Only a human can say that. — Wayfarer

Yes. So? Only a dog barks, or cat meows. You merely argue the non-overlapping aspects, which are acknowledged, but neglect overlap - thus not a complete view. And seemingly with a vicious side, but not really, because the argument merely allows for it but does not either ground or establish it.

Ah. You think "change is successions in time" is an example of a true statements having nothing whatsoever to do with the world!

But the floor changes between here, where it is wood board, and the bathroom, where it is tile. There was all this stuff, post Kant, about time being one of several dimensions. — Banno

However, if that means the flow of time is an illusion because the future and past all exist as part of the block universe, then that is yet another example of how the world is not as it appears to us.

For example dogs hear a familiar sound and think you have arrived home. — Janus

But, that's simple association. Nobody that deny that, I'm not denying that dogs and whales and birds are intelligent. I've had a lot of dogs, some of them understood many words and gestures. One used to bark whenever one of us said Hello, assuming that somebody had arrived.

What I'm denying is their ability to reason and grasp abstract ideas. Why this is even contestable says a lot.

There's a really good entry in Wikipedia on Nous (Philosophy). Worth reading and following up the refs, which I'm doing. I won't digress into it here as it's a huge topic, other than to say that I'm impressed with the idea that there's an immaterial aspect to the human, which is precisely that which can grasp immaterial ideas. Now, I'm not, with Descartes, going to attempt to designate this as a possible object of knowledge, as a 'thinking thing' (res cogitans). It is not an objective reality. But without that capacity, we would be incapable of knowing rational and abstract truths.

So, say you fully accept the evolutionary history of h. sapiens - which I do. At some point in that history, h. sapiens developed the capacity for that understanding. That was intuitively recognised by the Greek philosophers as 'nous'. But then it subsequently became incorporated into Christian theology, and rejected on that account! Now that rejection is so thoroughly socalised in our culture that we'll reject it automatically, without even thinking about it. I'm seeing it happen. That's what the Jacques Maritain essay I keep harking back to, The Cultural Impact of Empiricism, is right on the money. Almost everyone I talk to here exemplifies the very tendencies that he's calling out.

Only a dog barks, or cat meows. — tim wood

Rocks fall down hills. Water corrodes iron. Sunlight heats the earth.

However, if that means the flow of time is an illusion because the future and past all exist as part of the block universe, then that is yet another example of how the world is not as it appears to us. — Marchesk

Not really; just that the world is not always as it appears to us at the moment.

But, that's simple association. — Wayfarer

Association of things with other things is the beginning of intelligence. It's by no means "simple" given the neural complexity of even a dog's brain.

What I'm denying is their ability to reason and grasp abstract ideas. — Wayfarer

Of course they can't grasp abstract ideas, since they are incapable of symbolic language. But that is only the tip of the iceberg of intelligence.

Not really; just that the world is not always as it appears to us at the moment. — Janus

Is that a difference that makes a difference?

Only a dog barks, or cat meows.
— tim wood

Rocks fall down hills. Water corrodes iron. Sunlight heats the earth. — Wayfarer

Gravity, chemistry, energy, v. volition.

What I'm denying is their ability to reason and grasp abstract ideas. — Wayfarer

Why, on what basis? When you apparently have faced the fact of the matter yourself. Deny what you like, but mere denial was never a strong leg in any argument.

That so many caveats have to be made for "the world being as it appears" is evidence the world is decidedly not as it appears. Three wouldn't even be such a distinction if that were not the case.

You're saying that if the world is such that all moments exist eternally, then we cannot see it as it is because we see only the present moment, or the moments which are serially present to us over our lives. But all that shows is that we only see a part of the world, not that the part we see is not seen as it is.

ou're saying that if the world is such that all moments exist eternally, then we cannot see it as it is because we see only the present moment, or the moments which are serially present to us over our lives. But all that shows is that we only see a part of the world, not that the part we see is not seen as it is. — Janus

The flow of time is that we experience the present always turning into the past (in memory), such that the only moment which exists for us is the present. That's why the eternalism view of time is one that had a lot of support prior to Relativity, because it was consistent with how we experience time. We can't visit the future or the past, so it's like they don't exist. But the block universe says otherwise.

The flow of time and the present moment being special (what exists) are what is the illusion if the block theory is true.

However, if that means the flow of time is an illusion because the future and past all exist as part of the block universe, then that is yet another example of how the world is not as it appears to us. — Marchesk

Well, no it doesn't mean the flow of time is an illusion.

Further, the way the universe appears to us is exactly how it would appear to a being inside a block universe. That's rather the point of the description.

