These symbols have no inherent connection with their corresponding signals in reality. — hypericin

Strange then that we can read what you’ve written. (Which is not to say it was worth the trouble ;-) )

If you mean "Are there things that could never be seen" then we move into modality. You will never see a round square, or a four sided triangle, but these are not things, just words put together without standing for anything. There's an interesting debate around whether we might find, say, unicorns on a distant planet; — Banno

I did have in mind things that could never be seen, but not in the way your examples suggest. It would be better to say "could never be experienced " rather than "seen". Things that (I'm assuming) do exist, say the forces between subatomic particles, or the centre of a black hole, which we can't experience.

So their question changes "Can we see the world as it is" to "Can we see the world as it is in itself" or "Can we see the world as it really is". The idea is that there is a world that stands outside our perceptions of it, and hence is outside of our capacity to discern. Further, this world, beyond our ken, is the actual thing. Since we cannot discern the goings on in this world as it is in itself, we cannot make statements about it, let alone true statements. On this view, there is precious little that we can say that is true. — Banno

What if it was just "an actual thing" rather than "the actual thing"?

Symbolic translation is inherent in the concept. These symbols have no inherent connection with their corresponding signals in reality. — hypericin

Symbolic translation is inherent in the conception, but then, how is the brain/mind informed as to which perception is in play, if the symbol has no connection with the signal?

The way the universe appears to us is exactly how it would appear to a being inside a block universe. — Banno

Except that time doesn't pass in a block universe, yet time appears to pass.

To a being inside a block universe, time passes.

How do you know?

News article on block universe

Yes, I understand how the block universe works, thanks for the link.

That link makes exactly the same point that I am making. It uses the term "illusion", which is unfortunate. Time passes for a person inside the block universe. It's not an illusion, it's just what time is from that frame of reference.

That link makes exactly the same point that I am making. It uses the term "illusion", which is unfortunate. — Banno

"Unfortunate" is one way of putting it. Contrary to your view is another, since "illusion" indicates that time doesn't actually pass or flow:

So from our perspective, it appears that time flows or passes. But in the block universe model, time doesn't flow. — the news article

Time passes for a person inside the block universe. IT's not an illusion, it's just how it looks from that frame of reference. — Banno

Can you provide any reference or support for this claim?

Yep. The one you cite:

from our perspective, it appears that time flows or passes.

Yes, you said that already. What support do you have for your claim that:

Time passes for a person inside the block universe. IT's not an illusion, it's just how it looks from that frame of reference. — Banno

Pointing back to the article that states that "in the block universe model, time doesn't flow" seems contradictory.

ETA: the news article doesn't state that the block universe model is true or that we live in a block universe, which you appear to assume without argument.

Same same.

An illusion occurs when something looks like something else, but isn't. It would be an illusion if time appeared to pass, but didn't. The word is being misused. for our perspective, time doesn't just appear to pass, it does pass.

An illusion occurs when something looks like something else, but isn't. It would be an illusion if time appeared to pass, but didn't. The word is being misused. for our perspective, time doesn't just appear to pass, it does pass. — Banno

Obviously time appears to pass, whether illusion or not. But you seem to take this as some sort of evidence that we inhabit a block universe:

The way the universe appears to us is exactly how it would appear to a being inside a block universe. — Banno

It is also exactly how it would appear to a being inside a non-block universe.

Obviously time appears to pass, whether illusion or not — Luke

How could time appearing to pass differ from time passing? What would that difference look like?

It is also exactly how it would appear to a being inside a non-block universe. — Luke

Yep. there is no difference in the observations made.

How could time appearing to pass differ from time passing? What would that difference look like? — Banno

It wouldn't look different. The only difference is that temporal passage is an illusion in a block universe. If the appearances may or may not be illusory, then the appearance of temporal passage shouldn't be regarded as evidence of a block universe. Furthermore, block universe proponents need to provide additional argument or explanation for how we experience illusions in the absence of temporal passage.

