his is where I disagree with Wittgenstein. I agree that meaning doesn't reside as a thing in the mind/brain, but I disagree that it's a "something about which nothing can be said." — Sam26

To be clear, the "something" in question at §304 is not a meaning or anything linguistic, but a private sensation; a feeling. However, I assume this is what you meant.

At the very least I can say they are private experiences/sensations, and we often do describe such sensations accurately. — Sam26

I believe Wittgenstein would say that we do not describe our sensations, but express them. For example:

244. How do words refer to sensations? — There doesn’t seem to be any problem here; don’t we talk about sensations every day, and name them? But how is the connection between the name and the thing named set up? This question is the same as: How does a human being learn the meaning of names of sensations? For example, of the word “pain”. Here is one possibility: words are connected with the primitive, natural, expressions of sensation and used in their place. A child has hurt himself and he cries; then adults talk to him and teach him exclamations and, later, sentences. They teach the child new pain-behaviour.
“So you are saying that the word ‘pain’ really means crying?” — On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying, it does not describe it.

245. How can I even attempt to interpose language between the expression of pain and the pain? — Wittgenstein

Moreover, when talking about, for e.g., the taste of wine, some people who are in the business of describing such tastes, can do it in a way that others can clearly understand. They understand because they too are able to recognize the descriptions. — Sam26

If I ask you to fetch me a red object, I will know if you have succeeded in doing so but not because I know how red looks to everyone else. (I cannot even sensibly say that I know how red looks to myself - see §246). What matters is that I can successfully pick out the colour red. Recognising how red looks (to me) will help me to do that, but my personal sensation when seeing a red object does not enter into the meaning of the word. What "red" means is not a description of my personal sensation or how it looks to me in particular. It doesn't matter how the colour looks to me, or whether I truly see red accurately (or whether I see the "real" red). It's almost as if learning to use the word "red" is like putting on a pair of magic glasses that makes you see the same colour as everyone else. It doesn't matter how it looks to me when I'm not wearing my magic glasses, it only matters that how one uses the word "red" corresponds to how other people use the word "red". How it looks to me drops out of consideration as irrelevant. I could be colour-blind or blind and still be able to respond appropriately to a request to fetch a red object. The thing in [one's] box doesn't belong to the language-game at all. All that matters are one's actions/behaviour in response to the word "red".

Similarly, when one describes the tastes of wine, one doesn't describe their private taste sensation, but has learned to use a public language. To say that some food "tastes like chicken", or that a wine tastes "smoky" or "like a blue crayon" (or whatever) is only ever partaking in the public language that magically filters out everyone's individual private sensations. Again, recognising the private sensation will help one to use the language appropriately, but language does not describe one person's private sensation. Or you could say that it does, but in a way which filters it (out) to be the same as everyone else's private sensation.

You use the word "red" appropriately when you see this colour and I use the word "red" appropriately when I see this colour. But, that this colour might appear differently to each of us makes no difference to knowing how to use the word appropriately.

Perhaps my view departs from Wittgenstein's here, too. I'm unsure.

Your initial distinction was between a definition and its meaning:

It appears like you are conflating the definitions with their meaning, or interpretation. These are separate. We refer to things, like examples, to understand meaning, while the definition does not explicitly refer to those examples. So, for example "human being" might be defined as "rational animal". Then we could point to a number of people, as examples, to demonstrate the meaning of "rational animal". Or, we could give examples of what it means to be "animal" and what it means to be "rational". In both of these cases, the examples are referred to in demonstrating or interpreting the meaning, they are not referred to by the definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is what I strongly disagreed with.

You later accused me of disagreeing with a different distinction, which you have now expressed as the difference “between what the defined word means and what the defining words mean.”

This is not the same as your distinction between a definition and its meaning that I initially disagreed with.

Your misrepresentation, "the difference between “what the defined word means” and “its meaning”" is nothing but a straw man. — Metaphysician Undercover

I did not misrepresent you. You made this exact distinction and I quoted it. You must be saying that your own words misrepresented you.

You said:

you seem intent on insisting that there is no difference between a definition (what the defined word means), and its meaning (what the defining words mean) — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I am insisting this.

On the other hand, you are “insisting” that there is a difference “between a definition (what the defined word means), and its meaning (what the defining words mean)”.

I asked you what is the difference between “what the defined word means” and “its meaning”.

This distinction is yours, as is clear from the quote. There is no straw man.

But I guess you now realise the silliness of your distinction.

Since you seem intent on insisting that there is no difference between a definition (what the defined word means), and its meaning (what the defining words mean) — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps you could explain the difference between "what the defined word means" and "its meaning".

Zahavi's brief book is dense with great stuff. — plaque flag

Thanks for the tip, appreciate it. I'll check it out.

Did you ever check out Husserl ? — plaque flag

No, I haven't read any.

I hope you stop in and help us get on track. — plaque flag

Thanks. I'll take another look and see if I have anything to add.

If the present is not limited to conscious experience, and if the past is not limited to what is actually remembered and if the future is not limited to what is actually anticipated, then there must be something outside of conscious experience or these mental events that determines and helps to define what you mean by "past", "present" and "future". What is it?
— Luke

I don't know. That is perhaps the greatest problem of philosophy, described by Kant as the thing-in-itself. Kant claimed we cannot know what it is. — Metaphysician Undercover

How can you not know? Aren't we talking about your definitions? You don't know what defines your terms?

That it might or might not actually be heard is irrelevant, as what is relevant is description of the type. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your description of the type is that it might or might not actually be heard/remembered/anticipated. How is this irrelevant?

It indicates that "sound" refers to something external to conscious experience. If (a) sound is something that might not be heard, then it must exist independently of anyone's conscious experience. — Luke

Yes, that is the extrapolation which I used to take "the past" outside of personal experience, giving it a position of objectivity, allowing it to be effectively employed as demonstrated with "sound". — Metaphysician Undercover

What might not be heard/remembered/anticipated lies outside of conscious experience. Your definitions of the terms "past" and "future" which involve and entail what might not be remembered or anticipated are therefore not defined solely in terms of conscious experience.

It was "the present" which I claimed ought to be defined solely with reference to conscious experience. This was "what is happening". Then we moved to "past" and "future" which I said ought to be defined in reference to the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right. You have defined "the present" solely with reference to conscious experience and you have defined the "past" and "future" relative to this. Therefore, by extension, you have defined each of these terms solely with reference to conscious experience.

It appears like you are conflating the definitions with their meaning, or interpretation. These are separate. We refer to things, like examples, to understand meaning, while the definition does not explicitly refer to those examples. So, for example "human being" might be defined as "rational animal". Then we could point to a number of people, as examples, to demonstrate the meaning of "rational animal". Or, we could give examples of what it means to be "animal" and what it means to be "rational". In both of these cases, the examples are referred to in demonstrating or interpreting the meaning, they are not referred to by the definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

I strongly disagree that there is a distinction between a definition and its meaning. Do you believe a definition is just a string of letters/symbols/sounds that have no meaning? Is it impossible to refer to an example of a definition?

Defining terms while remaining entirely within a logical structure, does not make the terms inapplicable to things outside the logical system. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have asserted that the terms "past", "present" and "future" can be defined without reference to time and solely with reference to conscious experience. I'm not accusing you of going outside of any logical structure. I am accusing you of going outside of your own definitions; outside of conscious experience.

Perhaps you could provide some further definitions. How do you define the terms "remember" and "anticipate" within your logical structure? And (in case there is any difference), what are the meanings of these terms?

If you want to dig into this, I started a thread on it. — plaque flag

Thanks, I did see it earlier and was meaning to respond, but didn't want to interrupt your discussion with @Joshs and his view of the radical inconstancy of meaning.

However, I'm not sure whether there is much left to say if W is correct in saying that the private sensation is "not a Nothing", but "a Something about which nothing could be said."

In short, pain is more than the inferential aspect of its concept. — plaque flag

On my reading, at least, Wittgenstein does not deny this “something more”, such as the sensation of pain.

246. … Other people cannot be said to learn of my sensations only from my behaviour — for I cannot be said to learn of them. I have them…

304. “But you will surely admit that there is a difference between pain-behaviour with pain and pain-behaviour without pain.” — Admit it? What greater difference could there be? — “And yet you again and again reach the conclusion that the sensation itself is a Nothing.” -- Not at all. It’s not a Something, but not a Nothing either! The conclusion was only that a Nothing would render the same service as a Something about which nothing could be said. We’ve only rejected the grammar which tends to force itself on us here.
The paradox disappears only if we make a radical break with the idea that language always functions in one way, always serves the same purpose: to convey thoughts — which may be about houses, pains, good and evil, or whatever.

