I find this “image” to be beyond my ability. — Thinker

I don't know why that would be, unless you're conflating what you know about with how you know it.

For example, how do you deal with the phrase/concept 'change over time'? — Roke

It's simply change A relative to change B

Sure, which supports my position that time is a specific type of change. Squares are rectangles, but squares and rectangles aren't the same thing.

Anyway, you said you were interested in time. Would it have meant the same thing (to you) if you said you were interested in change? What is it about change that's interesting. I don't want to get too caught up in semantics, I just want to know more about the part you find interesting.

Sure, which supports my position that time is a specific type of change. — Roke

What? How?

Would it have meant the same thing (to you) if you said you were interested in change? — Roke

Yes, since the two are identical on my view. This is a view I've been developing for decades, by the way.

I'm interested in ontology in general.

I don't know why that would be, unless you're conflating what you know about with how you know it. — Terrapin Station

I don’t think it is a conflation because I can think about my thinking. Or I can think about not thinking which would be to me – not thinking. Not thinking is a still mind, however I am aware. I am conscious. I am aware of not having thoughts. I just am. I have never experienced – not being – or at least I am not aware of it. Perhaps I have been at some time in my life, but I am not aware of it. By definition it seems I should not be able to be aware of nothing.

I think if time were simply change, neither of us would be as interested in it as we are. Indeed, you've given a remarkably uninteresting account of it. Fair enough. If you'd like to elaborate, I'd like to consider. I think the concept includes something extra that is inextricably to do with us.

?? I don't think we're at all talking about the same thing. You can know about things that aren't you. That's not the same as how you know about them.

I think if time were simply change, neither of us would be as interested in it as we are. Indeed, you've given a remarkably uninteresting account of it. Fair enough. If you'd like to elaborate, I'd like to consider. I think the concept includes something extra that is inextricably to do with us. — Roke

Time by itself does not seem to have awareness. However change implies a perceiver – a watcher.

I think if time were simply change, neither of us would be as interested in it as we are. Indeed, you've given a remarkably uninteresting account of it. — Roke

Well, people get stumped by it, but what it is is really simple (namely, change). That the realization of that might make time uninteresting to folks isn't time's fault. ;-)

However change implies a perceiver – a watcher. — Thinker

No, change is just things in motion/in process, etc. That would obtain whether there were any creatures to do any observing or not.

?? I don't think we're at all talking about the same thing. You can know about things that aren't you. That's not the same as how you know about them. — Terrapin Station

Sorry - I am not clear about what you are saying.

No, change is just things in motion/in process, etc. That would obtain whether there were any creatures to do any observing. — Terrapin Station

I know when a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it – the tree still falls. However when I think of change in my life – it is things I observe.

You can know about something like a rock, say,. The rock isn't you. How you know about it--your perception, etc., isn't the same thing as what you know about (the rock.).

However when I think of change in my life – it is things I observe. — Thinker

Yeah, when you think about change in your life, but don't be so self-centered. Not everything is about you, or about people in general.

You can know about something like a rock, say,. The rock isn't you. How you know about it--your perception, etc., isn't the same thing as what you know about (the rock.). — Terrapin Station

Sorry - I am not clear about what you are saying.

Yeah, when you think about change in your life, but don't be so self-centered. Not everything is about you, or about people in general. — Terrapin Station

From whose perspective do you want me to think from? Yours – the rock. I cannot get out of my skin. This is the only place I have to think.

You'd have to describe that in some detail in order for there to be any hope of it making sense to me. — Terrapin Station

As Thinker mentioned, the experience of a still mind, for instance. Meditation can lead to a state of perceived, momentary changelesness. Awareness and thinking are different states. They can overlap, or not.

Another way that time and change interact is through perception of time, like I've been saying. The more aware we are of the passage of time, the slower our perception of it; the less aware we are of the passage of time, the faster our perepction. You can think of spiritual experiences as an acceleration of that faster perception, to the point of indistinguishability.

Also, you haven't answered me this question:

Where is change happening for you? Physically? Metaphysically? Within space-time? Within experience? — Noble Dust

Sorry - I am not clear about what you are saying. — Thinker

At which point my eyes simply roll.

From whose perspective do you want me to think from? Yours – the rock. I cannot get out of my skin. This is the only place I have to think. — Thinker

The issue is the subject matter, not the perspective.

Meditation can lead to a state of perceived, momentary changelesness. — Noble Dust

How would you know that you're in a state of changelessness? You couldn't be aware of it without it no longer obtaining.

The issue is the subject matter, not the perspective. — Terrapin Station

So tell me about the tree falling in the forest that nobody knows about? What is the significance of this tree?

So tell me about the tree falling in the forest that nobody knows about? — Thinker

Why "that no one knows about"?

