What do you mean?

There's as much evidence that all of this is real, as there is that it is an illusion.

So, to be clear, you think that if an event occurs at time t1, it can be present later? — Bartricks

I have said that the present moment needn't coincide with the occurrence of an event, but could instead coincide with our awareness of the event. If the event precedes our awareness of it, and our awareness of the event coincides with the present moment, then the event would be in our past at the present moment. That's not the same as saying "it can be present later". In fact, on your conception of time where the present moment coincides with an event, it would mean "it can be present earlier" - that is, the event would be "present" before we were aware of it. That's what the so-called time lag means, right?

So, event d occurs at time t1. It is present at t1 then. It, the event, is present at t1. Yes?

I cannot say it any plainer than I already have. A direct question derived from your OP.

But :scream: how :chin: do :rage: any :groan: of :shade: us :vomit: know :cry: anything? :worry: :lol: :nerd: :death: :party:

I'll answer when you have answered this
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/717206 .

:vomit: :eyes: :rage: :rofl: How anything know us do?

Who's to say?

it's a concept.

What about eastern ideas?

As usual, another (Dunning-Kruger) OP you cannot defend without either vacuous sophistry or vapid evasion. Poor old Batshitz, wasting everybody's time. GFY, kid. :clap:

It's all subjective :starstruck: Who's to say? :cool: Wikiwikiwikiwiki SEP SEP SEP wikiwikiwiki. :chin:

Now, go away and let the serious discussion continue.

There's as much evidence that all of this is real, as there is that it is an illusion. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, and what about eastern ideas? They're good.

As I have to go away for a few hours, I will continue.

I take it to be a conceptual truth that if event d occurs at time t1 then it is present at t1. If you think an event d can occur at t1, yet not be present until later, then I just think that's a contradiction. When an event occurs is when it is present and when it is present is when it occurs. "It's occuring now, but is it present?" makes no sense.

So, the event d occurs - and so is present at - time t1. That is, d is 'now' at t1. Not after, not before. But at t1. It has presentness at t1. These are just different ways of saying the same thing.

If my sensation of d's presentness does not occur until time t2, then d appears present when it is not. That is, my sensation of d's presentness is false. If materialism is true, then all my impressions of presentness are false. Nothing that I sense to be present is actually present. The event of my sensation of d's presentness will occur after d is present, not simultaneous with it. And that's true of all of my sensations of presentness if materialism is true. So they're all false if materialism is true. Which is why it isn't.

If I understand you correctly - and I am not at all sure I do - then all you are saying is that my sensation of the presentness of d will be present when it, the sensation, is present. Which is true, but beside the point. For the sensation of d's presentness is of d's presentness, not the sensation of d's presentness. And d is not present, it is past.

Yes, and what about eastern ideas? They're good. — Bartricks

Are they? How does anyone know anything?

We are all one in the East. If you fly there you will gradually merge with other passengers into a big ball. That's why lots of planes crash there. Although who's to say? How does anything know anyone?

I take the lack of reply to mean that you now accept that the time lag argument - my version of it - goes through?

There is a sensation of presentness such that when it attends other sensations we get the impression that what those other sensations are representing to be the case is the case presently.

If materialism is true that sensation of presentness occurs after the events that the other sensations are representing to be the case. Thus the sensations of presentness is systematically false if materialism is true.

That something appears to be the case is default evidence that it is the case. As such if a theory about reality has as an implication that a whole range of our impressions are systematically false, then that's default evidence the theory is false.

Thus, the falsity of all of our sensations of presentness if materialism is true is default evidence that materialism is false.

A 4.6 billion year "time-lag" argument for physicalism: :fire:

1. If the perceived present should be the true present, idealism is true.
2. The perceived present should be the true present.
Ergo,
3. Idealism is true. (1, 2 MP)

Refutation: Premise 2 is begging for a supporting argument. Why should the perceived present be the true present i.e. what's the issue with perceptual time lag?

I take the lack of reply to mean that you now accept that the time lag argument - my version of it - goes through? — Bartricks

No, I gave up because you refused to acknowledge what I was saying. I'll try once more.

When an event occurs is when it is present and when it is present is when it occurs. — Bartricks

I realise that is what you are presupposing. But is there a reason why the present (or "now") must coincide with the occurrence of an event? Can you provide a non-circular reason without merely presupposing that it does?

Nothing that I sense to be present is actually present. — Bartricks

In what way do you sense it to be present at t2?

What makes the occurrence of the event "actually" present at t1? (And what event are we even talking about here?)

If my sensation of d's presentness does not occur until time t2, then d appears present when it is not. That is, my sensation of d's presentness is false. If materialism is true, then all my impressions of presentness are false. Nothing that I sense to be present is actually present. The event of my sensation of d's presentness will occur after d is present, not simultaneous with it. And that's true of all of my sensations of presentness if materialism is true. So they're all false if materialism is true. — Bartricks

If the above indicates that your sensations "are all false", wouldn't that make it an argument against idealism? "If materialism is true..." I thought you arguing for idealism being true?

According to Wikipedia, idealism is the view "that reality is indistinguishable and inseparable from human perception and understanding; that reality is a mental construct closely connected to ideas".

If all of our sensations are false, then that spells trouble for idealism.

Thus, the falsity of all of our sensations of presentness if materialism is true is default evidence that materialism is false. — Bartricks

If "materialism is true" implies that the present moment coincides with the occurrence of events, and that there is a time lag between the occurrence of an event and our sensation of that event, then that's what you have been arguing for. Therefore, you are arguing for the truth of materialism (according to the views on materialism you have presented here, at least).