305. “But you surely can’t deny that, for example, in remembering, an inner process takes place.” — What gives the impression that we want to deny anything? When one says, “Still, an inner process does take place here” — one wants to go on: “After all, you see it.” And it is this inner process that one means by the word “remembering”. — The impression that we wanted to deny something arises from our setting our face against the picture of an ‘inner process’. What we deny is that the picture of an inner process gives us the correct idea of the use of the word “remember”. Indeed, we’re saying that this picture, with its ramifications, stands in the way of our seeing the use of the word as it is.

306. Why ever should I deny that there is a mental process? It is only that “There has just taken place in me the mental process of remembering . . .” means nothing more than “I have just remembered . . .” To deny the mental process would mean to deny the remembering; to deny that anyone ever remembers anything.

307. “Aren’t you nevertheless a behaviourist in disguise? Aren’t you nevertheless basically saying that everything except human behaviour is a fiction?” — If I speak of a fiction, then it is of a grammatical fiction. — Philosophical Investigations

Memory and anticipation are mental events. Do you also consider "what is happening" to be a mental event?
— Luke

Yes, of course. The primary condition of the definition of "present" was to make reference solely to conscious experience. To fulfil this condition "what is happening" must be be understood in the context of what you call a "mental event". — Metaphysician Undercover

If the "primary condition" of your definition of "present" is to make reference "solely to conscious experience", then how can "present" refer to anything outside of conscious experience?

If memory grounds the difference, then the only events that have happened are limited to what humans remember.
— Luke

This is not true, as I explained. We can define "past" in reference to what "might be remembered". This is to name the criteria of a type, as I said already. It is how we move toward objectivity. — Metaphysician Undercover

If the present is not limited to conscious experience, and if the past is not limited to what is actually remembered and if the future is not limited to what is actually anticipated, then there must be something outside of conscious experience or these mental events that determines and helps to define what you mean by "past", "present" and "future". What is it?

As in the example of "sound", which I mentioned. When the tree falls it makes a "sound" even if no one hears it, if we define "sound" as "what might be heard". By defining in this way, we make "sound" the name of a type, and allow that there are things of that type which have not necessarily been perceived, judged, and categorized as being that type. — Metaphysician Undercover

If your definition of "sound" allows "that there are things of that type which have not necessarily been perceived, judged, and categorized as being that type", then your definition of "sound" allows for "what might not be heard". Your definition of "sound" is basically "what might be heard or what might not be heard". I don't see how the definition of "what might not be heard" makes reference solely to conscious experience. It indicates that "sound" refers to something external to conscious experience. If (a) sound is something that might not be heard, then it must exist independently of anyone's conscious experience.

It logically follows that the same must apply to "what might be remembered" and to "what might be anticipated". As you note yourself:

Likewise, "might be remembered" characterizes a type, and we can allow for things of that type which have not actually been remembered...

Again "what might be anticipated" describes a type, and we can allow for the reality of things of that type which are not actually anticipated. — Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore, I don't see how you can maintain that your definitions of "past", "present" and "future" make reference solely to conscious experience, while you also speak about "the reality of things of that type" which do not make reference solely to conscious experience (i.e. which are not remembered or not anticipated).

Of course the radical skeptic can deny the reality of anything independent, and insist that to be is to be perceived. If you like to take that position of radical skepticism, that is your choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

My choice is beside the point. I have already stated my view that these terms are conventionally defined with reference to time, It is your view and your unconventional definitions of these terms that is presently under discussion. Your view - that these terms are defined solely in terms of conscious experience - clearly implies the radical skeptic position which must lead you to "deny the reality of anything independent". Otherwise, I fail to understand how these terms can be defined solely in terms of conscious experience.

What meaning do you give to the past tense phrase "has happened"? What meaning do you give to the future tense phrase "to happen"?
— Luke

As I said, meaning is given to these terms from the human experience of memory and anticipation. What has happened, "past", consists of things which might be remembered. What is possible to happen, "future" consists of things which might be anticipated.
— Metaphysician Undercover

I asked what the phrases "has happened" and "to happen" mean. It is unclear whether you are providing the meanings of these phrases - what you think they mean - or whether you are telling me "what gives meaning to" these phrases. I don't think these are the same.
— Luke

You asked me for 'my definitions', so this is exclusively what these words mean within the context of 'my definitions'. — Metaphysician Undercover

You spoke about what gives these terms their meaning, and what the past and future "consist of", rather than what the terms "has happened" and "to happen" mean.

o be clear, are you saying that what "has happened" means what "might be remembered", and that what is "to happen" means "what might be anticipated"? — Luke

You are taking "to happen" out of context. The definition is "what is possible to happen". — Metaphysician Undercover

My question was: what does "to happen" mean within that definition.

If I accept your definition of the present as "what is happening", then how do "what is possible to happen" and "what has happened" differ from "what is happening" in a way that is not in relation to time?

Memory and anticipation are mental events. Do you also consider "what is happening" to be a mental event?

is it impossible that there are events that have happened that we don't remember and events that might happen that we don't anticipate?
— Luke

No, this is not a solipsist definition. Just because I do not remember it doesn't mean it has not happened. Someone else might remember it. So "memory" and "anticipation" describe these categories, but the use of "might" indicates that these qualifiers are not necessary conditions. — Metaphysician Undercover

I asked about what we (humans) remember or anticipate, not just one person. But if your answer is still "no" to this question, then I don't see how you could say that memory grounds the difference between what is happening and what has happened. If memory grounds the difference, then the only events that have happened are limited to what humans remember. Likewise (presumably), the only events that might possibly happen are limited to what humans anticipate. I'm fairly certain there are events that have happened that no humans can remember and events that might possibly happen that no humans could anticipate.

Yes it does tell you the difference between past and present. The present is not solely past, as past is, it consists also of some future. I am informing you of the type of difference I am talking about. Why can't you accept this? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because you cannot simply assume I know what you mean by these terms that you claim have no relation to time. That would be question begging. I know the difference in meaning between the terms "past", "present" and "future" in relation to time, and I know difference in meaning between the terms "what has happened", "what is happening", and "what will happen" in relation to time. But if you're telling me that none of these terms is defined in relation to time, then you have some work to do to explain their meanings and the differences between them that are not in relation to time.

You say that the past "consists of things which might be remembered", and you define the present as "what is happening, activity which is occurring". It is unclear to me just how these differ, if at all, when they have no relation to time.

If you asked me what is the difference between water and a solution, I would say that the solution consists of both water and something else dissolved within it. It informs you of the type of difference I am talking about. Why can't you accept this? — Metaphysician Undercover

Saying that a solution is partly water tells me what they have in common; that a solution is water plus something else. This does not explain what a solution is or what water is or how these two differ from each other, other than very superficially saying that they are different.

As I said, meaning is given to these terms from the human experience of memory and anticipation. What has happened, "past", consists of things which might be remembered. What is possible to happen, "future" consists of things which might be anticipated. — Metaphysician Undercover

I asked what the phrases "has happened" and "to happen" mean. It is unclear whether you are providing the meanings of these phrases - what you think they mean - or whether you are telling me "what gives meaning to" these phrases. I don't think these are the same.

To be clear, are you saying that what "has happened" means what "might be remembered", and that what is "to happen" means "what might be anticipated"? Does this imply that if something is not remembered then it has not happened and if something is not anticipated then it will not happen? That is, is what has happened or what might happen limited to only what can be remembered or anticipated? In other words, is it impossible that there are events that have happened that we don't remember and events that might happen that we don't anticipate?

As I said earlier, I believe that "the present", as what is happening, consists of a unity of what has happened (past), and "what is possible to happen" (future). The difference between "what has happened" and "what is happening", therefore, would be that "what is happening" consists not only of "what has happened" but it also contains some "what is possible to happen", as well. — Metaphysician Undercover

This does not explain the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened".

To say that "what is happening" (present) consists of some of "what has happened" (past) and some of "what is possible to happen" (future) does not explain the difference between "what is happening" (present) and "what has happened" (past).

This only says that the present consists of some past and some future. I asked for the difference between the present and the past.

Obviously defining the terms without reference to time is not a problem, because a person can define terms any way one likes, even contradictory, or whatever. — Metaphysician Undercover

Until this post, you had not defined any of the terms without reference to time; you had only provided the “defining feature” of the present or what the present should be defined “in reference to”.

