,


So... you have a personal preference for a complete answer that is wrong over an incomplete answer that is right?

Why should I care.

So... you have a personal preference for a complete answer that is wrong over an incomplete answer that is right?

Why should I care. — Banno

Why should anyone speak anything but English if all that can be said can be said in it?

It seems you are far to clever to be understood.

Moving past your sarcasm. . . your going to speak something and with that have the biases or blinders on from the central concepts you have as axiomatic in it. Other axiomatic systems can make certain conceptual connections easier to find or make explicit even if that is possible in the other but with extensive over-complication. None of them are more 'right' or 'wrong' than the others and it's perhaps nonsense to suppose that of languages which have equal ability to talk about the world.

ok.

We perceive motion as continuous because it appears as continuous. If continuity means without stopping, then it is not deceiving our senses at all. There are two points on continuity. — Corvus

If what appears as a continuity is really a succession of distinct locations, then the senses are deceiving us.

What seems to be clear is that continuous movement is the result of our perception. Without perception, continuity doesn't arise in the movement, or even the movement itself. — Corvus

Then it appears like you would say that perception is deception.

Whatever the case, time is not needed for the motion logically. — Corvus

I don't understand this claim. How would the ball's existence at one location be distinguished from its existence at another location, other than on the basis of this being at two different times? Or would the ball just be everywhere all at once?

We describe a melody as "moving from start to finish"; we say the pitches "go up" or "go down"; we say that a tune is "slow" or "fast". In fact nothing like this happens -- there is no physical entity doing any "moving". — J

The ear is very complex, and it's parts are moving, so there are physical entities which are moving. It's just that description, that the tones are moving, which is inaccurate. In reality if there was a physical entity called the melody, it is an arrangement of parts, which can't really be moving because that would mess up the arrangement.

If what appears as a continuity is really a succession of distinct locations, then the senses are deceiving us. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, and so perhaps the mind spatializes the succession as well as the continuity.

The ear is very complex, and it's parts are moving, so there are physical entities which are moving. It's just that description, that the tones are moving, which is inaccurate. In reality if there was a physical entity called the melody, it is an arrangement of parts, which can't really be moving because that would mess up the arrangement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that's it. Yet the illusion is extremely strong.

Maybe listen to more slide?

Why shouldn't a tone move? Why restrict movement to physical objects alone, or to changes in place. The PIE root is *meuə-, to push away; found in emotion, and momentous, and mob, and mutiny...

And I don't see any reason to suppose that a pitch "moving up and down" is metaphorical - high roads are of more import, not altitude; is that too high handed? Is it high time I got off my high horse?

Continuity is a pretty clear notion. Instantaneous velocity makes sense. That such things confuse some when considered in fine detail does not detract from the fact of their practicality. It's what can be done with such language that counts.

Yes, and so perhaps the mind spatializes the succession as well as the continuity — PoeticUniverse

I think that this is the point. The mind spatializes the thing which we sense as a temporal continuity, and it is the spatialization which creates distinct frames in succession. But the spatialization of time does not provide an accurate representation.

Yes, that's it. Yet the illusion is extremely strong. — J

Sense perception is the only means we have for understanding the world around us. If the understanding of the world which sense perception produces, is an illusion, then the illusion is bound to be a strong one. As philosophers, we take on the task of getting beyond the illusion. This is illustrated by the famous allegory of the cave. The illusion is so strong that most will not even understand that it's an illusion.

Why shouldn't a tone move? — Banno

If a tone changes, up or down, it becomes a different tone. The same thing happens to colour.

If a tone changes, up or down, it becomes a different tone. The same thing happens to colour. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yep. Or almost. The tone moved up, or down. Which tone moved up? That one. Then it moved down. The tone of that tone changed... The first "tone" is an individual, the second an attribute. The attribute of that individual changed - perhaps in pitch, perhaps in timbre, perhaps in volume.

It's the same tone, with a different tone.

The colour of that wall changed - did you paint it? The colour of that wall is still the colour of that wall, even if it moves from red to green. The more things change the more they stay the same.

:lol:

Just to slow “things” way down and see if I know what you mean (or if you know what my questions are getting at, either way.)

In a discussion framed in time, you said:

their practicality. It's what can be done with such language that counts. — Banno

Are you drawing a distinction between language on the one hand and practicality, the what can be done on the other?

Continuity … Instantaneous velocity … things confuse — Banno

Do these things refer to a practicality within language, or a practicality among things being done?

What counts? The one (ie. velocity, continuity, practically any thing), its other language, or both?

The tone moved up, or down. Which tone moved up? That one. Then it moved down. The tone of that tone changed... The first "tone" is an individual, the second an attribute. The attribute of that individual changed - perhaps in pitch, perhaps in timbre, perhaps in volume. — Banno

I think I’m saying the same thing but would say it like this:
In a field of overlapping fields, I gather or isolate tone A. Then I put it down and subsequently isolate tone B, which is higher in pitch. I’ve identified two individuals: low tone A and then high tone B. Next I gather tone A and subsequent tone B together as one Tune. So calling it a single changing tone is possible by gathering differently from the well of overlapping fields, and seizing two tones in one tune. I’ve still just gathered one thing, but that one thing is two tones.

Close to what you were saying. I’m just not putting the agency in the tone, I’m not saying “the tone moved up or down”. And I’m not making it so that I have to explain how, because of the language I’ve used , how A becomes B, how A becomes not-A. I’m recognizing that identifying tone A is the same as identifying subsequent higher tone B, is the same as identifying the changing Tune C. It’s identifying anything at all. To explain the change you need to fashion a seemingly wider, longer single unit, namely, the single tune, fashioned or identified with the many different single tones it is. It’s all singles, whether it is identity (tone) or identities with motion (tune).

