Then how could the accuracy or precision of the measurement be improved? — Luke
More work is required before this can be determined. If we can find natural points of division, and abide by them, measurement would be improved greatly. The problem though is that such points are not experienced by us. — Metaphysician Undercover
Take a look at two distinct objects, like a chair and a table. Do you not see a natural divisibility between these two? — Metaphysician Undercover
This is the foundation for counting, such natural points of divisibility allow us to count objects as distinct things. A supposed continuum has no such natural points of divisibility, therefore it can provide no principles for counting. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, I said that we are not consciously aware of the present. We are consciously aware of the past, through sensation and memory, and consciously aware of the future, through anticipation. — Metaphysician Undercover
I am not at all understanding what you are saying. First, as you are well aware, "present moment" doesn't make any sense to me. — Metaphysician Undercover
The point is that the thing, whatever it is, which we become aware of, through sensation, is always in the past by the time we become aware of it. And, the mind which becomes aware of it is therefore always in the future relative to the thing which it becomes aware of. Furthermore, the mind is concerned with anticipating what will happen next, and it is even actively determining (as cause through freedom of choice) what will happen next. — Metaphysician Undercover
So where do you think this so-called "present moment" is, where the mind apprehends the sensations? — Metaphysician Undercover
That "present moment" is just a misconception. — Metaphysician Undercover
We experience the past and we anticipate the future. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is not anything within human experience which indicates a present moment. — Metaphysician Undercover
In the conventional sense, the present divides time, it is not itself a period of time. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem is that you always think in terms of separate portions of time past, present, and future, as if the present is a distinct portion of time. I know that this is your preferred way of understanding "the present", but this idea is inconsistent with what I am proposing... — Metaphysician Undercover
...so if you cannot dismiss it for the sake of discussion, and quit falling back on it as a crutch, you'll never be able to understand what I am proposing. — Metaphysician Undercover
What I've been arguing is that the pinpointing of the present is a mistake. That is what is at issue, I am saying it is a mistaken notion of "the present". You were willing to respect that first step, and accept the present as a duration instead of a pinpoint, but then you wanted two pinpoints, one at the beginning and one at the end of the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
'Where you live' is in your brain's model of reality, which is generated in part based on the light that hit your retina (on the order of 100 milliseconds) earlier. — wonderer1
Where you live is, in part, your perception of that light right now. — Ø implies everything
Yes, I read it and found the additional text samples interesting as well. Regardless of the hoax, it is still interesting to consider what text samples like that can reveal to us about our thinking. — wonderer1
More work is required on what? Is it possible, in principle, that we are able to experience "such points"? — Luke
I might see that they are two different (types of) objects. I don't know what "natural divisibility" is supposed to mean. — Luke
This sounds like little more than a complaint about infinity, or uncountable sets, but it's unclear what the complaint is exactly. I assume what you mean by "natural points of divisibility" is that we should use only a finite set of numbers? But I don't see how a reduced, finite set of numbers would give us more accurate or more precise (or non-arbitrary) measurements. We would miss out on all those "in-between" numbers/measurements, and that would make our measurements less accurate, not more. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean. — Luke
I don't understand your complaint here. I don't care if we call it "the present" or "the present time" or "the present moment"; I see no difference between these. If it will help to prevent your complaints, I will stop using the phrase "present moment". However, if I accidentally use the phrase again in future, then please just substitute it with "the present" instead. That seems to keep you calm. — Luke
If so, then why do you say that the present has a duration? — Luke
The present (moment) is defined in terms of when we are experiencing. — Luke
Or are there two different types of remembering? Otherwise, we could say that we experience things in the present and remember things that we experienced in the past, and not try to change the grammar in the way you are proposing. — Luke
You were proposing from the start of this discussion that the present has a duration. Have you changed your position on this? — Luke
Agreeing (for the sake of argument) that the present has a duration does not require two pinpoints; it requires one larger pinpoint. — Luke
Do you know that a duration has a start time and a finish time? The duration of the present is the pinpoint (or what we were earlier attempting to pinpoint). The start and finish times of that duration are not two separate pinpoints. — Luke
I think that what it reveals is that the process is noy like we think it is. And I guess that's why we have different opinions about it, no one really knows how they read. — Metaphysician Undercover
Trained neural nets can have a lot of 'fault tolerance', which is easy to say, but not so easy to explain. — wonderer1
It's not appropriate to say that a neural net is "trained". Nor is it appropriate to say that a neural net performs word recognition. — Metaphysician Undercover
So I'll just say that your post is an attempt to simplify something very complex and the result is a gross misrepresentation, and leave it at that. — Metaphysician Undercover
To me it sounds like you are saying something like, "It is inappropriate to talk about riding in a car, because riding is something which is done on a horse, or in a carriage drawn by a horse. — wonderer1
Yes, similar to that, but not quite the same. An individual is trained, a person or some other being. We do not train a part of a person. I find that to be an absurd usage of the term to say that a person trains a part of one's body, like saying that a man trains his penis when to have an erection and when not to.
