I would submit the irreducible awareness, that by which every single human ever, is affected, is change.

No big deal; just throwing it out there.

I would submit the irreducible awareness, that by which every single human ever, is affected, is change. — Mww

Ok. Do you think this equates with "causality"?

Not in the sense of fundamental awareness, I should think. Change presupposes causality, but causality doesn’t rise to immediate awareness, as does, say, motion.

You see that, then you might ask what caused that. If you ask what does this cause, then you don’t have fundamental awareness.

It would seem to me that awareness arises in a fundamental context of meaning. So that unless there is some kind of order or regularity to the change, there wouldn't be a foundation of awareness. Perception arises out of order, order (qua change) requires causality.

Perception arises out of order, order (qua change) requires causality. — Pantagruel

I think perception arises merely from the presence of something to the sensory apparatus. It’s like it just waits around, not doing much of anything until something comes along that presents itself. Perception doesn’t care about order.

Or…..benefit of the doubt….why would perception care about order? How would it know of it? Is ordered perception different than chaotic perception?

But I don’t want to go off on a tangent here. We’re talking about awareness of time.

Or…..benefit of the doubt….why would perception care about order? How would it know of it? Is ordered perception different than chaotic perception? — Mww

I think.

I'm assuming there is some inherent relationship between the genesis of the biological cognitive faculty and the transcendental conditions of consciousness. Some sort of structuration would seem to be required. I think we are only able to perceive chaos against a background of order.

Either the now is already over, or it is never over. Certainly awareness has the characteristic of an ongoing now. Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel

My preference is for William James’ notion of specious time — Joshs

I've been following this thread but didn't feel like I had anything to contribute. Then I tripped over this from Charles S. Peirce last night while reading. When he says "air" in this context, I think he is making the distinction between the notes and the melody.

In this process we observe two sorts of elements of consciousness, the distinction between which may best be made clear by means of an illustration. In a piece of music there are the separate notes, and there is the air. A single tone may be prolonged for an hour or a day, and it exists as perfectly in each second of that time as in the whole taken together; so that, as long as it is sounding, it might be present to a sense from which everything in the past was as completely absent as the future itself. But it is different with the air, the performance of which occupies a certain time, during the portions of which only portions of it are played. It consists in an orderliness in the succession of sounds which strike the ear at different times; and to perceive it there must be some continuity of consciousness which makes the events of a lapse of time present to us. We certainly only perceive the air by hearing the separate notes; yet we cannot be said to directly hear it, for we hear only what is present at the instant, and an orderliness of succession cannot exist in an instant. These two sorts of objects, what we are immediately conscious of and what we are mediately conscious of, are found in all consciousness. Some elements (the sensations) are completely present at every instant so long as they last, while others (like thought) are actions having beginning, middle, and end, and consist in a congruence in the succession of sensations which flow through the mind. They cannot be immediately present to us, but must cover some portion of the past or future. Thought is a thread of melody running through the succession of our sensations. — Charles S. Peirce - How to Make Our Ideas Clear

The phenomenon of music or melody does indeed ideally illustrate the continuous aspect of consciousness. I keep hearkening back to the Augustine I quoted earlier though. The more you try to put your finger on the concept (of time) the slipperier it becomes....

I think we are only able to perceive chaos against a background of order. — Pantagruel

I think we are only able to perceive objects. Order/chaos is a relative quality thought to belong to an object, but not as a property for the determination of what it is. To merely perceive an object affords no judgement as to its qualitative state.

We understand chaos against the background of its complement, but that is a logical conclusion given a certain set of conditions as premises. And while I agree there is an inherent relationship, it remains that perception doesn’t do logic any more than understanding does perception.

Just like anything, it all depends on one’s interpretation of the words being used.

it remains that perception doesn’t do logic any more than understanding does perception. — Mww

Hmm. I think it is pretty established that our perceptions are essentially pre-formatted with and by understanding. The whole catalog of cognitive biases, for example, pertains to the way that judgement infiltrates perception. Observations are theory-laden.

…..the judgement infiltrates perception…. — Pantagruel

If perception is the affect of a real physical object on the sensory apparatus, and judgement infiltrates perception, then does it follow that judgement changes how we are affected by objects? If such is the case, then, e.g., the sound made by an object would be changed by a judgement. It doesn’t make sense that the sound an apple makes hitting the floor because it fell out of your hand, will be different than the sound an apple makes hitting the floor because a judgement is that it tastes bad.

Perception is entirely independent of understanding, even though, as you say, they are necessarily related by their job descriptions.

I mean, the concept that observations are theory-laden is pretty ubiquitous. If you reduce a sensory input to a decontextualized quale, that perhaps might be a "bare perception". But the fact is that perception (cognition) functions by and through contextualization. Your visual perceptual system essentially performs inferences (as visual illusions illustrate).