Well, no it doesn't mean the flow of time is an illusion. — Banno

According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton’s picture of a universally ticking clock. Even Albert Einstein’s relativistic space-time — an elastic manifold that contorts so that local times differ depending on one’s relative speed or proximity to a mass — is just an effective simplification.

So what does Rovelli think is really going on? He posits that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future. The whole Universe obeys the laws of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, out of which time emerges.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7#:~:text=According%20to%20theoretical%20physicist%20Carlo,t%20correspond%20to%20physical%20reality.&text=He%20posits%20that%20reality%20is,of%20past%2C%20present%20and%20future. — The Illusion of Time

I can find other physicists stating similar things.

Further, the way the universe appears to us is exactly how it would appear to a being inside a block universe. That's rather the point of the description. — Banno

No, the point is it makes sense Einstein's theories, which rather overturned our notions of space, time and gravity. The reason for the illusion is probably because our nervous system creates the illusion for adaptive reasons.

Why bother trying to support a naive realist view of the world when even the ancients could tell things were not as they appeared? Modern science makes a mockery of the naive realist position.

I can find other physicists stating similar things. — Marchesk

Sure, folk say silly things. The way the universe appears to us is exactly how it would appear to a being inside a block universe. That is making sense of Einstein's theories, and anything else would mean that Relativity was not in conformity with our observations.

You misunderstand realism, and as a result your criticism of it repeatedly misfires.

Direct realism is not the view that we perceive the world as it really is, but the view that true statements set out how the world is.

You still haven't said anything there beyond that we only see a part of the world. Which is precisely what you would expect for a temporal being.

Which is precisely what you would expect for a temporal being. — Janus

If that's what we would expect, then why has there been a philosophical debate between A and B-theory of time, where the second maintains that the flow of time is an illusion?

Direct realism is not the view that we perceive the world as it really is, but the view that true statements set out how the world is. — Banno

Direct realism is about perception being direct. Metaphysical realism is what we both agree on in principle as realists, but we don't tend to agree on how we get there.

If that's what we would expect, then why has there been a philosophical debate between A and B-theory of time, where the second maintains that the flow of time is an illusion? — Marchesk

They are two possible views of time that McTaggart could imagine. It's not one or the other but either or both from different perspectives. For us the flow of time, change, is not an illusion; even if, from the "point of view" of eternity temporal succession is just myriad "paths" through the block universe.

There is nothing to say those "paths" are illusory or unreal. In other words, from the point of view of time you might say eternity is an illusion, and from the point of view of eternity you might say time is an illusion. Those 'mights' are there just to indicate that these would just be ways of interpreting the situation.

Yeah, just put your hands over your ears and hum loudly and it will go away.

Of course [animals] can't grasp abstract ideas, since they are incapable of symbolic language. But that is only the tip of the iceberg of intelligence. — Janus

It’s also the point of contention, it’s a difference that makes a universe of difference.

The ‘flow of time’ requires an observer:

The problem of including the observer in our description of physical reality arises most insistently when it comes to the subject of quantum cosmology - the application of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole - because, by definition, 'the universe' must include any observers. Andrei Linde has given a deep reason for why observers enter into quantum cosmology in a fundamental way. It has to do with the nature of time. The passage of time is not absolute; it always involves a change of one physical system relative to another, for example, how many times the hands of the clock go around relative to the rotation of the Earth. When it comes to the Universe as a whole, time loses its meaning, for there is nothing else relative to which the universe may be said to change. This 'vanishing' of time for the entire universe becomes very explicit in quantum cosmology, where the time variable simply drops out of the quantum description. It may readily be restored by considering the Universe to be separated into two subsystems: an observer with a clock, and the rest of the Universe. So the observer plays an absolutely crucial role in this respect. Linde expresses it graphically: 'thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time', and, 'we are together, the Universe and us. The moment you say the Universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness...in the absence of observers, our universe is dead'. — Andrei Linde

(Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life, p 271)

No one is arguing that animals are capable of symbolic thought. Sure it makes a difference; it means we can have an awareness of history, plan for the future, do agriculture, technology, science, religion, the arts, fuck the whole planet etc., etc., etc. Who has denied that?

Who has denied that? — Janus

Why, that would be you:

As I see it it is only a matter of degree, and the advent of symbolism which was enabled by language. I believe animals are capable of basic rational thought to varying degrees. — Janus

‘Rational’ means ‘guided by reason’. Reason requires the capacity for abstraction. And I say that is not not a difference of degree, but of kind.

But, as Maritain said, ‘the Empiricist speaks of and describes as sense-knowledge is not exactly sense-knowledge, but sense-knowledge plus unconsciously introduced intellective ingredients -- sense-knowledge in which he has made room for reason without recognizing it. A confusion which comes about all the more easily as, on the one hand, the senses are, in actual fact, more or less permeated with reason in man, and, on the other, the merely sensory psychology of animals, especially of the higher vertebrates, goes very far in its own realm and imitates intellectual knowledge to a considerable extent.’