Anyway, it's off topic and I see that discussion with you on this subject would probably be pointless, as you seem to be indoctrinated. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think you equivocate. Neural networks of AI are said to be "trained". But we weren't talking AI, we were talking about biological neurons, involved in a person reading. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's very deceptive use of equivocation. — Metaphysician Undercover
Unless you are able to present some evidence, that animal learning does not supervene on cellular learning it's a bit ludicrous to call it very deceptive use of equivocation. — wonderer1
It looks to me like you simply have a bias against science. — wonderer1
It appears like the cellular responses (so-called learning) took five times longer to occur in living tissue than it took in prior studies inanimate mass, "in vitro". That is very clear evidence that the relationship between stimulus and effect, is not direct. The cause of this five-fold delay (clear evidence that there is not a direct cause/effect relation) is simply dismissed as "noise" in the living brain.
Furthermore, it is noted that the the subjects upon which the manipulation is carried out are unconscious, and so it is implied that "attention" could add so much extra "noise" that the entire process modeled by the laboratory manipulation might be completely irrelevant to actual learning carried out by an attentive, conscious subject. Read the following:
"It is important to note that these findings were obtained in anaesthetized animals, and remain to be confirmed in the awake state. Indeed, factors such as attention are likely to influence cellular learning processes (Markram et al., 2012). — Metaphysician Undercover
More work is required on understanding what we call the passage of time, in order to establish more accurate measurement. I think that the work done in quantum mechanics indicates that it is highly likely that there actually is points in time, that's why events occur as quanta rather than continuous. If this is the case, then we probably do experience such points in time, in some way, but we do not recognize them, just like we experience molecules, atoms and electrons, but we do not recognize them as such, through sensation. — Metaphysician Undercover
In the case of time, we assume a continuum, therefore no natural divisibility. So to count or quantify distinct periods of time we look to repeating cycles, earth, moon, sun, quartz crystal vibrations, and now the quantum characteristics of the cesium atom. The problem is that all of these cycles are physical events, which in order to serve as measurement need to be compared to other physical events, the ones to be measured. This requires a means of determining the beginning and ending of a cycle, in relation to the event to be measured. The event to be measured is always spatially separated form the clock. The various possible features of this spatial separation are what Einstein dealt with in his special theory of relativity, where he stipulated that simultaneity is relative. This stipulation means an accurate comparison is
\ impossible, and therefore precise measurement of time impossible, because the simultaneity of the beginning and ending of the cycle of measurement, in comparison with the event to be measured, is dependent on the frame of reference. In other word the temporal measurement of the same event will differ depending on the frame of reference. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, the point is that the object to be counted in any act of quantification (a count) must be a true and real object, or else any proposed count is arbitrary. To be a true and real object, it must be distinct, discrete, separate from its surroundings, or else it's just a part of another object. And if we are allowed to count parts as objects, and everything is infinitely divisible, then every count will be infinite. — Metaphysician Undercover
That's what happens when we try to quantify something which is already assumed to be a continuum (the real number line, or time, as examples). Since there are no natural points of division we can't even start to count anything because there are no distinct objects to count. So we allow divisions and we produce a count according to the divisions. But these divisions are arbitrary, so there is no rule about how to apply them, except that they can be applied anywhere. Then any count will be a count of infinity (any random section of the number line contains an infinity of numbers, and any random section of time contains an infinite number of time durations). — Metaphysician Undercover
So it's not a matter of choosing finite numbers over infinite numbers, it's a matter of basing "the count", which is the act of quantifying, or measuring, in something real, real divisibility as the example of distinct physical objects (mentioned above) demonstrates. Then the measurement is of something real. — Metaphysician Undercover
You do not conceive of the present as something which goes on and on continuously, like I do. — Metaphysician Undercover
And no matter how many times you mark "now", the present continues through all of them, and onward. — Metaphysician Undercover
And, "the present" is not a moment because the present goes on and on continuously. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is why we must apprehend "the present" as having two important features. One is the feature you point to, the moment, "now", from which we base measurements, starting the stop watch, etc.. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is why we must apprehend "the present" as having two important features. One is the feature you point to, the moment, "now", from which we base measurements, starting the stop watch, etc.. The other feature is the conjunction between past and future, which I point to, and this continues on and on, seemingly continuously, so it is indefinite. This continuity of the present is what is measured when we measure passing time. We use arbitrary points, and mark a section of the continuity of the present, as a period of time. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no such thing as the moment when you are experiencing. Experience continues on and on, in a seemingly continuous and indefinite duration, just like the present — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you not apprehend your experience in this way, as a continuous, long duration, rather than as a moment, or any sort of pin pointed duration? — Metaphysician Undercover
Or are there two different types of remembering? Otherwise, we could say that we experience things in the present and remember things that we experienced in the past, and not try to change the grammar in the way you are proposing.