Now, you've demonstrated to me that it would be impossible for me to define the terms the way that I like, i.e. without reference to time, and solely referencing human experience, in a way which is acceptable to you. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have repeatedly asked you to provide a definition of "past", "present" or "future" without reference to time. Until this post, you had not offered any definitions. I could neither accept nor reject (or find acceptable or rejectable) something that you never offered.

Now, you've demonstrated to me that it would be impossible for me to define the terms the way that I like, i.e. without reference to time, and solely referencing human experience, in a way which is acceptable to you. After many days of discussion, you have shown me that such definitions would be fundamentally contrary to your beliefs, and you are not willing to relinquish these beliefs, even for the sake of discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's quite unfair. You never provided any "such definitions".

Here's an example. I will propose the following definitions. I will define "present" as what is happening, activity which is occurring. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thank you. Finally, a definition.

Then, past gets defined as what has happened, activity which has occurred, and future is defined as what is possible to happen, activity which is possible. — Metaphysician Undercover

What meaning do you give to the past tense phrase "has happened"? What meaning do you give to the future tense phrase "to happen"?

You will say "what has happened", in relation to "what is happening" implies temporal separation, and cannot be understood without reference to "time". — Metaphysician Undercover

That's right.

I will insist there is no need to refer to time, because I am keeping the definitions within the context of human experience, so we refer to memory, not time, to ground the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened". — Metaphysician Undercover

What is the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened"? Memory may "ground the difference", but what is the difference?

All you have offered is a "starting definition" that is only of "present", and which is not even a complete sentence. You have offered zero definitions (or even "starting definitions") of "past" or "future" that do not reference time. — Luke

To give the “defining feature” of the present, or what the present should be defined “in reference to”, is not to give a definition. Also, you have made no attempt to define the past or the future without reference to time.

I've explained very clearly how "we" can define and understand these terms without reference to time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't believe so. If that were true then you could simply define them. However, you have produced zero definitions of the terms "past", "present" or "future" that do not reference time. All you have offered is a "starting definition" that is only of "present", and which is not even a complete sentence. You have offered zero definitions (or even "starting definitions") of "past" or "future" that do not reference time.

Obviously though, you will never be able to understand these terms without reference to time. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's right, because the meanings of these terms are in reference to time. You have asserted otherwise but have failed to demonstrate it.

Don't blame me for your failure to support your argument.
— Luke

I firmly believe that the blame is to be directed at you,. You have a very strong propensity toward willful misunderstanding. Denial and misrepresentation, which results in misunderstanding, without any real attempt to understand, is your modus operandi. — Metaphysician Undercover

What have I misunderstood, denied or misrepresented? You asserted:

We can discuss these concepts, and define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

All I have asked is for you to provide some examples of such definitions. You have failed to provide any examples and then blamed me for not helping you find some.

Since you disagree with me, are you going to help me to support my argument? I don't see why you won't given that you expect me to help to support your argument.

Instead of acknowledging and taking responsibility for your own failure to produce any examples to support your assertion, you criticise me for not helping you to produce those examples, or for simply not agreeing with your unsupported assertion without question. What a willingness to misunderstand!

I've offered many propositions as to how to proceed in making these definitions. I've gotten no agreement from you concerning this procedure. To offer a definition which would undoubtably be rejected because you've shown very clearly that you disagree with the direction I am taking, would only be foolish. Therefore I have no definitions to offer. — Metaphysician Undercover

You asserted that we can "define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time". I've asked you several times to produce such definitions. Until you produce them, there is nothing to reject. Unless you produce them, there is no support for your assertion.

Don't blame me for your failure to support your argument.

There's an easy way to settle this dispute which is to provide your definitions of these terms without any reference to a concept of time. I've asked you for these definitions several times now. Are you ever going to provide them?
— Luke

I've given you the starting point, the way I would define "the present" with direct reference to the conscious experience of being. I defined it as "activity, things happening". I thought you might agree with this because you had already said "the present is what is happening, occurring". But now I see that you think we need to qualify this with "the time" at which things are happening.

Unless we can agree on the starting definition, which would be the reference point for the following definitions, there is really no point in proceeding. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't asked you for a starting point; I've asked you for the definitions. To demonstrate that we can "define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time" - as you claim - then give us your definitions; show us.

I'm not interested in agreeing to a "starting definition" and arriving at the "final definition" together. I don't agree that these terms can be defined without any reference to time. If you can, then prove it. Otherwise, this is just a cop out.

We use "past", "future", "present" to describe and even define "time". Time cannot be described or defined without these references...
— Metaphysician Undercover

Not true. According to John McTaggart's widely referenced classification, "past", "present" and "future" are used to order (or describe) events in time; they are the ordering relations of McTaggart's A-series. Alternatively, events in time can be ordered (or described) using the ordering relations of McTaggart's B-series: "earlier than", "simultaneous with", and "later than". See here.
— Luke

The use which you describe here is a way of describing time, just like I argued. This supports what I said, "past", "future", and "present" are used to order events and describe the flow of time. The B-series does not provide us with a conception of "time" in any conventional sense...

You, however, seem to be having great difficulty recognizing what is "conventional". Since there are many conventions, as I said, we should perhaps use a different word. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've missed my point here. I was countering your assertion that "Time cannot be described or defined without these references" to McTaggart's A-series relations of "past", "present" and "future". The B-series relations are an alternative to the A-series relations. Therefore, time can be described using the B-series instead of the A-series, which refutes your assertion that time cannot be described without reference to the A-series.

The usage of the B-series, since it was just proposed by McTaggart, is limited to modern speculative philosophy and metaphysics, the B-series conception of time is not the traditional conception of time, and so I would argue it is not conventional either. — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't make any mention of convention in my reply above and never intended to suggest that the B-series was conventional or traditional. That was not the purpose of my comments here. The purpose was to refute your assertion that time cannot be described or defined without reference to the A-series.

I've already answered this. The present is what is happening or occurring;...
— Luke

Now I see you do not accept this, and what you really meant was that the present is the time when things are happening or occurring. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's right, and when you consider the full context (and the full quote), then it is clear that I was referring to the time when things are happening or occurring. I said:

The present is what is happening or occurring; the past is what did happen or occurred; and the future is what will happen or occur. — Luke

My use of tense in "what did happen" (past) and in "what will happen" (future) in contrast to "what is happening" (present) clearly indicates that time is involved here. Furthermore, this is even more clear in the immediately previous quote of mine in this chain of responses, where I said (emphasis added):

I agree that the present is defined relative to experience or being, but I disagree that it is not conventionally defined this way. The present is conventionally defined in relation to (or as the time of) being, existing or happening, and the past and future are conventionally defined relative to this, with the past as what has been, has existed or has happened, and the future with what will be, will exist or will happen. — Luke

It is also worth noting that just prior to these exchanges, you made comments such as:

The past is defined as what has gone by in time...The future is defined as what will come in time... — Metaphysician Undercover

However, now you are claiming that:

We can discuss these concepts, and define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's an easy way to settle this dispute which is to provide your definitions of these terms without any reference to a concept of time. I've asked you for these definitions several times now. Are you ever going to provide them?

So if you cannot dispel this idea, that "the present" must be defined in reference to "the time when...", instead of being defined with direct reference to the conscious experience of being present, then we will not be able to agree on anything here, nor could we make any progress in this discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've also claimed that the present is defined in terms of both the past and the future and that the present is an overlap between the past and the future. So, which definition takes precedence: that the present is defined in terms of both the past and the future, or that the present is defined "with direct reference to the conscious experience of being present"?

Regardless, let's see if you can provide some definitions of these terms without reference to time.

We use "past", "future", "present" to describe and even define "time". Time cannot be described or defined without these references. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not true. According to John McTaggart's widely referenced classification, "past", "present" and "future" are used to order (or describe) events in time; they are the ordering relations of McTaggart's A-series. Alternatively, events in time can be ordered (or described) using the ordering relations of McTaggart's B-series: "earlier than", "simultaneous with", and "later than". See here.

We can discuss these concepts, and define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

This remains to be demonstrated. You still haven't provided a definition of any of these terms.

We can refer solely to human experiences, being present, memories and anticipations, and understand those terms without consulting the further abstraction which is the concept of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

You can refer to them, but where's your definition(s)?

This is your hidden premise, which made us incapable of agreeing on what the convention is. I thought the convention is to define "present" in reference to past and future, but you thought the convention is to define "past and future" in reference to the present. It now appears like you hold this opinion because of your hidden premise, that all three of these refer to periods of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then you must hold your opinion because of your hidden premise that all three of these don't refer to periods of time? I don't see how this is helping.