Strange then that we can read what you’ve written. (Which is not to say it was worth the trouble ;-) ) — Wayfarer

Damn, you got me. Checkmate.
You don't understand. But looking at your many "contributions" over the years, that is an unreasonable expectation.

how is the brain/mind informed as to which perception is in play, if the symbol has no connection with the signal? — Mww

Of course it is connected. I'm saying it's not intrinsically connected. There is nothing doglike about "dog". You cannot examine the 3 glyphs comprising the word and arrive at canines. An outsider can only look in an extrinsic rulebook to discover it's meaning.

As opposed to a vinyl record. A record has an intrinsic relation to the sounds it captures. It is a time series of sound waves, captured in a different, stable medium, frozen in time. You can literally examine a record and see the sound waves. A clever archaeologist can feasibly deduce what it is, just by examining it. Unlike words, records are in direct, non symbolic, relation with sounds.

And I claim that qualia stand in the first, symbolic, extrinsic relationship with reality. Our relationship with reality is mediated by symbols, and so it is an extrinsic relationship too. The very notion of perception implies this extrinsic relationship. Therefore there is no such thing as "directly see reality", it is a contradiction in terms.

I can't see how what you are saying is any different from what I have said, except that you say that the passage of time would be an illusion, while I say it is real.

To be sure, I do not claim that the appearance of temporal passage is evidence of a block universe.

I can't see how what you are saying is any different from what I have said, except that you say that the passage of time would be an illusion, while I say it is real. — Banno

Okay, but you are contradicted by the article which states:

So from our perspective, it appears that time flows or passes. But in the block universe model, time doesn't flow. — the news article

And you still haven't provided any support for your claim that time actually passes in a block universe.

Since we cannot discern the goings on in this world as it is in itself, we cannot make statements about it, let alone true statements. On this view, there is precious little that we can say that is true. — Banno

You can say, tautologically, that the world as it is is non-perceptual, simply because as soon as you perceive it, it is a perception, and therefore not the world as it is. .

looking at your many "contributions" over the years, that is an unreasonable expectation. — hypericin

But if symbolic form is not at all representative of the world as it is, how could devices such as these operate? After all, symbolic codes of many kinds are integral to virtually all electronic technology.

My 'evidence' is simply that time appearing to flow and time flowing are exactly the same.

Saying that the passing of time is an illusion makes for a neat title. But on analysis, it's not so.

Since we cannot discern the goings on in this world as it is in itself, we cannot make statements about it, let alone true statements. On this view, there is precious little that we can say that is true — Banno

Yes. We have to speak with implicit if/thens to cover our mountains of assumptions.

You woudl still be talking about stuff of which you can say nothing...

My 'evidence' is simply that time appearing to flow and time flowing are exactly the same. — Banno

So the block universe model and the illusion of temporal flow are logically impossible?

Not true. It is what grounds perceptions and makes them possible. From that perspective you can say quite a lot. Science investigates and attempts to model the principles underlying observations.

Hu? Why would you think that?

...or forget this world-as-it-is talk and just get on with stuff.

I've no clear notion of what point you are making in relation to what I have said.

You say there is nothing you can say about things as they are. I'm just making the obvious point that there is plenty you can say, even though things as they are cannot be perceived. Science is the endeavor of doing just that. I'm butting into a conversation I didn't fully read, so I'm probably missing something.

For a machine to do work it must be in direct contact with reality. Otherwise it won't do anything. But the information processing component of machines can be abstract as you like and comprise of many layers of symbolization.

My 'evidence' is simply that time appearing to flow and time flowing are exactly the same.
— Banno

So the block universe model and the illusion of temporal flow are logically impossible? — Luke

Hu? Why would you think that? — Banno

The news article states that "in the block universe model, time doesn't flow", so any appearance of time flowing in the block universe can only be an illusion. Yet you say that there is no difference between "time appearing to flow and time [actually] flowing", which implies that it is impossible that time appearing to flow is an illusion.

Therefore, you are implying that it is logically impossible for temporal flow to be illusory, which implies the same for the block universe in which temporal flow can only be illusory.