— Luke
There are many different types of remembering, and many different ways of reading. So this does not look like a productive direction for the discussion, too much ambiguity and confusion. For example, do you not think that remembering is part of your experience? So this distinction you make here, between remembering things and experiencing things is not sound because remembering is a form of experiencing. — Metaphysician Undercover
How does quanta possibly indicate that there are "points in time"? I'm guessing that you consider these "points" to be natural divisions in time. I don't see what difference they would make over and above the quanta. Couldn't we have quanta without any natural divisions in time (like we already do)? What do these "natural divisions" add? — Luke
How do you plan to take a "precise measurement of time" without any sort of clock, or without making a comparison to any physical, cyclical event? — Luke
How can you tell if something is a "true and real" object or only part of a "true and real" object? Presuming it's via "natural divisibility", how does that work? — Luke
Explain to me again why a continuum does not have natural points of division? — Luke
Okay, but the measurement is made in numbers and what is measured is something that isn't numbers, but is objects/events. I don't see how the numbers (or the set or the continuum) has any effect on which objects/events are real or not. I can count objects using either a finite or an infinite set of numbers. — Luke
It's funny how you say that "the present" is not a moment, yet you consider "the moment" to be one of the "two important features" of "the present". — Luke
The feature that you say I "point to" also continues on and on continuously. There's not much that I disagree with here, except that the present is not a "conjunction" between past and future because past and future are not concurrent with the present. — Luke
That's right, the present continues on and on just like your experiencing. And it's not a coincidence, because whenever you are experiencing is when the present is for you. In relation to this, those things that you've already experienced are in your past, and those things you will experience but are yet to experience are in your future. It's simple really. — Luke
Yes, except we don't speak of the present as a continuous, long duration, but as a moment or point along that duration which is present for us at that moment. — Luke
I think there is a distinct difference between having or undergoing an experience and remembering it later. Think back to any memorable event in your life. That is just a memory compared to the actual event that you lived through and experienced. I understand your reluctance to acknowledge this obvious distinction, however, given that it is simply too detrimental to your argument (that every experience is a memory). — Luke
That's a complex issue beyond the scope of this thread, which would only serve as a distraction, but the photoelectric effect indicates that energy is transmitted as discrete units rather than as a continuous wave. — Metaphysician Undercover
As I said, this would require determining natural points in time. Then the points can be counted as real objects, units of time. — Metaphysician Undercover
How can you tell if something is a "true and real" object or only part of a "true and real" object? Presuming it's via "natural divisibility", how does that work?
— Luke
As I explained, empirical evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover
Explain to me again why a continuum does not have natural points of division?
— Luke
There's nothing to explain. A continuum is assumed to be infinitely divisible. It can be divided in any way, and no particular way is more suited to the matter itself being divided than any other way, because there are no natural points of divisibility, proper to it. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand what "continuum" means. — Metaphysician Undercover
The point is not the effect of the numbers on the real, but the effect of the real on the numbers. If the entirety of reality is indivisible, then there is nothing real to count. — Metaphysician Undercover
If the entirety of reality is continuous, yet infinitely divisible in anyway possible way, then division is arbitrary and the count is arbitrary. Each of these produces an unmeasurable reality. But if reality has natural divisibility, then we can distinguish real objects to count and measure according to those divisions. Such a reality is measurable. — Metaphysician Undercover
You did say that you could exchange "present moment" for "present" didn't you? Now you are saying that the present continues on and on indefinitely. How do you formulate consistency between the present being an extremely short duration, yet also something which continues on and on indefinitely? — Metaphysician Undercover
How could it be that the present continues on and on indefinitely, as if it is an infinitely long duration of time, yet it is also an infinitesimally short period of time, as "the moment". One of these must be dismissed as the cause of contradiction, and the latter, "the moment", is inconsistent with empirical evidence. That is why I say "the present moment" is incoherent to me. . — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, except we don't speak of the present as a continuous, long duration, but as a moment or point along that duration which is present for us at that moment.