If you reduce a sensory input to a decontextualized quale, that perhaps might be a "bare perception". — Pantagruel

I think a decontexualized quale as an intuition. I could get away with calling that a bare perception, as long as I didn’t cross-examine myself too much.

Your visual perceptual system essentially performs inferences….. — Pantagruel

An inference is a logical construct, and I deny to my eyes, ears, nose, skin or tongue the capacity of syllogistic propositions.

I fear there will be a pervasive conceptual inconsistency if we continue here. We’ll be the Hatfield and McCoys of philosophical discourse, so to speak. So, carry on, and have fun with it.

Personally, I am exploring the idea that, while objects may have a temporal position, consciousness actually has a temporal "size." Objects are three dimensional and moving through or in time, as it were. But consciousness actually exists in the past, present and future, has actual temporal dimension. An intuition. — Pantagruel

I'm not caught up on this thread, so apologies if the thread has moved on.

I do think there is interesting scientific evidence for consciousness being 'clocked' to some extent, at brain wave frequencies. So there may be a temporal size along such lines.

I'm more skeptical that consciousness 'exists in the future'. I think our brains are continually modelling and updating their modelling of the future. This is what allows us to catch a ball flying through the air, even though our sensing of a moving ball's position is continuously time delayed. So I think it makes sense that it seems that our consciousness exists in part in the future.

I'm more skeptical that consciousness 'exists in the future'. I think our brains are continually modelling and updating their modelling of the future. This is what allows us to catch a ball flying through the air, even though our sensing of a moving ball's position is continuously time delayed. So I think it makes sense that it seems that our consciousness exists in part in the future. — wonderer1

If you perceive an event unfold, like an arrow being shot at a person, if you are really fast it is possible to "intercede" in the future of that event. i.e. You can shove the person aside, if you are fast enough. And if your powers of inference are good enough, you can even better predict events. Like seeing someone walking up with a bow. Which gives you even more time to intercede. Like temporal intuition.

If you perceive an event unfold, like an arrow being shot at a person, if you are really fast it is possible to "intercede" in the future of that event. — Pantagruel

Right. I think that an important aspect of what our minds are 'evolutionarily for' is interceding in events in the future, so presenting a model with representations of the future to our minds is what our brains do. So us having multiple possible futures being represented in consciousness makes intuitive sense to me. However, I see that as different from consciousness being in the future.

Does that make sense?

You've lost me.

It was just something I've been musing. Not to worry.

However, I see that as different from consciousness being in the future. — wonderer1

Semantics? Whose to say, its all in the results, which are in the future.

Semantics? — Pantagruel

Or frame of reference, which I suppose is pretty close to the same thing.

:up:

Either the now is already over, or it is never over. Certainly awareness has the characteristic of an ongoing now. Does what we designate as time really only refer to the awareness of time? Perhaps the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness. — Pantagruel

Yes. What we are aware of is Change. And the cognitive ability to keep track of changes in the environment may be a minimum requirement for the continued survival of complex organisms ; to stave-off entropy. The actual progression of change may be continuous ("ongoing now"), but we humans tend to digitize holistic qualities into measurable increments. Each measured moment (now) is like a single still image on a strip of movie film. But the moments themselves are artifacts of mental processing, not inherent in Nature. Although I've heard of some theories saying that Time is essentially quantized*1.

Recently, I had a light-bulb moment, when I realized that Time is essentially a way to measure the "flow" of Energy, which is what we know as "Causation"*2. Energy is the cause, and Time is the effect. We seem to perceive Change, and conceive it as Time. The act of perception/conception is what we call "Awareness". So, I suspect that Consciousness is limited to only those elements of the world that can keep track of changes, via a record of energy events : Moments ; Memory. Does a rock retain a concept of Now & Then? :smile:



*1. Is time quantized? In other words, is there a fundamental unit of time that could not be divided into a briefer unit? :
"The brief answer to this question is, 'Nobody knows.' Certainly there is no experimental evidence in favor of such a minimal unit.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-quantized-in-othe/

*2. Time is the currency of Physics :
From a cosmological perspective it seems that Time (progressive change) is one activity that Energy is working on. Ironically, we typically think of Time as a fundamental feature of reality. But, it may be merely an effect of something even more essential : the cosmic power of Causation.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html

I realized that Time is essentially a way to measure the "flow" of Energy, which is what we know as "Causation" — Gnomon

Yes, this is pretty much where I was going. I like to maintain a connection with the notion of energy. Also, you can 'topologize' the idea of energy by viewing it in terms of gradients in the environment (or forming an environment).

Personally, I am exploring the idea that, while objects may have a temporal position, consciousness actually has a temporal "size." Objects are three dimensional and moving through or in time, as it were. But consciousness actually exists in the past, present and future, has actual temporal dimension. — Pantagruel

I have been exploring this as well. As you can see in my bio, I am (and have been) trying to epistemically bridge the chasm of time, and if the above quote is true, it would help a ton with the pain in the ass that memory skepticism poses.

