I agree, I will probably never be capable of understanding how you can determine through a person's behaviour, what they are really referring to with their words, in distinction from what they think they are referring to, and that what they are really referring to is something other than what they think they are referring to.

You'd have to first show me how this is not a case of you prioritizing the wrong evidence. When we want to understand what a person is referring to, we first and foremost consider the person's choice of words, context of words, as evidence. The context of words in relation to other words forms the primary evidence of what the person is referring to. Other behaviour is secondary evidence. In some cases, especially in cases of a mistaken choice of words, the two distinct forms of evidence appear contrary to each other. Then we have a problem of interpretation, and may find secondary evidence to be a key factor. But to choose secondary evidence in priority over primary evidence, on a regular basis for interpretation, is to me, a big mistake.

So in order to make me understand your claim, you'd have to demonstrate why you think that secondary evidence is more reliable as the basis for interpretation of words, than primary evidence is.

I have a background in both music and philosophy. I taught music for awhile, including teaching some private students. What this is reminding me of is a student I had who had a serious learning disability. It took me a year to teach him the concept of major scales. He eventually got it, sort of, but it was a challenge to say the least. — Terrapin Station

I think my learning disability is much more serious than this. I really don't think I'll ever "get it".

So in order to make me understand your claim, — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, in able to aid your understanding of my comments, I'd have to get at whatever rudimentary issues are causing you to not even be able to parse a simple sentence such as, "What I'm doing is looking at what actually obtains in relation to how terms/concepts are being used, from more or a 'behavioral' perspective."

You've repeatedly been incapable of understanding very simple sentences I've written, as evidenced by me having to repeat the same thing again and again in different words after you've either shown no sign of being abel to cognize them at all, or alternately after you attempted to paraphrase my comments, but the paraphrases showed gross misunderstandings.

I think my learning disability is much more serious than this. I really don't think I'll ever "get it". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, either that or it's essentially trolling.

What I'm doing is looking at what actually obtains in relation to how terms/concepts are being used, from more of a "behavioral" perspective. Thus, when people are believing myths, fictions, ambiguities, incoherencies, etc. (as might be the case with various terms/concepts/etc.) we can talk about what's really going on in relation to those terms/concepts/etc. with respect to things that do exist. — Terrapin Station

OK, I think I'm starting to understand what's going on here. You are assuming that "time" does not refer to anything real, you are treating it like a fiction, or something that does not exist. That's what you insinuate with this passage. I thought it was clear from prior discussion in this thread, before you joined, and the op itself, that we are discussing time as a real thing. The op does allude to the possibility that "the moment" itself is not a real thing, but I thought it was clear that we were assuming time to be a real thing in this thread, and this is the thing we are discussing, time. There is no suggestion that time might be a myth or fiction, only that the "moment" might be a fiction.

Of course, if you want to debate whether or not the word "time" refers to something real, that's a slightly different issue. You however, seem to begin from the assumption that "time" does not refer to anything real, and you proceed to give meaning to the word from that perspective. I think that this is way off track of the op, and that's why I'm having difficulty understanding what you're talking about. We have opposing assumptions, I assume that "time" refers to something real, and you assume that it does not. Then we proceed in our separate directions, me talking about a real thing called "time", and you assuming that I am talking about some fictitious thing, without ever establishing any consistency in our assumptions. In other words, we have no agreement on what we are talking about. It's as if I were talking about God to you, not realizing that you are atheist, so that all the time that I refer to God, you are thinking that I am talking about a fictitious thing. But if I'm not atheist, and truly believe in God, then I am not talking about a fictitious thing, I'm talking about a real thing, and you really haven't got a clue what I'm talking about.

All this time, I thought you were talking about the same thing as me, a real thing called "time", when in reality you were talking about a fictitious thing called "time". I now see why we have no degree of understanding on this issue

OK, I think I'm starting to understand what's going on here. You are assuming that "time" does not refer to anything real, you are treating it like a fiction, or something that does not exist. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oy vey, hahaha. It's like you're not quite able to understand anything I write.

I wonder what you'd think I'm saying if I were to write, "My user name on this board is Terrapin Station."

Oy vey, hahaha. It's like you're not quite able to understand anything I write. — Terrapin Station

Ever consider the possibility that this says a lot more about you than it says about me?

Sure. My conclusion? That possibility is incorrect.