Could it be possible that his death is premeditated but not occurring at the same time as he perceives it really? — Paul24
Since time appears like a flow to us, could it be possible that the past, the present and the future be as one? — Paul24
So if we assume your premise that the present is a change between the past and the future is true then how can you explain the space-time continuum? It is represented as a continuity not a discontinuity in time. — Paul24
Past may be determined and fixed, but it must also enter into the very horizon that we experience as the 'present'. Otherwise there would be no sense of the continuity of meaning and purpose from moment to moment. The present arises out of a background context that it is at the same time continuous with and differs from. — Joshs
The source of the confusion in different comprehensions of time is the systematic substitution for differently experienced times, the absence of the rigorous clarification of theThe problem with this idea is that we notice a very distinct difference between past and future. Things in the past are determined, fixed, and there is no possibility of changing them. Things in the future are to some extent undetermined, and there is possibility involved with what will or will not occur. It is this difference which give "the present" meaning. It is not the appearance of "flow" which gives the present meaning, because if there were no difference between past and future, "the present", with the associated flow, could be at any point on the time line, with a flow occurring.
So the idea that "flow" is the defining aspect of the present, is flawed and misleading. Once we reject this notion, and see the present for what it is, as the division between future and past, we get a completely different perspective on the apparent "flow". The change from future to past, as time passes, no longer appears as a flow, but it appears as a change. The two are radically different because "flow" is represented as a continuity, and change is represented as a discontinuity — Metaphysician Undercover
Once we reject this notion, and see the present for what it is, as the division between future and past, — Metaphysician Undercover
One can have an experience of the “flow” even without reflection
on time, without applying the notion of the past and the present. It is a basic experience of some change, a passive synthesis, the living present. — Number2018
So, we can define “flow” as “this living present.” — Number2018
The key quote from James is :"What we hear when the thunder crashes is not thunder
pure, but thunder-breaking-upon-silence-and-contrasting-with-it. Our feeling of the same
objective thunder, coming in this way, is quite different from what it would be were the thunder
a continuation of previous thunder." — Joshs
It must be understood instead as akin to a fabric changing its textural shape as a whole, in a breeze .It is not a matter of reductively determining each state of the fabric by reference to a previous state, because the attempt to do so further transforms the sense of that past. — Joshs
It is not a matter of reductively determining each state of the fabric by reference to a previous state, because the attempt to do so further transforms the sense of that past. — Joshs
There is a way of continuing to be the same differently that eludes the reifications of conceptual logic, a kind of referential but not deterministic consistency, that accrods better with actual phenomological experience of the world — Joshs
"One must determine something which remains unchanged for a period of time, and this is continuity". What you are describing is a mathematical abstraction. It is a device that we invented as a tool in our attempts to make sense of the world. But other than pure mathematical objects, there is no such thing as pure continuity in the world of meaningful experience. — Joshs
As far as continuing to be the same differently, if you repeat a word to yourself over and over(or glance at it on a page), the sense of the word will change. This effect applies to any meaning we attempt to repeat. If you want to preserve 'same' to mean pure mathematical identity, then, what we intend to mean when we repeat a meaning continues to be similar to itself by at the same time differing from itself. This is non-logical continuity, the way our unfolding experiences belong to patterns and themes while always transforming in subtle ways the very meaning of those patterns and themes. — Joshs
In order to notice a flow one must recognize a past. And this is the same with "change", in order to notice change one must have memory of the way things were. So without bringing the past to bear upon the present, all that would be evident would be what is present, and there would be no indication of flow or change.
So, we can define “flow” as “this living present.”
— Number2018
So I disagree with this. If there was only present, there would be no flow at all. The flow is the activity which is the future becoming the past. These future and past, are necessary for flow. — Metaphysician Undercover
think that our disagreement is caused by different applications and meanings of the terms of “flow,” and “the living present.” Your comprehension of “flow” belongs to a reflective conscious experience of time. Whereas I think of “the living present” as related to the different subjective time - at the level of the first passive synthesis. — Number2018
Hume takes as an example the repetition of
cases of the type AB, AB, AB, A .... Each case or objective sequence AB is
independent of the others. The repetition (although we cannot yet properly
speak of repetition) changes nothing in the object or the state of affairs AB.
On the other hand, a change is produced in the mind, which contemplates:
a difference, something new in the mind. When A appears, we expect B
with a force corresponding to the qualitative impression of all the
contracted ABs. — Number2018
This is by no means a memory, nor indeed an operation of
the understanding: contraction is not a matter of reflection. Properly
speaking, it forms a synthesis of time. A succession of instants does not
constitute time any more than it causes it to disappear; it indicates only its
constantly aborted moment of birth. Time is constituted only in the originary synthesis which operates on the repetition of instants. — Number2018
I believe that Husserl referred to this synthetic activity of mind with regard to concepts an 'idea in the Kantian sense', a meaning that can be repeated indefintely as self-identical. For Kant the objectivity of science is secured transcendentally via the categories which make infinitization and ideality possible. Husserl modifies Kant by dropping the trasncendental categories of perception and instead locating the basis of ideality in the interative self presencing within the tripartite structure of time consciousness. — Joshs
Question: do we really want to hold with either Kant or Husserl concerning a trancendental justification of ideality? IS there something in the self that comes back to itself identically moment to moment as it interacts with a world? If not, then pure ideality never is able to constitute itself in consciousness.
Outside of number itself as empty self -identical counting, is there anything in the mind's abstractions that meaningfully returns to itself identically? This was Derida's argument , as well as Merleau-Ponty's. The idea in the Kantian sense is a solpsism, ignoring the embodied basis of thought. — Joshs
This synthesis is passive because it is not carried out by the mind, but occurs in mind, which contemplates, prior to all memory and all reflection.what do you mean by "passive synthesis"? — Metaphysician Undercover
there is no such thing as a repetition of the very same AB, AB, over and over again. Each new moment is particular, and brings something new, something changed. So there is no such thing as a pure repetition of AB, and this is why a mind is necessary right at this point. The mind abstracts and creates the repetition of AB, by removing the unnecessary differences which distract. — Metaphysician Undercover
If there were not a repetition of physical stimuli in the surrounding environment, there would be just chaotic and quick changing, so that the basic living organisms would not be able to sustain any kind of the necessary stability and succession. So, there is the external material repetition of a kind AB, AB, AB… Or, 123C4, 123C4, 123C4…we can callto truly understand time itself we need to go back to the occurrences which the mind abstracts from, when it creates the repetition of AB, and understand the nature of these. — Metaphysician Undercover
If the first passive synthesis constitute “the living present of now,” and the fundamental property of this particular present time is to pass, to become substituted for another present. To grasp the former present in “the current present,” the mind has constituted the new instance of memory.it actually is the mind with memory, that synthesizes time — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.