own paradoxicality just like a question is not an answer to itself. You are talking about square-circles, self-refuting gibberish, may robot gods have mercy on your memory circuits.

It would infer the likelihood that time is more arbitrary than not, no?

So many ways to look at one single question when each word can have so many different meanings, it looks different from different perspectives, pulls different conclusions depending on different goals or worldviews. Language is our enemy if we are not specific and do not use the same dictionary.

Therefore, every argument should have an example to go along, to specify the context and make clear what is the angle, what kind of answer is being expected, what kind of question is being asked.

I can both agree and disagree, but now I will agree with the following example. The patient has an open skull and is reading a book. Doctor sends a stream of magnetic pulses to a certain area and the patient freezes. After several seconds magnetic stimulation is turned off and the patient continues to read from the middle of a sentence as if nothing happened.

And I'm saying time is subordinate to change.

Problem is that it is not saying much, if anything at all. I could say time and change are two sides of the same coin. And now what? Can either be proven, or does it anyhow actually matter, at all? What is the purpose of making such a statement?

https://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/

-- "In the Achilles Paradox, Achilles races to catch a slower runner—for example, a tortoise that is crawling in a line away from him. The tortoise has a head start, so if Achilles hopes to overtake it, he must run at least as far as the place where the tortoise presently is, but by the time he arrives there, it will have crawled to a new place, so then Achilles must run at least to this new place, but the tortoise meanwhile will have crawled on, and so forth. Achilles will never catch the tortoise, says Zeno."

Okay, please educate me. Show me how one of Zeno's paradoxes applies to what I have presented in this thread so far. I am actually well aware of them, but it is always possible that I have missed something.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/

-- "Because many of the arguments turn crucially on the notion that space and time are infinitely divisible, Zeno was the first person to show that the concept of infinity is problematical."

Positing points already presupposes discreteness, even if there were infinitely many of them.

Is one second of time infinitely divisible or not?

No, the Planck time is the duration required for light to travel the Planck length in a vacuum, and the Planck length is the distance below which our current physics equations are no longer valid. In other words, I understand them to be mathematical limitations on marking and measuring time and space, not real properties of continuous spacetime.

That is fine, except for Zeno. Those paradoxes are still very relevant in the deepest metaphysical sense, they are exactly the test you need to apply on your conclusions, so it's something you really need to consider far more extensively as you seem to not be aware of them at all.

Which one of his paradoxes would you specifically like to discuss as relevant to the thread topic?

Any, and that you do not "see” that makes me think you are a robot, but explains why you can not infer continuity and infinite divisibility are one and the same concept.

Google says "forming an unbroken whole; without interruption," so nothing about being infinitely divisible. Again, the rational numbers are infinitely divisible, yet not continuous.

So you see, there is more than one word or phrase describing the same concept, some more, some less specific, and focusing on different aspects.

When talking about continuity of time and space, the aspect of continuity that is important is ‘infinite divisibility’, which is more than obvious from Zeno’s paradoxes.

For me, infinite divisibility is just one of five properties that are jointly necessary and sufficient for true continuity; here is how I am presenting them in a forthcoming journal paper:

Rationality - every portion conforms to one general law or Idea, which is the final cause by which the ontologically prior whole calls out its parts.
Divisibility - every portion is an indefinite material part, unless and until it is deliberately marked off with a limit to become a distinct actual part.
Homogeneity - every portion has the same dimensionality as the whole, while every limit between portions is a topical singularity of lower dimensionality.
Contiguity - every portion has a limit in common with each adjacent portion, and thus the same mode of immediate connection with others as every other has.
Inexhaustibility - limits of any multitude, or even exceeding all multitude, may always be marked off to create additional actual parts within any previously uninterrupted portion.

The application to time is that the portions are lapses, the limits are instants, and the one general law or Idea to which every lapse conforms is an indefinitely gradual state of change.

Uhh. There can either be a finite number of successive points in time between now and then, or the number is infinite. That is all, pick one:

A.) time is continuous / analog / infinitely divisible
B.) time is discrete / digital / consist of finite intervals

Of course he made assumptions, as all of us do.

I repeat, Zeno did not make any assumptions, and if you again disagree without actually saying what assumption do you think he made I will conclude you are a robot programmed to waste time.