I think this is blatant BS. No matter how many times I tell you, that I am making distinctions between the way these words are actually defined in conventional usage, and the way that I think they ought to be defined, you still continue to deny that I am doing this. — Metaphysician Undercover

At one point you thought that the way these words ought to be defined was the same way that they are conventionally defined. I'll admit it took me a while to realise that you weren't simply getting the (conventional) definitions wrong and that you were actually proposing a metaphysical theory, but I don't think I should take full responsibility for that. You are using the everyday terms "past", "present" and "future", after all.

Also, if you are using these terms in a non-conventional way, then define them so as to differentiate them from their conventional meanings; explain how your definitions are not what these terms typically mean. But then you will have no right to tell me that I'm misusing these terms or that these terms are not conventionally used to refer to time.

Also, despite saying here that you are distinguishing between how they ought to be defined and their conventional definitions, you have also stated that you are providing their conventional definitions and that our disagreement is over who is providing the correct conventional definition (see below).

Does "present" mean the separation between past and future, (past being defined by reference to memories, and future being defined by reference to anticipations)... — Metaphysician Undercover

Saying that past and future are defined "by reference to" is not (the same as) you providing their definitions.

So now we're getting to the heart of the matter, your question of what does "present" mean, in the context of the conscious experience of being present. I would say that it means to be experiencing activity, things happening. And so this ought to be the defining feature of "the present", activity, things happening. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you saying that "present" means "to be experiencing activity, things happening"? Because I would consider the experience (or the experiencing) and "things happening" to be two distinct things or events. And I wouldn't consider either of them to be what "present" means. And you criticised me earlier for conflating "the present" with an experience (even though I clearly didn't), which is exactly what you've done here.

And so this ought to be the defining feature of "the present", activity, things happening. — Metaphysician Undercover

If "the present" is synonymous with "activity, things happening", then are the past and future both synonymous with "no activity, things not happening"? If so, is there any distinction between the past and future? If so, what is the distinction between them?

Also, you said earlier that the present is defined in terms of the past and the future. How have you defined "the present" in terms of the past and the future given this definition of "the present" as "activity, things happening"?

Do you not recognize a difference between the meaning of "implied by" and "synonymous with"? If "past" and "future" are defined with reference to memories and anticipations, this does not mean that these are synonymous. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then what are your definitions of "past" and "future"?

We agreed to start from a definition of "the present" whereby "the present" is defined with reference to the conscious experience of being present. We both agreed to that. — Metaphysician Undercover

My agreement was based on my defintion of "the present" as "the time at which we are consciously experiencing".

There was no mention of "time" in that agreement. — Metaphysician Undercover

My definitions have almost all included time (as far as I can recall). I might have referred to the present as "when things are happening", or something similar, but time is implicit in the "when".

Therefore your mode of referring to "conventional definitions" and "time" is only misleading you, preventing you from looking directly at the conscious experience to provide the definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that "the" definition of "the present" is your definition of "the present". What's your definition?

Your presupposition, or prejudice, is that the convention is to define "the present" with reference to the conscious experience of being present. Therefore you believe that convention will provide this definition of "the present" for us which refers directly to the conscious experience of being present. But then you resort to the convention of referring to "time". — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I've maintained throughout that the present is the time at which (or when) we are consciously experiencing. What's your definition?

Now, I've been telling you over and over, that convention has a completely different definition of "the present", which is not at all consistent with the conscious experience of being present. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's true. You've also been claiming that your definition of the present in terms of the past and future is the conventional definition. Which is it then: are you telling us how these terms ought to be defined in contrast to the conventional definition, or are you telling us what the conventional definition of these terms actually is?

Also, the conventional definition of "the present" is perfectly consistent with the time at which one is consciously experiencing.

You desire to define "the present" with reference to the abstract concept, "time", rather than with reference to the conscious experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Rubbish. My definition contains both.

Now, what are your defintions?

"Time" implies the descriptive terms of past present and future, but not vise versa. — Metaphysician Undercover

How does "time" imply the descriptions of past, present and future?
Why do the descriptions of past, present and future not imply time?
What do the descriptions of past, present and future describe, if not time?

As we've been discussing, past, future, and present are defined in reference to each other, and there is no necessity of "time", only the experience we discussed, being present, memories, and anticipations are implied by these terms. — Metaphysician Undercover

We weren't discussing this. I had been using the words "past", "present" and "future" in accordance with their conventional usage, where they refer to periods of time. Until very recently, I was unaware that you were trying to create new meanings for these words from scratch in order to accommodate your metaphysical theory.

Regarding what you say here, what does the word "present" mean when you say "the experience we discussed, being present"? Does it mean the same as when you refer to "the present", as in "past, present and future"? It seems like only moments ago that you were accusing me of conflating the present with one's conscious experience, but it looks like that's exactly what you have done here.

If there is a difference between "the present" and the experience of "being present", then what is that difference?

Furthermore, you already acknowledged earlier that the past is not synonymous with memories and the future is not synonymous with anticipations. Here, you say that memories and anticipations "are implied by these terms". But if "past" and "future" are not synonymous with "memories" and "anticipations", and if "past" and "future" are not in reference to time, then how do you define "past" and "future"?

"Time" refers to a concept created by a synthesis of these three. And, depending on how they are synthesized the concept varies. hence there are differing concepts of "time". — Metaphysician Undercover

Nonsense.

I suggest that the reason why our discussion has failed to progress is that you have a preconceived idea of "time", and this preconceived idea of "time" requires a specific relationship of past , future, and present. This is your "hidden premise". — Metaphysician Undercover

According to this logic, you (and everybody else) must have the same hidden premise.

The meanings of the terms "past", "present" and "future" that I have argued for is consistent with their conventional definitions. Look at these and you will see that they are in reference to time. I'm not offering an idiosyncratic metaphysical theory; I'm demonstrating that your theory either relies on the conventional definitions of these terms or else becomes nonsensical.

Now, please explain what any of the terms "past", "present" or "future" mean if they are not in reference to time, as I asked you to in my previous post. Your inability to do so demonstrates that your theory is nonsense.

You thought time was implied by talk about "present" "past" and "future". But we were discussing the defining of these terms in reference to each other, not in reference to time. How "time" is related is a further matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have no idea what these terms could possibly mean in relation to each other if we don't already assume that they are in reference to time. Perhaps you could explain what any of the terms "past", "present" or "future" mean if they are not in reference to time?

It's what your arguments implied, and then you confirmed it by saying that "the human observer" may be replaced by "the present". This is what you stated "What you call 'past the human observer', I would call 'past the present'. So you are saying that "the present" signifies nothing more than the human observer. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, this is what I said:

What you call "past the human observer", I would call "past the present", because the present is when each person makes their observations. The present is defined in terms of conscious experience, or the time at which one is consciously experiencing, which is how you believe it ought to be defined. — Luke

It's a big leap, and a very uncharitable reading, for you to interpret this paragraph as me saying that the present is identical to conscious experience.

So we need to define "the present" in terms of the conscious experience, but recognize that the actual present is distinct and different from the conscious experience of being present. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is this:"actual present"? What is it, and what reason do you have for believing there is any such thing?

As I have made clear in my previous posts, the present is defined in terms of WHEN we are consciously experiencing. I'm obviously not saying that the present is conscious experience.
— Luke

But what is "WHEN" referencing, other than the past implied by memories and the future implied by anticipation. — Metaphysician Undercover

"When" could mean:

when
conjunction
1
a
: at or during the time that : while
went fishing when he was a boy
b
: just at the moment that
stop writing when the bell rings
c
: at any or every time that
when he listens to music, he falls asleep

I was using the word in the sense of definition 'c'.

I don't understand how you could think that the word "when" used in my statement "the present is defined in terms of when we are consciously experiencing" is "referencing...the past implied by memories and the future implied by anticipation". I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. The word "when" is not "referencing" anything. I used it in the manner given at definition 'c' above.

I told you that such a definition, one like you seek, really ends up defining "the present" in terms of past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

You did, but not very clearly. I never understood what you meant by it.

Now you're trying to avoid referencing past and future, by referencing time as "WHEN". But there is no way to ground this proposed conception of time, and "WHEN" other than in the past which is implied by memories, and the future implied by anticipations. So it's nothing but a trick of deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is just gibberish.