Why "that no one knows about"? — Terrapin Station

The tree is symbolic of the vast number of things happening in the universe of which we are unaware. Things that change over time which in relation to us is almost everything. What is the significance of these changes that we are not aware of ?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

Answer my question and I'll answer yours — Noble Dust

I missed your question? My bad - I thought I was replying to Terrapin Station. Please answer both because I am not sure where we are going?

I have to walk my dog...............

As a general comment, I had been quite attracted to ignosticism for a long time because it almost perfectly summed up my irritation with arguments for and against the existence of God, especially those found on the Internet. Despite my profound disagreement with his politics, I found myself in agreement with Chomsky when he says "...if you ask me whether or not I'm an atheist, I wouldn't even answer. I would first want an explanation of what it is that I'm supposed not to believe in, and I've never seen an explanation." Schopenhauer says something similar in his later manuscripts: "As soon as anyone speaks of God, I do not know what he is talking about" (italics his).

Speaking anecdotally, I find that most people tend to employ the word God, whether in ordinary conversation or even in an academic setting, as if it were utterly translucent in meaning. If one were to ask the average person today to define the word "God," certain patterns to their answers might emerge, but one would still be left with as many vague, obscure, and possibly bizarre definitions as there were people whom one asked. As for the patterns that do tend to emerge when people are formally polled, sociologists have summarized them as amounting to a kind of moralistic therapeutic deism, which has very little to do with classical conceptions of God.

I now tend to view ignosticism more as a method than a fixed position with respect to all "God-talk." In other words, it's an invitation to employ and encourage Voltaire's famous dictum to define one's terms before a debate. It might be that some definitions of God are incoherent, but it doesn't follow that because some of them are incoherent, or that because those one has hitherto come across are incoherent, that they are all incoherent. Moreover, it could be that the charge of incoherency is made to hide an unwillingness or inability to try and understand certain conceptions presented. Difficulty of understanding does not equate to incoherence. Take Schopenhauer on this point, for example. Outside of reading a bit of Augustine and selections from Francisco Suarez, he never made any serious attempt to acquaint himself with the philosopher-theologians associated with classical theism of the ancient and medieval periods. It's one thing to dismiss the muddled beliefs of the masses with respect to God but quite another to ignore how the most philosophically sophisticated theists have conceived of the term, all the while pretending that one's exasperation about the term's apparent meaninglessness applies to all attempts that have been made to explain it.

I prefer the general terms Divine, Source, Creator/Creation, etc. I usually try to avoid the "G" word so as to sidestep self-contradiction — 0 thru 9

I don't find that these terms are any more helpful or less vague than the term God.

The tree is symbolic of the vast number of things happening in the universe of which we are unaware. Things that change over time which in relation to us is almost everything. What is the significance of these changes that we are not aware of ? — Thinker

What does talking about something that no one knows about have to do with what I was talking about though?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours. — Noble Dust

I had answered that, but I guess it wasn't clear that it was an answer. I said, "On my view, everything extant is physical, but that's not necessary for the view of time I'm forwarding." So change occurs physically (which is also a metaphysical truth about it--ontology being metaphysics). Changes occur in experience, too, of course, and experience is physical as well.

What does talking about something that no one knows about have to do with what I was talking about though? — Terrapin Station

Ok – I am done having the dog walk me………….

I like the moniker of Noble Dust. It seems like a person that calls itself a small being in relation to the universe, but noble. However, I think of our entire planet as Noble Dust in relation to everything else – and noble - just a thought.

Time, by itself does not have volition or so most of us think. Change that happens coincidentally with time does not have volition – presumably for most change. Both are just things that happen everywhere. However, change which happens in relation to us may have volition connected with it. It is connected through our perception and/or initiation of action. So, change is a multidimensional thing. However time is still just time or so it seems.

However, what if change and time are initiated by God? Then our understanding becomes a bit more complex. Change and time are very handy phenomenon’s that have been placed in play. I don’t think we can definitively answer whether change and time are initiated by God or not. The puzzle, though, still remains before us. So, as philosophers what are we to do? I think the best rule of thumb is to work from what we know.

Did my dog walk me or vice versa? It is a matter of perspective – is it not? When I say - “do you want to go for a walk?” My dog says – ruff – ruff and wags her tail. I imagine she is thinking – “Oh, I going to take this guy on a long hard walk”. I get the leash and off we go, both of us content we are leading the adventure. I think both of us are right. Our phenomenology may be different, but both are valid respectively. My dog has great consciousness and intelligence – many times greater than mine. Should I lecture my dog that there is no God or that there is a God? What’s the point? I know I love my dog and that she loves me – I don’t care if she believes in God or not.