If they were "all one and the same concept," then we would not have three different terms for them.

How did you arrive at such an obviously false conclusion?

I acknowledge that analog and digital loosely correspond to continuous and discrete, respectively; but again, infinitely divisible is not synonymous with continuous.

So instead of 5 minutes googling and looking up a dictionary you decided to hold on to your personal imaginary language and keep talking gibberish. Please, what is your definition of “continuous”, and where did you find it?

Events would be mental snapshots, or categories, of the continuous flow causation. Minds break up the analog signal of the world into binary bits that are meaningful to our goals. The separation/discontinuity only exists in our minds.

That's fine, except for Zeno's paradoxes. The world seems to be digital at the bottom of it, and if we are to believe in contemporary physics, that is exactly what “Planck scale” tells us. But people just don’t like it, for some reason. Is there anything wrong with the digital universe?

Imagine a series of instantaneous photographs to be taken. Then, no matter how closely they follow one another, there is no more motion visible in any one of them than if they were taken at intervals of centuries.
— Peirce, c. 1895

Apparently not true, as explained in my previous post. Perhaps if there were video games and virtual reality in 19th century Pierce would know what memory buffer and consciousness is, so we should forgive him for being wrong and you should stop quoting him, if for nothing else than just because he’s not speaking proper language of today, but even generally it’s all just self-refuting gibberish.

If this is the case, it does have an effect on the argument, because it would indicate that the perspective of the conscious human being spans numerous instants of time. If consciousness were restricted to one instant, the present instant, then we would observe a succession of instants. To get the "blur effect", the conscious being must be observing numerous instants in what appears (from the perspective of the consciousness) as "at the same time". The consciousness is observing numerous instants "at the same time", and is incapable of detecting the division between them.

Imagine a single photograph represents your conscious instant of visual perception. You put your finger in front and left of your nose and move it to the right. Say, during that motion you were conscious 5 times, so there are 5 of those photographs or frames, but you are only ever aware of a single one at any of those conscious instants, so how do you perceive motion / time?

First frame shows the finger on the left. Time passes until the next frame and this first picture fades, say 50%. Second frame then shows the finger a bit to the right, but “underneath” is still visible that first frame. Time passes, picture fades, third frame shows three fingers, and so on...

So you see, we do actually perceive multiple time points simultaneously even if we are aware only at time separated single instants in time, but with the constant refresh rate that is sufficient to precisely judge the speed and consequently the time. In fact, I do not see there can be any other way to explain the motion blur effect, so likely this is the best theory on the subject, if there are any other theories at all.

This is evident from the fact that we are consciously aware of motion. Motion requires a period of time, so if we are consciously aware of motion, then consciousness must span a period of time.

This has no impact on the argument, I think, but it is quite possible we are only aware as a sequence of conscious instants in time. Motion can then be perceived via motion blur effect.

This would mean, I suppose, that “subjective experience” of visual perception is an effect immediately connected with the refresh rate of updates / impressions onto the video memory buffer, and sound with updates to audio buffer… just like in video games.

But this can happen only after information is already processed, so we are only aware not of the present time, but some milliseconds after that. We are only ever aware of the past.

I disagree with describing it "narrow". It is parsimonious, but leaves nothing unaccounted for. It's reasonable to methodologically treat abstractions as independent existents, but that utility does not depend on an ontological commitment.

Emphasis on the qualifier "independent", because this parsimonious ontology doesn't deny the existence of triangles and right angles, it just denies that they exist independently of the things that have those properties. The angles between the walls of my bedroom are 90 degrees - and this angle does actually exist, just not independently of the walls. Many other things have this exact same property, and that's why "having a 90 degree angle" is a universal.

My issue is that there's no good reason to assume "90 degree angle" exists independent of the things that have it. Sure, we can think abstractly about this property without considering the things that have it, and that's a product of our powers of abstraction.

That’s right. The issue is this should be self-evident and the problem is people just don’t understand the words. If they did it would be clear “abstraction” is a form of interpretation or understanding, and as such it requires an interpreter and grounding against any information will be understood.