But it is default evidence that materialism is false. — Bartricks

I am not sure how you got to materialism is false. I get that there is an illusion of presentness. But that doesn't make materialism false. It would mean that there is an illusion about part of experience. Materialism could still be correct in the main. And in fact could simply contain this as one of the facets of materialism.
I'm not a materialist by the way, so I'm happy if you can break that old beast in a new way.
You call this presentness illusion a big black mark against the theory. But I don't see it that way. I see it as a consequence of the theory. That's it. Materialism entails that what we think of as happening exactly now is not. Some might put it differently that while the experience is happening right now, what it is representing came a tiny bit earlier.
Some materialists may find this vexing, but i don't see how it means that their ontology - the world is made of matter and so on - needs to be tossed out.

As a side note: it seems to me not being a materialist might lead to different ideas about natalism/anti-natalism. Has it? You can link me if you've already gone into this somewhere.

:up:

Bartricks' is sayin': ~◇(Materialism is true & True present is experienced).

But it is default evidence that materialism is false. And pretty powerful evidence too. — Bartricks

That's a bold statement, even on a philosophical forum. But, I think I see how you equate Materialism and Temporalism as subjective beliefs. For example, Einstein's Relativity (block time) posited that there is no knowable objective time. Hence my T1 and your T1 may not be simultaneous. Our intuitive sense of time, and its passage, is inherently subjective. For an astronaut on Mars, and a scientist on Earth, there is a significant time-delay, even at the light-speed of radio transmissions.

But idealistic humans have built conventional & technological means to synchronize our cultural Time -- measured ever more minutely -- allowing us to pretend (as-if) it is objective. Yet that factual Time assumption is similar to the factual Matter presumption of classical physics. Both were called into question by 20th century Relativity and Quantum fuzziness. Atoms of time, and atoms of matter are now viewed by woke scientists as conventional beliefs, instead of physical facts.

Wheeler's Delayed Choice thought experiment, and various Illusion of Choice experiments, seem [subject to alternative interpretations] to indicate that our sense of control over time and matter are retrospective, not causal. But, the point here is that Subjective Reality is actually Ideality (i.e. mental, not physical). As Kant pointed-out, we only know phenomena as interpreted into mental ideas (noumena).

So, it seems that Plato's postulated perfect "Ideality" may be closer to truth, than our conventional "Reality" of absolute objective Truth and physical Facts. A truly Objective Ideal observer would necessarily be viewing from an omniscient perch outside our system of Space & Time. Those of us players in the Real World game, view the environment from a mobile perspective, in both space (matter) & time (change). From our self-centered viewpoint, Time & Space are synchronized to the beat of our own heart. :cool:


Delayed-choice experiment :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment

I explained in the OP.

Look, if you just take materialism for granted and then interpret data in light of it, then you are not doing philosophy. That's no different from taking christianity for granted and interpreting the data in light of it.

Philosophy is about following reason, not using reason to rationalize your prejudices.

Now, if something appears to be the case, that is default evidence that it IS the case. It's in the OP.

The event appears to be present. That is default evidence that it is present.

If a certain worldview - materialism- implies it is not present, then it follows that the evidence implies materialism is false.

All you are doing is rejecting the evidence on the grounds that it conflicts with materialism.

Refuse to acknowledge what you were saying?? Er, no. I acknowledged what you were saying and explained how it is incoherent nonsense.
You think that if an event occurs at time t1, then this leaves open when it is present.
No it doesn't. It means it is present at t1. Christ almighty!! A bloody 5 year old can understand that.
If you have to say, utterly nonsensically, that event t1 can occur at t1 yet be present later, then you've been refuted.
And the explanation is that there is no way of making sense of what 'occurs at t1' means if it does not mean 'present at t1'.
You - you - try and explain otherwise. Explain what 'occurs at t1' means without recourse to temporal terms such as now or present. Go on.

I don't see how you are engaging with the op

I’ll leave it for now. Maybe we can return to it after you realise you’ve been arguing for the truth of materialism this whole time.

Er, no I haven't. You mean you can't explain to me how an event can occur at t1 and not be present at t1? What a surprise!

If an event occurs at t1, then it is present at t1. If you think otherwise, explain.

If an event is present at t1 - so, it is 'now' at t1 - then that's when it is occurring. If you think otherwise, explain.

And it's NOT an argument for materialism. If materialism is true, then none of our iimpressions of the presentness of events are accurate. That means they're evidence that materialism is false. Not true. False.

If materialism is true, then none of our iimpressions of the presentness of events are accurate. That means they're evidence that materialism is false. — Bartricks

So if materialism is true then materialism is false?

. If materialism is true, then none of our iimpressions of the presentness of events are accurate. That means they're evidence that materialism is false. Not true. False. — Bartricks

If lightning strikes 10 kilometers away from me and you are right there, you will see it slightly before I do. But you will hear the thunder slightly after you see the lightning even though it might seem simultaneous to you, and I will se it several seconds after I see the lightning. We know that the sound of thunder occurs simultaneously with the lightning, they are present together where they occur.

So whose present is the real present? You, being right there, are closer to being present at the actual event than I am, being 10 kilometres away. Remember, the term 'present' has three senses: one temporal, i.e. now, one spatial. that is there and also the sense that events present themselves to us.

No, if materialism is true, then our impressions of presentness are systematically inaccurate.

So, if p, then q.

The default is that our impressions are not systematically inaccurate.

So: not q.

Therefore not p.

'If' does not assert. If you say 'if' you're not saying 'is the case'.