— Luke
Now, look closely at this statement. Do you see that "at that moment" has no real meaning, no real referent. It refers to nothing real. It's a convention which human beings concocted for pragmatic reasons, for the sake of measuring. — Metaphysician Undercover
Now we have "the present as a continuous, long duration", exactly as we experience it, and all this speaking about a moment, or point along this duration, is nothing but bs. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem is that all experience is completely wrapped up in memory, whether you like to admit it or not. Consider looking at an object in front of you, a chair or something. What you see is not a hundredth of a second of chair, or a half a second of chair. You are seeing the chair over a continuous duration. But the chair of two seconds ago must be only in your memory. However, that chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now,. That's how you know whether it's moving or not. — Metaphysician Undercover
So, it's easy for you to take an event years ago, and say that's in the past, its only memory, and you can surely tell the difference between that memory and what's happening now. But when we are talking about the perception of events happening right now ("right now" being incoherent) then we are faced with having to separate what we anticipate from what we remember, as having influence over the perception. And this is much more difficult because we cannot fall back on the false premise of the "present moment". — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, I'm aware of Einstein's Nobel Prize-winning work, but that doesn't begin to explain why you think that quanta signify any sort of "natural points" in time, or why time might possibly be naturally divisible into quanta. — Luke
For example, is a coconut an object or a part? How about a hydrogen atom? — Luke
So, unlike a continuum, only a finite set of (positive?) integers has natural points of division. Is that right? Does the set need to contain an even number of integers? — Luke
You're saying that, unless time has natural points of division, then everything we count in reality is arbitrary and not real? — Luke
We have a continuous succession of experiences from birth to death; we do not experience everything in our lives "all at once". — Luke
This question also applies to you. If you reject the present as a short period, or moment, of time, then it must be "an infinitely long duration of time" that "continues on and on indefinitely" (since they are the only two options you have given). What, then, of the past and future? When is something past and when is it future? That is, what are the past and future relative to? — Luke
I don't deny this, except it's not only for the sake of measurement, because it is also relative to when one is experiencing, doing or being, and specifically, indexical to when one is speaking. I have never claimed that "the present" is something we find in nature (just as I wouldn't say that "here" is something we find in nature), but I would say that the passage of time is something we find in nature, because things age. Looking for some natural source of "the present" or for natural divisions in time is not my concern. — Luke
Aren't you claiming that my "perception of it now" is also a memory? — Luke
Well, it's intuition, with many complicated factors involved. But I am not arguing that, am I? I am arguing continuity. — Metaphysician Undercove
I am arguing continuity. So despite the fact that there are many reasons to make me intuitively believe that there are natural points in time, this is not consistent with our experience of time as continuous... — Metaphysician Undercover
If objects are not distinct, then a change in motion is just a continuation of the whole (universe) through cause and effect, and there is no need for a real point of beginning. — Metaphysician Undercover
However, whether the thing is a part or a whole is essential to some universals. This depends on how the named things exists within its environment. So the hydrogen atom for example cannot exist naturally as an object, it must be a part. Human beings can in some sense separate hydrogen atoms, and present it as an object. But in reality, it is not an independent object even after this separation, because the device which separates it is required for its purported separation, therefore this device is necessary to its environment, so it really just becomes a part of that device. This is why I referred to "natural" divisibility. Artificial divisibility is very deceptive, creating divisions where divisions are not naturally possible... — Metaphysician Undercover
When I spoke of natural divisibility I was referring to material things, the empirical world which we sense. That's why theories of real divisibility are based on empirical information. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem with "the continuum" is that this is itself a stipulation, or proposition concerning the empirical world, 'space and time form a continuum'. It is very useful because it conforms to the empirical reality to a large degree. However, since we observe that natural divisibility within the empirical world is restricted, according to the spatial existence of independent objects, "continuum" is not completely appropriate. So the problems begin. — Metaphysician Undercover
I am arguing continuity. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is a misrepresentation. We have continuous experience, not a "succession of experiences". Any division of that continuous experience into separate experiences is arbitrary. Even during sleep we are experiencing, in dreaming etc., it's just a change in type of experience. — Metaphysician Undercover
As time continues onward, the future is always becoming the past. That's what happens at the present... — Metaphysician Undercover
"Future" refers to time which has not yet passed the present and past refers to time which has past the present... — Metaphysician Undercover
I think it would be better to say that the point is both future and past in this transition which is the present, rather than neither. And as I explained earlier there is no reason to think that this implies contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
Aren't you claiming that my "perception of it now" is also a memory?