How? What do you mean by "an accurate representation"? What sort of "representation" do you mean? And how could its accuracy be improved?
— Luke

There are many ways that the representation, or conception of "the present" could be improved. The most important thing I believe is to recognize the substantial difference between past and future. This substantial difference you yourself denied in your reference to compatibilism. So for example, if you had a more accurate representation of "the present", you would understand why compatibilism is unacceptable. — Metaphysician Undercover

This barely answers my questions. By "representation", I take you to mean concept of "the present". But how could that concept be more accurate? More accurate in relation to what?

No, it was never understood that we were talking about "time". — Metaphysician Undercover

After all of our discussion about "past", "present" and "future", it never dawned on you that we were talking about time?

You cannot take such things for granted when defining terms. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't take it for granted that when defining "past", "present" and "future" we are talking about time? That's absurd.

So, there is a misunderstanding between us as to how these terms, "present", "past", "future" are currently defined by convention. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's no problem in talking about how "past", "present" and "future" are currently defined by convention, but assuming that these terms have anything to do with time is a bit of a stretch, is it?

I said that this is incorrect, because "what will be" implies determinism and our conscious experience indicates that the future is indeterminate, consisting of possibilities. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, and I replied that "what will be" does not necessarily imply determinism because "what will be" is also consistent with compatibilism. What you call "our conscious experience" does not indicate that the future is indeterminate; that is merely your belief. Your ability to anticipate several possible outcomes or future events does not necessarily have any bearing on the nature of reality. Or, at least, you've provided no argument for it.

This substantial difference between determined past, and indeterminate future, implies that there must be a real, identifiable division between past and future, which we can know as "the present". — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps; if your unargued assertion happens to be true.

You denied this substantial difference, and consequentially the foundation for a real identifiable, independent "present", with an appeal to compatibilism. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I merely provided a counterargument to your claim that "what will be" implies determinism. That is not necessarily so.

This is your mistake then, you equate the human temporal perspective with "the present". I explained in the last post, and a number of times earlier, how this is a mistake. The conscious experience does not give us an adequate representation of the present. Therefore these cannot be equated. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you honestly think I was suggesting that a human perspective and "the present" are identical? We are discussing time, aren't we?

As I have made clear in my previous posts, the present is defined in terms of WHEN we are consciously experiencing. I'm obviously not saying that the present is conscious experience.

It means defining "the present" precisely how it appears directly from our experience of it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You can't see time; it doesn't appear at all.

So the conscious experience of being present is not the same thing as the present which is being experienced. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't experience the present. The present is when you experience.

the first step is to provide an accurate representation of "the present" in terms of conscious experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

How? What do you mean by "an accurate representation"? What sort of "representation" do you mean? And how could its accuracy be improved?

Then why did you equate "past the human observer" with "past the present" at the beginning of this post? I separated the two for a reason. Then to deny my reasoning, you equated the two. You very explicitly said: "What you call 'past the human observer', I would call 'past the present'", — Metaphysician Undercover

I thought it was understood that we were talking about time, and that you would therefore understand that I was referring to equating the present time with the time of observation. But I guess I overestimated your basic comprehension of the issue.

What makes you think there is a "true independent present"?
— Luke

The difference between past and future, which we discussed a few posts back, which we know about from our conscious experience of being present, indicates that there must be a true independent present. — Metaphysician Undercover

I must have missed that. Can you point me to it? Or, just explain again how the difference between past and future indicates that there must be a true independent present.

The objective definition refers to time which has gone past what and time which has not gone past what?
— Luke

Past the human observer I suppose. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, past the human observer at the present, for that is always the temporal location of the human observer, when all observations are made.

You propose that we ought to define "the present" in terms of the human observer. Coincidentally, I also consider this to be how "the present" is conventionally defined. The present is the time when things are happening, when one is consciously experiencing, when one is acting or making an utterance.

What you call "past the human observer", I would call "past the present", because the present is when each person makes their observations. The present is defined in terms of conscious experience, or the time at which one is consciously experiencing, which is how you believe it ought to be defined.

The issue that you point to here, is part of the reason why I argue that the conventional definition is not good. There is a pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective by referencing "time" instead of the observer, but it is really not very successful. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see any "pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective". "The present" is subjective, as much as "here" is subjective. You seem to be have been disagreeing with this. My only disagreement is your thinking that many people believe the present is not subjective or that it's independent of human observers.

Unless the passage of time is conceived of independently from the human perspective, and "the present" is independent from that perspective, the subjectivity cannot be avoided. An independent, objective "present" is the way I proposed, as how "the present" ought to be defined. — Metaphysician Undercover

You said previously that the present ought to be defined in terms of conscious experience. Do you no longer belive this? Otherwise, how is this independent and objective?

Also, you just complained above that there was a "pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective" wrt the present, but now you want to avoid it?

That is exactly the problem with the conventional definition. "Past" and "future" are defined in relation to an implied human observer. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've been arguing for the past few pages that the present is conventionally defined in terms of the past and future. Now you state (and complain) that the past and future are conventionally defined in terms of the present. Make up your mind. You're all over the place.

Then, to define "present" we simply turn around and replace, or exchange the observer with "the present". From here, we can extend the past indefinitely, far beyond the observer. But this is an inaccurate and invalid exchange, because the two (observational perspective, and present) are not truly equivalent. — Metaphysician Undercover

They're not equivalent, that's right. One is a person and one is a time designation. The only so-called equivalence they have is that the observational perspective is temporally located at the present.

Therefore, what I argued is that we ought to start from the observational perspective, and produce a definition of "the present" which recognizes the difference between the observational perspective, and the true independent "present". — Metaphysician Undercover

What makes you think there is a "true independent present"? You've been saying for the last few pages that the present ought to be defined in terms of the human perspective; of conscious experience. Now you say that we ought to start from there to produce some other definition? Please.

I've had enough. You can't keep track of your own argument and I always get the sense that you're just taking the piss.

We are talking about defining terms, which is completely different from locating places. You can locate a place with "here", but "here" will not serve to define the location because it is completely subjective, and we normally seek objectivity in definitions.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Are you suggesting that the word "here" cannot be defined and has no definition/use because of its subjectivity? It seems to me that the word "here" is very commonly used in our language. If we normally seek objectivity in definitions, then why doesn't this objectivity apply to the word "here"? The word "here" has its definitions and uses.
— Luke

I am not making any statements of necessity, so I am not suggesting anything about how any word "must be defined", or "cannot be defined". That's why I talked about how I think "the present" ought to be defined, and how it actually is defined, by common convention. So subjectivity does not equate with impossibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay then. In response to your previous post, the word "present" does not serve to define the time either, because it is completely subjective. Just like "here".

And right and left are not defined by the perspective of the individual — Metaphysician Undercover

My right and left or your right and left?

And right and left are not defined by the perspective of the individual, who might say "here", they are defined with reference to north south east west; 'stand facing north, and to the east is right. — Metaphysician Undercover

I disagree that "right" and "left" are defined with reference to the cardinal directions, but that's not the important issue here. This is:

They are not defined objectively with reference to the present, the objective definition refers to time which has gone past and time which has not gone past. — Metaphysician Undercover

The objective definition refers to time which has gone past what and time which has not gone past what?

The reference is the passing of time, not "the present". This is the conventional way, as I've argued. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you define the past and future from the passing of time? As shown above, this requires you to use phrases like "gone past" and "not gone past", but then you must specify what it is that these have gone past and not gone past. The past has gone past what? The future has not gone past what? The obvious, and only possible, answer is: the present time. What else could it be?

You could probably just look it up somewhere.
— Luke

Good idea, here is https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/present

"the period of time that is happening now, not the past or the future:" — Metaphysician Undercover

The goal was to provide a definition of the present in terms of the past and the future; to derive the present from the past and the future. I don't see how this example fulfils that goal. I don't agree that this definition of the present is given in terms of the past and the future. There are innumerable things which are not the past or the future.

We are talking about defining terms, which is completely different from locating places. You can locate a place with "here", but "here" will not serve to define the location because it is completely subjective, and we normally seek objectivity in definitions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you suggesting that the word "here" cannot be defined and has no definition/use because of its subjectivity? It seems to me that the word "here" is very commonly used in our language. If we normally seek objectivity in definitions, then why doesn't this objectivity apply to the word "here"? The word "here" has its definitions and uses.

Given your assertion that the present is defined in reference to the past and future, you have once again failed to answer my questions. If we start with only the past and the future and attempt to derive the present from them, then what is the past in the past of, and what is the future in the future of? What determines the location of the present in between the vast temporal regions of the past and the future? And what determining factor(s) can we find within the past and the future that might help us to narrow down the present to less than the duration of a millennium?