I can look at a mountain and see a triangle, interpret it in terms of spatial relations and then abstract an idea of an angle from it. Someone else can interpret it as “no parking allowed here”. In any case without an interpreter to form a meaning or an idea, any information is just an arrangement of physical stuff, and there is no triangle out there, there is no angle, no mountain. There is only “stuff”, some of which we choose to isolate or abstract as a separate thing and put a label on it.


On the other hand, there are principles like path of the least resistance, Pythagoras' theorem, or inverse square law that are kind of opposing field / particle physics, in a sense that it is not quite clear what comes first, which laws, principles or physical properties are primary and which just a consequence. This sort of ontological dilemma, in contrast, is worth of discussion.

Everyone is always making some assumptions, and again, infinite divisibility is necessary but not sufficient for true continuity.

I said Zeno did not make any assumptions, and time is either analog or digital, where analog, continuous, and infinitely divisible is all one and the same concept.

The rational numbers are infinitely divisible, yet no one seriously claims that they are continuous.

Do you even know what you just said or why, are you a robot?

Considering Peirce's remarks on this topic in general and about ultimate parts in particular to be gibberish, along with suggesting that being continuous is synonymous with being infinitely divisible, demonstrates quite conclusively which one of us does not understand what "continuity" means.

You failed to mention any reason behind your statement. Zeno is not making any assumptions, and his arguments are indeed about infinite divisibility, i.e time / space continuity. Google it!

On the contrary, we directly perceive the continuous flow of time.

Peirce is talking gibberish. You only ever directly perceive a physical thing moving from point A to point B, and in no way anything about it suggests time is continuous, i.e. infinitely divisible.

In fact, if we did not directly perceive the continuity of time, then we would have no concept of continuity at all.

Can not be a fact as is clearly demonstrated to be false by virtual reality simulation and cases from clinical studies.

On the contrary, Zeno's paradoxes are only dissolved by recognizing the continuity of both space and time.

What? You either do not understand what “continuity” means or your logic circuit is broken. This is not even supposed to be controversial, no one makes that claim.

All the arguments of Zeno depend on supposing that a continuum has ultimate parts. But a continuum is precisely that, every part of which has parts, in the same sense. Hence, he makes out his contradictions only by making a self-contradictory supposition. In ordinary and mathematical language, we allow ourselves to speak of such parts--points--and whenever we are led into contradiction thereby, we have simply to express ourselves more accurately to resolve the difficulty.
— Peirce, 1868

Ultimate parts? It's gibberish. Why quoting a guy from the 19th century? Actually, why quote anyone, it’s unclear if you understand what is being said or whether your interpretation is the one intended.

In a 1908 paper that established the parameters for many of the debates within the philosophy of time ever since its publication, John Ellis McTaggart argues for "The Unreality of Time." His basic claim is that time cannot be real because it is contradictory to predicate past, present, and future of the same moment or event; and he alleges that the obvious rejoinder--that a moment or event is past, present, and future only at different times--is viciously circular. McTaggart's implicit assumption is that time is a series of discrete positions, which are what he calls moments, and an event is the discrete content of a particular moment. In other words, he treats any single moment or event as an existential subject, which is why it is precluded from having incompatible determinations.

Does any of those guys ever consider the applicability of their concepts of time? He is still talking about the same thing, just awkwardly, and at the end the concept must produce equations of motion as we know them, or it’s false, so what is his comment on:

speed = distance / time

Two of those three have to be actual properties and only one abstract relation between them. Which one is fake? I think it’s self evident if you consider it in terms of what is “primary” or “more basic”, so I say time and space are actual, while velocity is abstract or virtual property, i.e. “relation”.

My point here is that I don’t see how any argument considering time can be sensible if it does not consider equations of motion. Motion / change is the only way to perceive time, it is thus essential to be the focus of any time related argument, and also, just because we perceive time only indirectly should not fool us to think it is illusory.

Additionally, either time or space have to be discrete to avoid Zeno’s paradoxes. Or both have to be discrete, I forgot and can’t remember how I concluded that, but I insist it is true.

Generally, you could explain it through a simple mathematical formula (time= distance/speed).

speed = distance / time

So now I explained how time is in fact not an illusion. What the hell am I doing here when I have more meaningful conversations with my dog.

If time is illusion how do you explain velocity and motion in general?

Are you a robot?

Infinite set will never be complete, therefore infinite set will never exist.