— Luke
Right, that's why I mentioned the concept of "sensory memory". If I understand correctly, the information from the senses is put into a type of extremely short term, subconscious memory, and this memory is what the conscious mind interprets as the sense experience, and then allocates the memories to other types of memory, which the conscious mind has influence over. — Metaphysician Undercover
This still doesn't explain what makes something a "true and real" whole object, rather than just a part. All coconuts (that we know of) are part of the Earth, and the Earth is part of the Solar System, and so on. All of these divisions - indeed all divisions - are "artificial", because those concepts belong to our language and we divide the world up into those "objects" or concepts that we value, not according to any "natural" divisions. — Luke
You are complaining about the infinite divisibility of the continuum of numbers while also arguing that the empirical reality of time, or the present, is continuous. Are you arguing against yourself? — Luke
If there are different types of experience, then we can sensibly speak of having one type then another, different type. Hence, we can sensibly speak of a succession of different types of experience. — Luke
How can the future become the past at the present, when you also claim that the present contains both the future and the past; when the past and future are inside the present? — Luke
How can this be, when you claim that the past and future are both inside the present? — Luke
It contradicts what you said just above. This is what I've been telling you all along. — Luke
When is "now" (i.e. the present) in this scenario? Which event is simultaneous with the present here? — Luke
To be a succession, one would have to follow the other, and something would have to separate them, or else there'd be an overlap, and not a succession. — Metaphysician Undercover
The thing which separates two distinct types of experience would have to be another type of experience — Metaphysician Undercover
Otherwise we'd have to posit points which separate one type of experience from the other, and then we're back to the problem I described, of the "zero point", and points in general. — Metaphysician Undercover
As time continues onward, the future is always becoming the past. That's what happens at the present...
— Metaphysician Undercover
How can the future become the past at the present, when you also claim that the present contains both the future and the past; when the past and future are inside the present?
— Luke
I don't see the problem. This is what happens "inside the present", the future becomes the past. Therefore both future and past must exist within the present, as one becomes the other inside the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
Consider the freezing point of water for example. "Inside the freezing point", water becomes ice, so both water and ice exist inside the freezing point. — Metaphysician Undercover
"Future" refers to time which has not yet passed the present and past refers to time which has past the present...
— Metaphysician Undercover
How can this be, when you claim that the past and future are both inside the present?
— Luke
I see no problem. The present is not a point, as I've been arguing, it has breadth, or width. "Point" has been adopted by pragmaticism As the Venn diagram example shows, past and future extend outside the present, but they also overlap inside the present. When the future is inside the present it is past a part of the present, so it has already become past in relation to that part of the present, and is still future in relation to the rest of the present. This is the nature of change, it does not happen all at once, but over a duration of time. — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem is that all experience is completely wrapped up in memory, whether you like to admit it or not. Consider looking at an object in front of you, a chair or something. What you see is not a hundredth of a second of chair, or a half a second of chair. You are seeing the chair over a continuous duration. But the chair of two seconds ago must be only in your memory. However, that chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now,. That's how you know whether it's moving or not.
— Metaphysician Undercover
Aren't you claiming that my "perception of it now" is also a memory?
— Luke
Right, that's why I mentioned the concept of "sensory memory". If I understand correctly, the information from the senses is put into a type of extremely short term, subconscious memory, and this memory is what the conscious mind interprets as the sense experience, and then allocates the memories to other types of memory, which the conscious mind has influence over.
— Metaphysician Undercover
When is "now" (i.e. the present) in this scenario? Which event is simultaneous with the present here?