Likewise with the present, "now". So to define a place, we refer to the surroundings, and to define the present we refer to past and future. This is because of the desire for objectivity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Provide an example of how you can define the present with reference to the past and future. Since you have acknowledged that past and future are not synonymous with memories and anticipations, I trust that your example will indeed demonstrate how the present is defined with reference to the past and future and not with reference to memories and anticipations.

You should have no trouble if this is the conventional definition, as you claim. You could probably just look it up somewhere.

The above description conveys a precise, scientific measurement of the unit of time known as "one second." — ucarr

Where are the terms "past", "present" or "future" used in that description?

OK, so we've advanced in our agreement here. present, past, and future, are all defined by experience. Now the issue is the way that these are related to each other. What I proposed, which you expressly do not agree with, is that the convention is to take past and future as the real defining features of time, and position the present relative to these. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not see that as being the convention at all. I don't know where you get this idea from. Once again: in that case, the past and the future would then be in the past and the future of what? You can't start with the past and future and determine the present from there, because the past and the future are in the past and in the future of the present, by definition.

The convention is to locate "the present" in terms of one's temporal location, (e.g. when one is experiencing, when things are happening) much like we locate "here" in terms of one's spatial location. If you do not define the present in terms of one's conscious experience or when events are happening or when one is acting or speaking, then what is the determining factor in deciding when the present is situated between the past and the future?

If you agree - as you state above - that the present is defined relative to experience in this way, then why do you also claim that the present is defined relative to the past and the future? The present cannot be defined relative only to the past and future, as I argue above, because then there is no reason to narrow down the duration of the present to less than a millennium. That is hardly the convention.

Evidence of this, is that "the present" is often understood as the divisor between past and future, and that "the present" is relative, according to the relativity of simultaneity. — Metaphysician Undercover

The relativity of simultaneity tells us that two events that appear simultaneous for one observer may not appear simultaneous for another observer. When each observer experiences these observations is their present time. It does not follow from this that the present is defined by the past and future.

Also you provide evidence of this convention by insisting that future consists of "what will be" instead of as "possibility". The latter is how the future actually appears to us from our experience of being present, while the former, which is your proposal is how you contrive "the future", in order to facilitate your position of "the present" as a divisor between the two. — Metaphysician Undercover

I reject your presupposition that "past, "present" and "future" must be defined in terms of how things "actually appear to us from our experience". There is nothing necessitating that all words must be defined or used this way.

I do acknowledge though, that there is more than one conventional way as to how present, past, and future are all related to each other, and that there are conventions which make "the present" the defining feature, and then position past and future relative to the present. This is the way I say that these terms ought to be defined. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is how they are conventionally defined. Otherwise, what would the past and future be in the past and future of?

Defining the terms in this way helps us to properly understand and represent the difference between past and future. Acknowledging this difference makes us recognize the discontinuity between past and future, and this indicates that the representation of time as a continuity cannot be true. The discontinuity is exposed by properly understanding the future as consisting of possibility rather than making "the present" a continuity between what has been and what will be. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't follow how the conventional definition does any of this.

You deny the possibility of free will by saying that the future consists of "what will be". As I explained. — Metaphysician Undercover

A compatibilist free will is entirely consistent with "what will be".

I think this is the science underlying what MU has been debating with Luke. — ucarr

As far as I'm aware, "past", "present" and "future" are not terms that have any technical scientific meaning, and are not terms that are commonly used for any precise scientific measurements.

Why do we need an argument or premise for the passage of time? How about this: time passes such that what is yet to happen becomes what is happening becomes what has happened.
— Luke

It's called "justification". Such propositions are meaningless if not supported by experience or evidence. I could propose this: time passes such that what has happened becomes what is happening, becomes what will happen. Why would your proposition be more acceptable than mine? — Metaphysician Undercover

According to what you say here, my proposition would be more acceptable because it's supported by experience.

The future is what will happen regardless of, or including, our expectations of what will happen.
— Luke

As I told you, this is incorrect. The future consists of possibilities, not of "what will happen". That is the mistake of determinism. — Metaphysician Undercover

If this is a "mistake" of determinism, then it must also be a "mistake" of free will. I do not exclude our free choices from influencing what will be. Moreover, it must equally be a "mistake" that reality is the actualisation of only one outcome.

f I plan and book an overseas holiday, I might end up taking it, but something unforeseen might prevent me from going. We'll see what happens.
— Luke

Exactly as you say, the future consists of "we'll see what happens" (meaning numerous possibilities), not "what will happen". — Metaphysician Undercover

Only one outcome will happen. You may note that I do not preclude the (very likely) possibility that my planning and booking an overseas holiday will lead to me actually going on it.

There is no such thing as "the reality of what will come to pass", the reality of the future is possibility. What comes to pass only becomes real when it comes to pass. — Metaphysician Undercover

Something must come to pass in the future one way or another. This is not irrespective of our efforts and decisions, but because of them (at least, to the degree that we can influence those outcomes).

I said that we have defined the present according to conscious experience. Now if we want to give past and future positions relative to the present, we must refer to conscious experience as wel — Metaphysician Undercover

I can agree to this: that we define the present time relative to the time we are consciously experiencing, that we define past and future times relative to the present time, and that we remember the past and anticipate the future. What I don't agree to is your recent statement that what follows from this is that the present time is therefore defined relative to past and future times. For example:

the present is then actually defined in terms of past and future, because being and existing are described as having memories and anticipations. — Metaphysician Undercover

We need a premise concerning the passing of time, to get from the present as what is happening, to "what has happened" and "what is yet to happen". — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do we need an argument or premise for the passage of time? How about this: time passes such that what is yet to happen becomes what is happening becomes what has happened.

In the case of "what has happened" we have memory to refer to. In the case of "what is yet to happen", it is much more difficult because of the way that we look at the future in terms of possibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, we think about it this way until it becomes what is happening, and then the possibilites are reduced to one actuality.

So as much as we like to think of the past as what has happened, we cannot think of the future as you propose. Therefore we cannot describe the relationship between past and future, nor the passing of time, until we have a better premise about the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see the problem.

We act to cause what we want to happen, and prevent what we do not want to happen. — Metaphysician Undercover

The future is what will happen regardless of, or including, our expectations of what will happen. If I plan and book an overseas holiday, I might end up taking it, but something unforeseen might prevent me from going. We'll see what happens.

So as much as we might truthfully say that we think of the past in the terms of what has happened, we cannot truthfully say that we think of the future in terms of what will happen. This is because we have some degree of choice about what will happen. And that creates all sorts of dilemmas and anxiety about what one can and cannot do, and what one ought and ought not do, etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover

The future is not the plans or anticipations, but the reality of what will come to pass. Just as we can have false memories, we can make false predictions.

The issue though, is that we've agreed that "present" ought to be defined in terms of conscious experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

The present is not a psychological event, and neither are the past or future. They are periods or divisions of time. What is defined in terms of conscious experience is the time of the present; when the present is.

Without reference to memory we have no way to derive a "has been" because all that can be present to the mind would be what is happening. — Metaphysician Undercover

The past is that period of time when events have already happened. This is not limited to what anyone remembers, because there is a period of the past that happened before there were any conscious beings. How do you account for the period of the past that nobody was around to remember? Do you consider that as part of the past?

How else would you propose that we could define "past" and "future" in terms of the present, when "present" is defined in this way? Without reference to memory we have no way to derive a "has been" because all that can be present to the mind would be what is happening. And the future would be a similar situation, we'd have all sorts of activity occurring, but no premonitions about what might be about to happen, or what was needed. So I don't see how we can bring our minds to the bigger picture of "has been", and "may be" (or something like that) without referring to these other parts of our experience of being present. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't deny that we remember the past and anticipate the future, but memories are not the past and anticipations are not the future. The past, present and future are those periods of time when real events have happened, are happening and will happen.

The definition of "present" is independent of the definitions of "past" and "future". The present is defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc; not in terms of the past and future. As I have repeatedly told you, it is the past and future which are defined in terms of the present, not the other way around.
— Luke

I agree that "the present" ought to be defined like this. Where we disagree is whether this is the convention. I do not think that it is the common practice. Maybe just some philosophers think that way. I think it is more common to define "the present" as "now", where "now" signifies the division between past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see any difference. It follows from the definition of "the present" as that time when things are happening, etc., that the past is what has happened and the future is what is yet to happen. Therefore, the present does signify the division between past and future. What difference do you see?