There is a probably terrible song in there somewhere called “singles only” or maybe “nothing changes”.

bear in mind, any series or collections of tones is only a tune when somebody recognises it as such. ‘It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure’ said Einstein.

Subconscious mind is unverified esoteric idea, Hume wouldn't have had been interested in it, even if he was alive now. — Corvus

Did you know that the conscious mind has limited memory so-called working memory? At any given time, it can access only three to five items. If the answer to this question is yes, then where are the rest of the memories held? Moreover, accepting that the rest of memories are held somewhere that I call subconsciousness, how could the conscious mind access these memories without a constant flow of information from the subconscious mind?

Subconscious mind cannot be verified, or used as basis for reasoning. It is just a postulated character of mind. It is hidden or sleeping most times, hence it cannot give you any knowledge on the world.
It can be used for explaining the reason for irrational aspect of human actions, but it is not taken as objective or verified knowledge. — Corvus

See above.

If what appears as a continuity is really a succession of distinct locations, then the senses are deceiving us. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perception is the mental presentation of reality.  Calling perception as deception sounds like a typical vulgar or children's understanding.

Then it appears like you would say that perception is deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ditto. :D

I don't understand this claim. How would the ball's existence at one location be distinguished from its existence at another location, other than on the basis of this being at two different times? Or would the ball just be everywhere all at once? — Metaphysician Undercover

Time doesn't exist until measured.  Time doesn't exist in space and time.  Objects and movements have nothing to do with time.  Time emerges when objects and movements are perceived as a secondary quality. How and why should the ball exist everywhere all at once?  That's not a philosophical reasoning.

how could the conscious mind access these memories without a constant flow of information from the subconscious mind? — MoK

When subconscious mind is sleeping all the time, how can it remember anything? Memory is not stored in anywhere. The content of memory is not cheese or bread or water. We just remember past events and objects, or we don't, if forgot. Memories are the types of ideas we recall from past. They don't get stored. Storage only makes sense for physical objects.

See above. — MoK

See above.

When subconscious mind is sleeping all the time, how can it remember anything? — Corvus

The subconscious mind is always active and does not sleep! Dreams are created by the subconscious mind.

The content of memory is not cheese or bread or water. We just remember past events and objects, or we don't, if forgot. Memories are the types of ideas we recall from past. They don't get stored. Storage only makes sense for physical objects. — Corvus

Now you are denying that memories are not stored in the brain! Did you know that people with Alzheimer cannot recall their memories because a part of their brain that holds memories is damaged?

The subconscious mind is always active and does not sleep! Dreams are created by the subconscious mind. — MoK

Can you prove that?

Now you are denying that memories are not stored in the brain! Did you know that people with Alzheimer cannot recall their memories because a part of their brain that holds memories is damaged? — MoK

This is off-topic. This thread is not about Alzheimer folks. You can discuss this in the lounge mate.

In Huma and Kant, there is reality out there happening in the world. What we are seeing is phenomena of the reality. The phenomenon comes in via perception in the form of impressions and ideas. Hence we are not really seeing the reality, but the phenomenon.

Because they we are perceiving the phenomenon in impressions and ideas, we can analyze them with reasoning. We can stop them, rewind them and even predict them too. You seem be talking about the reality which is not accessible via perception totally disregarding the way our perception works.

It is not perception is deception, but all we have is perception on the reality in Hume and Kant. The reality itself is not available to us.

Can you prove that? — Corvus

The dreams are produced by the subconscious mind. Moreover, the subconscious mind remains active even when we are asleep, constantly processing information and regulating bodily functions like breathing and heart rate, while our conscious mind rests.

This is off-topic. This thread is not about Alzheimer folks. You can discuss this in the lounge mate. — Corvus

It is very related to the topic!

The dreams are produced by the subconscious mind. — MoK

A wrong premise. We see some images in dreams. Dreams are not produced by subconscious mind.

It is very related to the topic! — MoK

It is a medical topic.

I am done with you.

I am done with you. — MoK

Well, confused mind cannot last too long in its vacuous journey of blabs.

You constantly deny things, such as elementary particles, subconscious minds, etc. You are basically denying science in general. When things are discussed with you to the depth, you then say that you are not denying anything at all! And I am going to ignore your insult! I am done with you!

If you have nothing to say, you just say "denying", which is not true. Nothing was insult to you, but just counter arguments against the nonsense.

The first "tone" is an individual, the second an attribute. The attribute of that individual changed - perhaps in pitch, perhaps in timbre, perhaps in volume. — Banno

Looks like equivocation to me.

The colour of that wall is still the colour of that wall, even if it moves from red to green — Banno

Again , equivocation. Consider the difference in the meaning of "colour" in the follow two phrases. "The colour of the wall is green", and "the colour of the wall".

One of the interesting things you can do with language, equivocate.

Did you know that the conscious mind has limited memory so-called working memory? At any given time, it can access only three to five items. — MoK

Trying anything more than that would probably cause a migraine.

If you have nothing to say, you just say "denying", which is not true. Nothing was insult to you, but just counter arguments against the nonsense. — Corvus

Why don't you criticize your knowledge constantly? Why don't you appreciate when you learn something new by saying ok I learned something new, instead of denying that you didn't deny anything?

Trying anything more than that would probably cause a migraine. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, probably. I know that migraine can disrupt the conscious mind's ability such as thinking though.

Pointing out your misunderstanding is not denying, but giving you the real truths and guidance to your learning journey.