if materialism is true, then given what we know about how our brain responds to the world it inhabits, all our impressions of presentness are going to be false. For on the materialist view our sensations are caused by an external material world interacting with our brains. But although simultaneous causation is surely possible, the simple fact is that the events in the brain seem to lag behind the events they are responses to. — Bartricks
That is, at time t2 I have a sensation. The sensation is of event p. And it has presentness - that is, it represents the event to be now. But if that event actually occurred at t1, then the presentness that I sensed it to have, it would not have. My sensation was present, but what it represented to be present was not. — Bartricks
My point was that if my sensation represents the event p to have presentness, then for that sensation to be accurate the event - not my sensation of it - would need to have presentness. But it wouldn't have if it was actually present at t1, not t2. — Bartricks
If you say that presentness is when the sensation of presentness occurs, then it is not 'of' presentness but is the presentness. — Bartricks
If event p occurs at t1, then it is present at t1, not t2. — Bartricks
I am not denying that an event occurs at t1 and that we are aware of it at a later time t2. I am only denying that we must situate the present at t1 instead of t2. — Luke
My view is that the present moment is when our sensations tell us it is. — Bartricks
What I mean is, if the event of p occurs at t1, would you admit that it is present at t1? It seems to me that you want to say that despite p occuring at time 1, it is present at a later time.....that, to my mind, makes no sense. — Bartricks
That's what I'm saying, too. — Luke
I assume we have been using t1 and t2 as follows:
t1 = the time that an event occurs
t2 = the time that we become aware of, sense, or respond to that event. — Luke
You've just said in the first quote above that the present moment is the time that we are aware of, which means the present moment is at t2. — Luke
Would you agree that we have an impression of presentness? That is, some sensible events appear to be happening now, whereas there are others that appear to have pastness (and then we say that we seem to be remembering them). — Bartricks
Good, so we agree that in order for my sensation that p is present to be accurate, p needs actually to have presentness. — Bartricks
My view is that the present moment is when our sensations tell us it is. — Bartricks
I'm not a materialist. I'm trying to refute it. So we both agree that my sensation that p is present is accurate. I think that's incompatible with materialism though. — Bartricks
My view is that the present moment is when our sensations tell us it is.
So, if I sense that p is present, that is default evidence that p is present.
But if won't be present if materialism is true. It'll be past. — Bartricks
Someone yells across the canyon. You can hear the voice echoing off the walls. Do you think the experience of the voice convinces you the sound was produces immediately? — Marchesk
If the present moment is "when our sensations tell us it is", then p is present when our sensations tell us it is, not whenever p actually occurred. — Luke
1. If materialism is true, the present moment is not where our sensations say it is.
— Bartricks
Why not? — Luke
If event p occurred at t1, then it was present at t1, not t2.
— Bartricks
Why? — Luke
Because my sensation that event p is present will occur at t2, yet event p occurred at t1. — Bartricks
Because if an event occurs at time t1, then it is present at t1, not t2. — Bartricks
That doesn't answer why t1 must be the present moment. Why must the present time be equated with the occurrence of event p instead of when I am aware of it or sense it? — Luke
Because if an event occurs at time t1, then it is present at t1, not t2. — Bartricks
Our sensations represent something to be the case - in this case the presentness of p is what they are representing to be the case.
What could render that impression accurate? A past event? No. For it is an impression of presentness, not pastness.
So only a present event can render an impression of presentness accurate.
Hence why p needs to occur when the sensation of p's presentness occurs if the sensation of p's presentness is to be accurate. — Bartricks
Can you explain to me how your view - that an event can occur at t1 yet be present later than it occurs - makes any sense at all? — Bartricks
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.