Why, that would be you:

As I see it it is only a matter of degree, and the advent of symbolism which was enabled by language. I believe animals are capable of basic rational thought to varying degrees. — Wayfarer

What are you talking about? I haven't said there that animals are capable of symbolic thought. It is your presumption that reason requires the capacity for abstraction, not mine. As I said earlier, when my dog discovers the ball is not on the verandah and immediately concludes that it must be down in the garden somewhere that counts as reason in my book; one possibility is eliminated, so the next is explored.

Having rejected the classical insight of 'nous' and made all knowledge subject to empirical validation......

Pretty sorry state of affairs if you ask me.

..........This is why we nowadays insist that what is real must be situated in space and time (‘out there somewhere’......

Used to be external, or material, was that which is situated in space and time, while the real could be situated in time alone, from which reality in and of itself, is conceived in accordance with the definition, that which exists in a determined time. This allows equal representational validity for planets and judgements.

.........although physics itself seem now to have overflowed those bounds)...... — Wayfarer

Yep, and just like that, what with mental states being brain states, and the observer problem, physics has to come to grips with what the metaphysician always condoned, that the real being internal as well as external, is logically consistent, hence theoretically feasible.
—————

Evolution is a natural processs, but it has generated beings who are capable of seeing beyond the bounds of biology. — Wayfarer

And even if there are those who insist animals are gifted with rational thought, it begs the question, as to whether they think in accordance with rules. If such cannot be proven to be the case....and it cannot because it cannot even be proven that humans inhere with that methodology..... animal “thought” reduces to mere reactive/repetitive instinct. And the human can propose this without contradicting himself, on the one hand because his own at least reactive instinct remains with him, albeit below the consciousness of his mental acuity, and on the other, because his rational thought is direct, dedicated acquaintance, which can never suffice for second-order suppositions. That all brains work the same is nothing but clandestine anthropomophism.

Of course humans are on an intellectual pedestal. We put ourselves there, and that should be the end-all of the discussion.

That so many caveats have to be made for "the world being as it appears" is evidence the world is decidedly not as it appears. — Marchesk

Absolutely. And the greatest caveat is.....in which sense of “appearance” is the world to be taken? Appear as “instill an affective presence”, or, appear as “looks like”.

If the former, the world cannot be other than as the entry it makes into our senses, the doctrine stipulating the passivity of direct perception, insofar as perception itself makes no judgements respecting the objects it receives, and henceforth easily translates to the world necessarily is as it affects the systems receiving it.

If the latter, and because “looks like” implies a non-passive attribution, the world is nothing but that which is actively represented by and within the systems that receive it, the doctrine of indirect realism, which translates to the world necessarily being as it appears as representation, but not necessarily as it appears as an affect.

If there is no distinction between senses of appearance, and given that the human cognitive system is representational, it follows necessarily there can be no distinction in the means for the acquisition of our knowledge. And if there is no difference in the means of our knowledge, it becomes impossible to distinguish whether it is the world as it affects us, or the world as our cognitive system represents the world to itself, that is responsible for the mistakes we make with our knowledge, as its ends.

Ironic as hell, isn’t it, that everything I just said, is rife with caveats. (Sigh)

Sure, folk say silly things. (....) Relativity was not in conformity with our observations. — Banno

You mean...like that little gem? As far back as the historical record shows, this has always been relative to that. How and in what manner this is relative to that may have been at the mercy of era-specific investigation, but all that does is affirm the condition. It’s common knowledge SR wasn’t demonstrated as empirically valid for 35 years after its theoretical possibility was conceived, but thanks to 707’s and transistors, that kind of relativity immediately conformed to our observations of clocks.

I do not understand what you are saying here.

A straight stick looks bent in a bucket of water. A being inside a block universe sees a sequence of events. In both cases we see the world as would be expected under the circumstances.

Never mind. In trying to relate what you wrote to what I wrote, I see I misquoted you.

Sorry.

No worries.

"see the world as it is" is inherently contradictory. "See" is a stand in for perceive. "Perceive" as we know it means to transform signals into a symbolic domain These symbols have no inherent connection with their corresponding signals in reality. Qualia (Red) is totally unconnected to the reality of light at red wavelengths, except by convention. An alien somehow looking into our brains and examining the qualia (red) would have no way of connecting it to red light, absent the convention.

Red light is to (red) as (red) is to "red". "Red" is therefore the result of two symbolic transformations.

This is perception as we know it. Symbolic translation is inherent in the concept. We know nothing else. We don't know what it would mean to perceive the world as it is.