What I ask for is how are these terms conceived. We have the present, as being and existing. The question is how is "has been" different from "will be"? You cannot say that one is past and the other future, because these are what we are trying to define, so that would be circular. — Metaphysician Undercover

The past and future are both defined in terms of the present, and the present is not defined in terms of either the past or the future, so there is no circularity. I already explained how they are different: "has been" was present and "will be" will be present.

What I proposed earlier is that we refer to memory and anticipation, as what distinguishes past and future. Do you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that we remember the past and anticipate the future. I don't agree that memory and anticipation distinguish the meanings or definitions of the terms "past" and "future".

But then we see that "being and existing" gets defined in terms of having memories and anticipations — Metaphysician Undercover

How does that follow? You said in the first quote above that you agreed the present should be defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc. Why do you now say that "being and existing" get defined in terms of memories and anticipations?

so the present is then actually defined in terms of past and future, because being and existing are described as having memories and anticipations. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't agree that "being and existing" gets defined in terms of having memories and anticipations. But neither do I see how it follows from this that the present is actually defined in terms of past and future. Memories are not the past and anticipations are not the future. We experience both memories and anticipations in the present; they are about the past and the future, but they are not the past and the future. Furthermore, when are "being" and "existing" described as having memories and anticipations?

So what I proposed earlier is to describe being and existing in terms of sensing, which is the more immediate activity of being present. — Metaphysician Undercover

I might agree if you mean sensations that we are consciously aware of.

Still, we are within the present, and have not yet found the means to define past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

What was wrong with the definitions of "past" and "future" that I gave?

The past is what was present. The future is what will be present. — Luke

As I said, your original question was incomprehensible to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

Before now, I don't believe you ever said my question was incomprehensible. When did you say this? What do you find incomprehensible about the question: "Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time"? Your original response did not express any incomprehension.

Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time? If not, then how do you reconcile this with your view that the present time is defined relative to one's conscious awareness? — Metaphysician Undercover

The part which followed "if not..." was a very poor representation (straw man) because the "view" I am arguing is how I think "present" ought to be defined, not how I think it is defined. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yet, you now claim to have been providing the conventional definition of "the present" in your initial response. It's quite a coincidence that the "conventional" definition you provided there was identical to how you thought it ought to be defined.

Also, how was my question a straw man? I was seeking clarification of your position.

I am arguing is how I think "present" ought to be defined, not how I think it is defined. The difference between these two is the point of this discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hence my questions seeking clarification of where your position differs from the conventional view.

In this case, I am the author, so I can explain what I meant by any particular passage. It's ridiculous for you to think that you can interpret what I meant better than I can myself, and then claim that what I meant was to contradict myself. Some other authors might be insulted by your behaviour, but I just find it very childish and silly — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't believe that you were providing the conventional view on page 3, as you now assert in defence of your contradictory statements. If that were the case, then why was the conventional view that you provided there precisely the same as your argument (at that time)? If you have been arguing for an unconventional definition from the outset, then how is it that the conventional definition you provided was exactly the same as your unconventional definition (at that time)?

What's childish and silly are the obvious lies you have given to account for your contradictory statements, rather than acknowledging that your shifting position has been a result of my questioning and that your argument cannot support your attempts to overturn conventional grammar.

In my understanding, presentism is inconsistent with the conventional definition of "present", because presentism treats past and future as unintelligible, which is clearly not the common convention. — Metaphysician Undercover

The definition of "present" is independent of the definitions of "past" and "future". The present is defined in terms of when things are happening, occurring, existing, one's awareness, an utterance, etc; not in terms of the past and future. As I have repeatedly told you, it is the past and future which are defined in terms of the present, not the other way around.

Based on what we agree on, we have only "the present", defined in terms of being and existing. How does "did happen", or "will happen" enter your conception? — Metaphysician Undercover

I've explained this several times and it's not difficult. If "the present" is defined in terms of being and existing, then "did happen" is synonymous with "has been" or "did exist" and "will happen" is synonymous with "will be" or "will exist". The past is what was present. The future is what will be present.

If the present is a flowing stream of time that commingles with the past on one side & the future on the other side, most we conclude logically that past/future, like the present, are flowing streams of time? — ucarr

Only one “stream of time” is required.

If we say that “the present” indexically refers to the time at which you are aware, and that the past and future are determined relative to the present, then I think it can be considered in 3 ways:

(1) Time is flowing by you. The past is the time that has flown by you (already) and the future is the time that will flow by you (later).

(2) You are moving/flowing through time. The past is the time you have passed through (already) and the future is the time that you will pass through (later).

(3) A combination of (1) and (2).

I note that you were not referring to convention here, but to your own opinion.
— Luke

Yes I was referring to the convention, and I really think that's obvious. I also think it's very childish of you to be arguing in this way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Please see the full quote from page 3:

Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time? If not, then how do you reconcile this with your view that the present time is defined relative to one's conscious awareness?
— Luke

I think I may have said that earlier, that past and future are defined relative to present. But now I see I may have misspoke on this as well. I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future, which are defined relative to conscious experience. This means that conscious experience gives to us, past and future, as the memories and anticipations which I mentioned, and from this we derive a present. "The present" is derived from conscious experience, but from an understanding of the elements of it (past and future).

So what we call "conscious awareness", or the conscious experience of the present, is really an awareness of the difference between past and future. Since these two are radically different, yet appear to be in some way a continuum, we conclude that there must be a "present" which separates them. What I am arguing is that this separation between past and future is a misrepresentation, a misunderstanding, as the present is really a unity of the past and future. This unity would be the basis for the conception of the "unit", parts united. The "unit" you mentioned above fails as being completely arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover

My question and your original reply will provide greater context for my responses below.

It is my opinion, of the convention, read through it. It continually refers to "us", and how we have produced these conceptions. It is a correction of what I said earlier, because earlier I said that I could see no coherent way to define the present by reference to past and future. But then I realized that this is actually the convention for defining time, and it is coherent. It is coherent, but as I argue from that point onward, mistaken. It is mistaken because it is not properly grounded with true premises (it divides future and past instead of uniting them) but it is still logically coherent. — Metaphysician Undercover

My question to you was whether you agreed that past and future are defined relative to the present time. I did not ask you about what you had said earlier, that "the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present". I did not ask what is "coherent" to you, or whether you find it coherent to define the terms this way. I find it odd, then, that this is how you understood my question about whether you agreed that past and future are defined relative to the present time. I find your present explanation - that your response to my queston was a correction to what you said on page 1 about coherency - dubious at best.

So, I was definitely referring to convention at that point, not to my opinion of how "Present" ought to be defined. Also, I said that I was mistaken earlier, in reference to having said that I could think of no coherent way to define present by reference to past and future. That was my mistake, because I later realized that this is the conventional way, and it actually is logically coherent, just flawed in premises — Metaphysician Undercover

You expect us to believe that, on page 3, you were expressing the conventional view of how "past",
"present" and "future" are generally used or defined? In that case, I find it incredible that the conventional view you presented there was exactly the same as your own view, that "the present" is defined relative to past and future, which are defined relative to conscious experience. As you originally went on to explain, "This means that conscious experience gives to us, past and future, as the memories and anticipations which I mentioned, and from this we derive a present."

Obviously, you didn't need to give your opinion of how "present" should be defined, because the conventional view you are now pretending to have expressed on page 3, and your own argument or opinion, were both 100% identical. But I think we both know that expressing the conventional view is not what you were trying to do.

The past is defined as what has gone by in time
— Metaphysician Undercover

The past is defined as what has gone by what (or gone by when) in time?

The future is defined as what will come in time
— Metaphysician Undercover

The future is defined as what will come to what (or come to when) in time?The answer to both of these questions is: the present.
— Luke

No, the present does not go by, nor is it yet to come. — Metaphysician Undercover

I never said that the present goes by or is yet to come. In case it was unclear, I asked:

What is it that the past goes by in time?
What is it that the future will come to in time?

The answer to both these questions is: the present.

I agree that the present is defined relative to experience or being, but I disagree that it is not conventionally defined this way. The present is conventionally defined in relation to (or as the time of) being, existing or happening, and the past and future are conventionally defined relative to this, with the past as what has been, has existed or has happened, and the future with what will be, will exist or will happen.
— Luke

I've never seen "the present" defined like this. — Metaphysician Undercover

Presentism defines the present in terms of existence. Most conventional/dictionary definitions define the present in terms of things happening or occurring now or at this time. In philosophy and grammar, it is common for the present to be defined in terms of the time of an utterance.

