I don't think you guys are still talking about how we perceive time. — god must be atheist

I’ll cop to that. I reject that we perceive time in the first place, so don’t bother with talking about how we do it.

That, and I reject that missiles nest. How absurd!!!!

I change the wording and grammar too often. I think you got it right though, as far as understanding the context.
I would equate the skyscraper example to a virtual network that is capable of time perception, imaging, decision making...or everything the cerebral cortex is known to do.
And not in modules like the evolutionary psychologists would theorize...what are they thinking? Would you grab a hand shovel if you had a D8 Cat dozer ready in the back lot? Of course not. How silly.
Think of it as a vast virtual network with enormous capabilities in one package.

deleted duplicate.

Time (age, past, present, future) does not exist.
Time is an imaginary (PSYCHE = inside-brain effect = undetectable) -
elicited, made up, fabricated,
FROM/ABOUT things changing.

These things can be PHYSIS = non manmade fraactions of the universe
or manmade things called clocks.
Manmade things are LOGOI = the expression- = assertion of the evolved-primate PSYCHE.
any precise measurement of time is just a proclamation of time,
and not in the least a detection let alone an observation of time.

The essential answer is:
Time is per se = as such, it-self, on its own, in its own right, in its very essence
undetectable = cannot be investigated in the slightest.

Many people have a hard time at understanding
that, while time does not exist
the proclamation (LOGOI) !!!OF!!! time are extremely useful = TRUE.

This assertion is applicable to each and every element of physche,
for an example to other parameters in the language of physics, to laws, and to gods

The essential answer is:
Time is per se = as such, it-self, on its own, in its own right, in its very essence
undetectable = cannot be investigated in the slightest. — steppo25

It seems you sort of restated my original premise, maybe, maybe not. But why would you give up on understanding the psychology of time?
My view is physical matter exists only in the present and that leads to the question of why and how we perceive past, present and future.

My view is physical matter exists only in the present and that leads to the question of why and how we perceive past, present and future. — Mark Nyquist

We perceive in the present, remember the past, and anticipate the future.

If I remember correctly, until now, physical matter has always been found to exist in the future.

I did ask for opinions and you can never guess what might turn up. I like it.

If I remember correctly, until now, physical matter has always been found to exist in the future. — Luke

As for psychology, I think it might be correct.

I reject that we perceive time in the first place — Mww

We don't need to perceive it directly. We can compute it, and we do. You don't perceive three-D images, either, but you put the two 2-D images your eyes receive and then compute it into three dimensions.

Sure we perceive time, one way or anther. If we did not, why would we have a word and a concept attached to it? Human language is the extension of models of reality, and for what we don't perceive, and for what we can't conceptualize, we don't have a name.

Aside from that, the very title of the thread is "How do we perceive time?"

I gave it a shot in the dark and nobody shot back so I must have something. Or everybody is out of bullets and they ran off. :smirk:

There was some middle of the night stuff about sex I read a day later.
Maybe that's why.
I did get through your list of neuro philosophers on Wikipedia. Too much there to comment on. I do like bringing other fields into philosophy to get perspective. Did you know the average mass density of the universe is about one hydrogen atom per four cubic meters? Really sparse. Seems significant to philosophy. We are kind of in a sweet spot here on the surface of planet earth.

I'm suggesting our brains handle time in a generalist way in our cerebral cortex.
What am I going to eat for my next meal? I have forty dollars in my wallet. Where are my car keys? What time is it? I should get a hair cut. I need new shoes.
Do you see, the way we actually deal with time it's just part of the mix, like car keys or shoes.

We don't need to perceive it directly. We can compute it, and we do — god must be atheist

No, technically, we do not; we compute duration or succession, and represent such computations with everything from clocks to scratches on a wall. Flowers bloom under conditions right for them, but it is only with respect to humans, that flowers bloom in the spring. Spring, of course, a human conception, having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with flowers themselves. Just as the first directly visible light from the sun on Earth itself has nothing to do with “morning”.
—————-

for what we don't perceive, and for what we can't conceptualize, we don't have a name. — god must be atheist

Not “and for”. “Or for”. Your language makes explicit we must perceive all we name, which is obviously not the case. It follows that iff there is no perception of time as such, and yet time is nonetheless a name for something, it only names a conception, which can be argued to be the case without contradiction. Whereas time as a perception, is full of them, one for each and every instance of treating time as an object. Misplaced concreteness writ large? I mean....if time is perceivable, shouldn’t we be able to smell it?

What we don’t understand and for what we can’t conceptualize, we don’t have a name....is perhaps a better description of the human condition. Now, if time is something merely understood, we have reason to name it, but we have no occasion for, and are relieved of the absurdity of, smelling it.
—————-

Human language is the extension of models of reality — god must be atheist

Absolutely. Human models described by human language derived from human experience.
—————-

the very title of the thread is "How do we perceive time?" — god must be atheist

Yep, and I understand you mean that to ask that question presupposes the truth of it, in that we actually do perceive time, and the query simple asks about the means by which such perception occurs. That being the case, I must admit I don’t know how we perceive time.

We can compute it, and we do — god must be atheist

we compute duration or succession, — Mww

Why is it only me who sees you agree with what I say, yet you say we don't agree?

Your language makes explicit we must perceive all we name, which is obviously not the case. — Mww

Actually, no, you must follow conventional protocol.