First, an important point of possible confusion. Consciousness can have "temporal extension" in two distinct ways. Consciousness can have a motion-temporal-extension and an object-temporal-extension. Most assume the former, but I interpreted your comment as pertaining to the latter, meaning consciousness itself extends into time, without any movement necessary (like a still-standing chair extending into the three spatial dimensions). In this reply, I am interested in the latter. Some might say the former necessitates the latter, but at least mathematically, that is not true. N-dimensional manifolds can be embedded into M-dimensional spaces, where M > N. So, does consciousness have a temporal dimension, or does it merely move through time?

Is the present (as a "percept") actually a duration? Looking at a river, one might think/feel so. But I am able to bring doubt to this. What would it even mean?

Does it mean that we experience multiple instants of time simultaneously? Well, if that's the case, it cannot be in the sense of squeezing durations into instants, for that would not correspond to my experiential reality. Instead, if we experience multiple instants simultaneously, we take the past x units of time with us in the experiential, spacious box that is the present, and this allows us to actually engage in temporally extended experiences. But is it the only way?

Does remembering, even in its most basic form, imply an actual experience of the past? Could it be that the present feels like a duration only because we bring with us representations of the past that we apprehend simultaneously as we do the present instant? I mean, if one is already postulating the ability of simultaneous apprehension of distinct percepts, there is no explanatory need to postulate a temporal extension of consciousness. However, if our experience of the past is merely through representations of the past, as opposed to an actual, direct apprehension of the recent past, then we incur the question of memory skepticism.

Do you have any more thoughts on this?

if one is already postulating the ability of simultaneous apprehension of distinct percepts, there is no explanatory need to postulate a temporal extension of consciousness. However, if our experience of the past is merely through memories (representations of the past), as opposed to an actual, direct apprehension of the recent past, then we incur the question of memory skepticism. — Ø implies everything

A number of philosophers make a distinction between retentional memory (what you’re calling actual
memory) and presented memory. The former always accompanies the present as a past that was never present, whereas the latter, as a represented and reconstructed past, is itself a new present.

So, does consciousness have a temporal dimension, or does it merely move through time? — Ø implies everything

Yes, this was the sense in which I was differentiating it from matter, which only moves through time, has a temporal vector. The objective past, for me, is embedded within the objective present and, insofar as it consisted of cyclical events or processes, is ongoing. I think there are a variety of neuro-cognitive mechanisms for memory that are viable explanations, but being if consciousness is "temporally inflated" then its lived experience encompasses something of the past and the future in the moment. Which seems to just describe awareness. Possibly knowledge of the causes of things can give some form of memory, as deducing the state of the past from the present.

The objective past, for me, is embedded within the objective present and, insofar as it consisted of cyclical events or processes, is ongoing. — Pantagruel

Are you saying the past is immanent in the present through influence, or are you saying the past and present actually co-occur? If the latter, you are stepping into dangerous grounds, because you are saying that different moments of time co-occur, implying a meta-time for those temporally-distanced moments to co-occur in. I assume it was the former, but I am just making sure.

I think there are a variety of neuro-cognitive mechanisms for memory that are viable explanations, — Pantagruel

How could one explain the object-temporal-extension (OTE) of consciousness via neurocognitive mechanism? If consciousness has OTE, then this is a property far more fundamental than that which can be dealt with at the neurocognitive level, I believe. Conversely, I believe the consciousness' awareness of its motion-temporal-extension (MTE) is within the (partial, of course) explanatory capacity of the neurocognitive level.

Possibly knowledge of the causes of things can give some form of memory, as deducing the state of the past from the present. — Pantagruel

This is how most of memory works. It is reconstructive; generating episodic memories from kernels of preserved, episode-incurrent data and from episode-relevant data regarding the world. So, even if the kernels do not tell you whether the past actually featured a car flying, your reconstruction of the memory will not feature any cars flying, because your model of the world says that is impossible/improbable.

Could you point to any sources?

I know Thomas Reid held a direct realist notion of memory. To him, every memory was the apprehension of the actual past. But you are talking about views in which both realist (retentional) memories and representative (presented) memories exist? That makes sense, but how do these view-holders determine which memories are retentional and which are presented?

I know Thomas Reid held a direct realist notion of memory. To him, every memory was the apprehension of the actual past. But you are talking about views in which both realist (retentional) memories and representative (presented) memories exist? That makes sense, but how do these view-holders determine which memories are retentional and which are presented? — Ø implies everything

I had in mind phenomenological and poststructural writers like Husserl and Deleuze. For Husserl, retention does not require a second act of turning back to examine what has past. It is bundled inseparably into the experience of the now.

Interesting. I will have to read up on them. Do you believe in their views on this matter?