When's your next album coming out, Alanis? — Bartricks

:rofl: Album alanis? All bum? All anus? Hugh Janus? Is that the extent of your toilet philosophy Bortricks or is there more?

Don't be sore, Hugh. Just read the OP and try and engage with the argument.

No. Why are you asking these questions? — Isaac

Because they're directly relevant.

No, a sensation is a mental state. This:

A sensation is the response from a sensor. — Isaac

is circular and uninformative.

Look, you're clearly just a dogmatic materialist who hasn't got any interesting arguments to offer, just nay saying. It's boring.

Huge anuses don't get sore Fartracks. And they don't attempt to engage with imaginary arguments either.

Zinger.

You haven't answered my question - if there's a giant ball and you're tiny by comparison and are stood on a tiny bit of it, how would things look from there? Flat, yes? So there's no illusion. — Bartricks

If the effects of events take time, the information about events takes time, to reach the perceiver who will naturally perceive the event as occurring, being present, when its effects have already acted on her senses and been registered in her brain, that's exactly what one would expect and hence there's no illusion of presentness, just as there's no illusion of flatness in the earth seeming flat. It's a good analogy; if you don't agree then explain why you don't think it is a good analogy.

If your sensation represents the event that happened in the past to be happening in the present, then the sensation constitutes an illusion. For what it represents to be the case is not, in fact, the case.

But if you are very tiny and stood on a giant ball, then nothing your visual sensations are telling you is not, in fact, the case. That you can't see you are on a giant ball is due to your location, not a failure in sensation.

Tell me, what tune started playing in your head halfway through that second paragraph? I'm betting it was "Ding dong, the witch is dead, the witch is dead dobidobidoo, do do be dobedoobedoo"

If your sensation represents the event that happened in the past to be happening in the present, then the sensation constitutes an illusion. For what it represents to be the case is not, in fact, the case. — Bartricks

By the same kind of reasoning if your sensation presents the Earth as being flat, when it is in fact spherical, then the sensation constitutes an illusion.

Feeling the event to be present is no more a "failure of sensation" than feeling the Earth is flat; the event seems present when you experience and the Earth seems flat as you experience it.

Moreover, if you reasoning or feeling convinces you that you have a good idea what is going on in my head then your reasoning or feeling constitutes an illusion.

Look, you're clearly just a dogmatic materialist who hasn't got any interesting arguments to offer, just nay saying. It's boring. — Bartricks

I'm not here to entertain you. I'm here to point out the flaws in your argument If you don't want public critique of your arguments then I suggest you stop posting them on a public discussion forum.

No, you have zero entertainment value. You haven't highlighted a flaw. Like I say, you're just a nay sayer.

exactly so other appearnaces show you that there is a lag. and this is repeatable. So, there's a lag, even in an idealistic universe. Substance doesn't matter, no puns intended. Multiple observers with some technology can repeatedly demonstrate this. We don't just assume, even in non-materialisms, that first appearanced are correct. Including the appearance of simultaneity. Just like we don't assume there has to be water when we see an illusion of an oasis in the desert. It's not that the later conclusion that the first sighting was an illusion denies that one experienced something that looked like an oasis. It's just that we find, through testing, so to speak, that it can seem that way, but there is no oasis. And again multiple observers can show the problems of just taking first impressions as the case. In the case of the lag, the other experiencers with devices can notice the lag. Whose appearances/observations to we go with? Fortunately there is a way to reconcile the different observations by positing a lag. Denying there is a lag causes problems for other observers.

I said very clearly in the op that there can be no lag if idealism is true. (It's possible for there to be a lag if idealism is true,but there is no reason to think there would be one). That's precisely why the appearance of presentness implies idealism. Explain why you think there would be a lag if idealism is true

In idealism there can be no time delay between events/objects and their perception because there's no object/event outside of perception to cause such a delay.

If light speed were infinite you wouldn't be able to know which is true, idealism or materialism. Time doesn't exist for light: according to some scientists though it takes 8 minutes for light to travel from the sun to the earth, for light it happens instantaneously.