(1) I have a name for what I perceive.
(2) I have a name for what I conceptualize.
Combining (1) and (2),
I don't have a name for what I don't (perceive or conceptualize). < this is always true only if I have no perception and no conceptualization. If you doubt, build a truth table.
I don't have a name for what I don't perceive and I don't conceptualize.
Therefore I used "and" properly.

I must admit I don’t know how we perceive time — Mww

Again you and I agree.

Why this series of refuting my arguments with arguments that state the same things as I have? Except of course for the negation of the combined condition.

Thinking of time perception as mental content also works well for physical processes like charging your cell phone or filling your gas tank or watching grass grow or waiting for paint to dry.
Or you could ask 180 Proof how it works through homeostasis.

Why didn’t you just say for what we CANNOT perceive and for what we cannot conceptualize, we don’t have a name. No one can beat that horse beyond its expiration date, or, as in my case, no proper yankeevirgobabyboomer can analyze that such that the logical inconsistency of what you did say, becomes glaringly obvious. (Grin)

Time is how we perceive entropy.

Time is how we perceive entropy. — I like sushi

True enough, but we don't care that time is how we perceive, when we wish to know how time is perceived.

Entropy could apply to the thermodynamics of the brains metabolism. Is that what you mean? There is also Shannon entropy and entropy used as an analogy.

That’s a psychological matter that can be applied to language and general cultural traditions.

Without change time cannot be perceived. Entropy is the base to start from if you’re looking at this in terms of physics.

In terms of consciousness our perception of time today (for most of us) is quiet different than several thousand years ago. Today we walk around with beeps, rings and buzzes to enforce the idea of ‘home time,’ ‘lunch break’ or ‘Sunday service’. These cultural traditions imposed on us alter our perception of change.

We ‘perceive time’ today through our traditionally imposed lens (including clocks, timetables and more long running traditions). We have always ‘marked out’ changes in our personal journey as well as out communal journey ... in todays world we’ve carried over certain tokens of this nature and mechanised it.

Our cosmological perspective (our grasping at infinity) is probably a large reason why we’re obsessed with measuring and partitioning time just as it has more recently become a tradition we impose upon the physical Earth with concepts of ‘borders’ and ‘boundaries’ taking a physical significance where in the past they were more fluid or even metaphorical.

If you were talking about something else you’ll have to make it clearer. Anyway, food for thought :)

Oh. Psychological matter.

That lets me out.

I was modeling time perception as mental content that would not be subject to the laws of physical matter. As a psychological matter, It would be more of an analogy and would lose it's mathematical or technical meaning. I'm seeing the ability to observe and process physical change as something done at the level of our mental content held by our cerebral cortex.

Well ... not really philosophy then is it? If you’re talking about the cognitive neurosciences you actually have to lap over into psychology.

delete

I am wondering where entropy theory is coming from. Is it academic programs, publications or comments here?

Thinking of time perception as mental content...... — Mark Nyquist

Thinking as mental content...ok;
Thinking of time as mental content....ok;
Thinking of time perception as mental content....not ok.

Because thinking of time as mental content is already granted, the only way thinking of time perception as mental content can be consistently affirmed, is to treat perception as a function of the mind. If perception is a function of the mind.....what are the senses for?

The way I see it is that time for the purposes of the external world minus consciousness time doesn’t really exist. Things just change. Constant creation and destruction happening simultaneously. Physics demonstrates that a definitive “now” doesn’t even exist due to time dilation under the influence of gravity.

As for the mind and how it perceives time: I think it’s all down to memory. If we did not have memories we would never be aware of a past. And therefore because we do not have a past to compare to the present we also wouldn’t be aware of a future. Future necessitates and awareness of a then and now and then doing simple maths to deduct that now will become a then. Therefore there is an anticipatory element of nows yet to come (the future).

I like to think of the brain as operating like a semi crystalline fluid. A biphasic phenomenon. The “crystals” are the structurally static memories we form from synapses and the fluid is the active present reformation and transformation of those structures constantly being modified. In this case the past are those parts of the brain not actively demonstrating their “plasticity” - ability to remould. This is demonstrated by the fact that every time you revisit a memory you change it because you incidentally add in current perspective, mood and knowledge. This is like the clarity of hindsight. Looking back at something often makes more sense than when it is the present moment because from the present we can track the linear progression of past.

I think WE can sort this out. Go to a dictionary or dictionaries and check the multiple definitions of perceive and perceptions. Also notice how they are used as verbs and nouns.
So what makes sense to me is based on a definition that fits my purpose and I try but don't always specify. You have some ability to pick the best meaning by context. If you're asking if my usage involves the senses, then, no it does not.

How to measure time:

Personal time vs someonelses design

a.k.a

1. when in someonelse's watch (at a job, personal perceptions change and come under compromise)
2. When on your parent's watch( in development)

1. On the heaven;s watch ( centuries a /incl decades eenergies hcange in the centuries in biblical times and changees occur from century to century, denoting several angelical adminsitrations ranging from God to Demons - divided celestial government)
2 city- specific watch ( patterns and behaviorof people for a specific municipality)

Time perceptions and "clocks" change in marriage or parenthood

I understand all that. I’m not begrudging your definitions.

Still, granting that the senses aren’t used in your system of mental content, what part do they play?