— Luke
There is no now, unless we change the meaning of "now", as I've been explaining. — Metaphysician Undercover
There are events which move from future to past, at the present, and every single real event does this, but there is no sense to ask which event is "simultaneous with the present", because every event occurs at the present, yet they have different times when they are at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is a false dichotomy. You're saying there must either be a gap between the two experiences or else there must be an overlap between them. The third option is that one experience follows the other immediately without any gap or overlap. — Luke
Okay, at some point inside the present, the future becomes the past. — Luke
Ah, but here you say that the past refers to time that has passed (or "past") the present. This means that the past is not within the present and is no longer within the present because it has passed (outside of) it. If it has passed the present, then it is not inside the present. It cannot be both inside the present and outside the present. There is your contradiction. — Luke
When the future is inside the present it is past a part of the present, so it has already become past in relation to that part of the present, and is still future in relation to the rest of the present. This is the nature of change, it does not happen all at once, but over a duration of time. — Metaphysician Undercover
If "there is no now" as you say, then what did you mean by "your perception of it now"? — Luke
I was referring to your scenario of looking at a chair in front of you. Which event is simultaneous with the present in that scenario? You used the phrase "your perception of it now". If you used "now" to mean something different than "the present", then what did you mean?
And, again, when is the present situated in that scenario? — Luke
The problem is that all experience is completely wrapped up in memory, whether you like to admit it or not. Consider looking at an object in front of you, a chair or something. What you see is not a hundredth of a second of chair, or a half a second of chair. You are seeing the chair over a continuous duration. But the chair of two seconds ago must be only in your memory. However, that chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now,. That's how you know whether it's moving or not. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is incoherent to describe this as two distinct experiences, in succession, unless there is something which separates them. Otherwise you have just arbitrarily inserted a point and claim that on one side of the point is one type of experience and on the other side is another distinct type. — Metaphysician Undercover
Any division of that continuous experience into separate experiences is arbitrary. Even during sleep we are experiencing, in dreaming etc., it's just a change in type of experience. — Metaphysician Undercover
You need something real, which distinguishes the end of one and the beginning of another, or else you are just arbitrarily asserting distinct experiences in a succession, rather than one continuous experience. — Metaphysician Undercover
Okay, at some point inside the present, the future becomes the past.
— Luke
No! We have no premise for a "point". You incessantly want to insert a "point" when the unreality of such a point is my primary premise. You insert the unjustified "point" which is completely inconsistent with the justified position I am arguing, then you ask me to make sense of such a point. It cannot be made sense of because it is incompatible with what makes sense. — Metaphysician Undercover
Ah, but here you say that the past refers to time that has passed (or "past") the present. This means that the past is not within the present and is no longer within the present because it has passed (outside of) it. If it has passed the present, then it is not inside the present. It cannot be both inside the present and outside the present. There is your contradiction.
— Luke
I explained this, the present consists of duration. read the following:
When the future is inside the present it is past a part of the present, so it has already become past in relation to that part of the present, and is still future in relation to the rest of the present. This is the nature of change, it does not happen all at once, but over a duration of time. — Metaphysician Undercover — Metaphysician Undercover
"Future" refers to time which has not yet passed the present and past refers to time which has past the present... — Metaphysician Undercover
But this is why it is so extremely difficult to distinguish the anticipatory parts of the human experience of "the present" from the memory parts. That is why I argue that the present will remain unintelligible to us until we find the real points in time — Metaphysician Undercover
If "there is no now" as you say, then what did you mean by "your perception of it now"?
— Luke
Human experience, along with the conventions employed for measurement have misled you to believe that you perceive a "now" at the present. There is no such now, as described by you, your perception of it is an illusion. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK, I found the paragraph in question: — Metaphysician Undercover
In this context, "now" means present, which is continuous.
It is not the "now" of a point in time, which you propose, the one I argue is an illusion. The context ought to reveal this to you, " the chair of two seconds ago is an integral part of your perception of it now". — Metaphysician Undercover
Due to the problem described above, it is impossible to separate which aspects of your conscious perception are produced bu memory and which parts are produced by anticipation. — Metaphysician Undercover
So for example, if you are consciously watching the chair, and something unexpected suddenly happens, you will recognize the sudden occurrence as unanticipated, but this will occur with a reaction time. That there is a reaction to sudden change indicates that anticipation is part of the conscious experience, that there is a time it takes for the reaction to occur, indicates that memory is part of the conscious experience. Therefore we can understand the conscious experience described as "the perception of it now" as a combination of past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover
So, to answer your questions, "your perception of it now" refers to "at the present", and this is an extended duration of time, as indicated, by "the chair of two seconds ago is an integral part" of that perception now. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.