I've never seen "the present" defined in terms of your argument, despite your dubious claim that you were presenting the conventional view on page 3.

How do you propose that we proceed to define "past" and "future" in reference to this duration of time as being or existing at the present? — Metaphysician Undercover

I've already answered this. The present is what is happening or occurring; the past is what did happen or occurred; and the future is what will happen or occur.

I'm trying to get clear on your position. Back on page 1, you said:

I say that the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then, on page 3, you said:

I think I may have said that earlier, that past and future are defined relative to present. But now I see I may have misspoke on this as well. I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future — Metaphysician Undercover

I note that you were not referring to convention here, but to your own opinion. You made a correction to what you had said earlier. You said that you "misspoke on this". You were responding to my question about reconciling your views.

Then recently, on page 5, you said:

I define past and future relative to the present — Metaphysician Undercover

So I'm left wondering:
Did you misspeak when you said "the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present" on page 1? Or:
Did you misspeak when you said ""the present" is defined relative to past and future" on page 3? Or:
Did you misspeak when you said "I define past and future relative to the present" on page 5?

The past is defined as what has gone by in time — Metaphysician Undercover

The past is defined as what has gone by what (or gone by when) in time?

The future is defined as what will come in time — Metaphysician Undercover

The future is defined as what will come to what (or come to when) in time?

The answer to both of these questions is: the present. Past and future are defined relative to the present. The past could be defined as what has "gone by" the present and the future could be defined as what will "come to" the present (or 'come to pass' the present).

I do not define the present as an overlap between the past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, this contradicts what you said earlier:

The overlap is the true nature of what the present is, and what time is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time consists of the two aspects, past and future, and where these two are observed as overlapping is known as the present. Refer back to my Venn diagram explanation. There are two overlapping categories, past and future, and where these two overlap is called the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

This could not be misconstrued as anything but you defining the present as an overlap between past and future.

That there is such an overlap is a logical conclusion which is produced from defining present by conscious experience, instead of defining it in relation to past and future as is the conventional way. — Metaphysician Undercover

To define the present relative to the past and future is not "the conventional way". As I stated in my previous post, it is conventionally the past and future that are defined relative to the present.

I don't disagree with your claim that the past and future are defined relative to the present, because that is how they are conventionally defined. That's not controversial. What's controversial is your belief that you are going against convention in this respect.

You are, however, going against convention with your argument that the present is defined as a combination of the past and future. This definition is unconventional. Furthermore, this does not define the past and future relative to the present, as per convention, but the opposite; you are defining the present relative to the past and future.

You really don't pay attention to what I write sometimes Luke. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's hard to keep up when you keep changing your argument.

The present ought to be defined relative to conscious experience, and from this we'd derive the conclusion of an overlapping past and future. It took me a while at the beginning of the thread to realize that the problem with the conventional conception is that "present" is defined relative to past and future rather than conscious experience. That is why my understanding of "present" which is based directly in conscious experience is so different from the conventional. Making the present the separation between the mutually exclusive past and present, instead of defining it in a way which is based directly on experience, creates the problem I've been talking about. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree that the present is defined relative to experience or being, but I disagree that it is not conventionally defined this way. The present is conventionally defined in relation to (or as the time of) being, existing or happening, and the past and future are conventionally defined relative to this, with the past as what has been, has existed or has happened, and the future with what will be, will exist or will happen.

Your confusion stems from your belief that "past", "present" and "future" refer to psychological events instead of time periods. Memories are not the past, and anticipations are not the future. Memories are of (or about) the past, and anticipations are of (or about) the future.

What is relevant is when you are actively thinking, remembering or anticipating. Or, when you are actively doing anything, or just being. The time at which you are doing any of these things, that any of these things are happening, is the present. The past and future are defined relative to this.

Here is more of your earlier quote, by the way. From page 3 of the discussion:

Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time? If not, then how do you reconcile this with your view that the present time is defined relative to one's conscious awareness?
— Luke

I think I may have said that earlier, that past and future are defined relative to present. But now I see I may have misspoke on this as well. I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future, which are defined relative to conscious experience. This means that conscious experience gives to us, past and future, as the memories and anticipations which I mentioned, and from this we derive a present. "The present" is derived from conscious experience, but from an understanding of the elements of it (past and future).

So what we call "conscious awareness", or the conscious experience of the present, is really an awareness of the difference between past and future. Since these two are radically different, yet appear to be in some way a continuum, we conclude that there must be a "present" which separates them. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, I think that what is really the case, is that "the present is defined relative to the past and the future". That is the conventional definition, as I explained in my last post, It is "what is really the case". What I am proposing is something other than the conventional definition. My proposition is that we ought to define past and future relative to the present. This is not "what is really the case" it is what I believe ought to be. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is evidently false. You have it backwards. The past and future are conventionally defined in terms of the present.

You, on the other hand, are proposing that the present is defined in terms of the past and future, because you define the present as an overlap between the past and future.

I may respond more fully later, but I wanted to note the following for now:

I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future — Metaphysician Undercover

I define past and future relative to the present — Metaphysician Undercover

(1) "The present" is the temporal region in which the past and the future are combined.
(2) "The past" is the temporal region which is not combined with the future.
(3) "The future" is the temporal region which is not combined with the past.

Can you see that there are two different definitions of "the past" and "the future" here?
— Luke

Of course, 2 contradicts 1, and is not part of my conception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then what is your conception? How do you define "the past" and "the future"?

There is "the past" which is not part of "the present" (call this P1), and "the past" which is part of the present (call this P2). There is also "the future" which is not part of "the present" (call this F1), and "the future" which is part of the present (call this F2).

Can we not distinguish P1 from P2 and F1 from F2? Most people call only P1 "the past" and only F1 "the future", with "the present" as its own distinct third period of time that contains neither P2 or F2 (inside it) and to which P1 and F1 (outside it) are relative. I think you sometimes revert to this common usage, too.

I think this common usage is apparent in your claim that at the beginning of time there is all future and no past, and that at the end of time there is all past and no future. For what are "the past" and "the future" relative to in this scenario?

In your argument, the past and future are not defined relative to the present, as it is per common usage; instead you define the present relative to the past and future, as an overlapping region containing parts of each.

So why would there be all future and no past at the beginning of time on your view? This appears to be defining past and future relative to the present, with the present presupposed at the beginning, and all of time as F1 outside it.

But what do you call that part of the future that lies inside the present? Do you call that “the future” or do you call that “the present”?
— Luke

You can call it either one, or both, depending on the context and what you are trying to say. What do you call those animals who are also human beings? Do you call them human beings, or do you call them animals? Obviously, either one, or both, depending on the context and what you are trying to say. — Metaphysician Undercover

Obviously what I meant was: in the context of your argument, do you call it "the future" or "the present"?

I'll try another way. Do you agree with the following definitions?

(1) "The present" is the temporal region in which the past and the future are combined.
(2) "The past" is the temporal region which is not combined with the future.
(3) "The future" is the temporal region which is not combined with the past.

Can you see that there are two different definitions of "the past" and "the future" here?

If the past is not combined with the future as per (2), then how can the present be a region in which the past and the future are combined, as per (1)? Seems like you have two definitions of "the past".

If the future is not combined with the past as per (3), then how can the present be a region in which the past and the future are combined, as per (1)? Seems like you have two definitions of "the future".

Presumably, you will say that I have it all wrong, and that it instead should be:
(4) "The past" is the temporal region which is both combined with the future and not combined with the future; and
(5) "The future" is the temporal region which is both combined with the past and not combined with the past.

Then what becomes of (1)? It follows that "the present" is the temporal region in which (4) and (5) are combined. Therefore, "the present" spans all of time, as do the past and the future.

Perhaps we could define it a bit better and say:
(6) "The past" is the temporal region which is both combined with the future (in the present) and not combined with the future (in the future?); and
(7) "The future" is the temporal region which is both combined with the past (in the present) and not combined with the past (in the past?).

Hopefully, you can see that these definitions are circular.

Put more simply, you are attempting to say that:
(8) "The past" is the temporal region which combines the past and the present. And:
(9) "The future" is the temporal region which combines the future and the present.

Sorry Luke, I just can't see your point. Look, "animal" exceeds "human being", and "animal" is distinct from "human being". However, there is overlap because some animals are human beings. — Metaphysician Undercover

That analogy would hold only if you were arguing that a human being is a combination of an animal and something else.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?