I was following your example of two different types of experience: — Luke
Tell me, what other experience is in between being asleep and being awake? What separates them? Must there be another experience between these? Aren't we asleep and then, at some point, awake again, in succession? — Luke
Why do we need "something real" to distinguish the end of one and the beginning of another? What real thing distinguishes the end of being asleep and the beginning of being awake? Perhaps there is no distinction between being asleep and being awake and it's just "one continuous experience"? Or did you "arbitrarily assert" that being asleep and being awake were distinct types of experience? — Luke
But there must be a point when an event is no longer present and becomes past. Otherwise, past and present are indistinguishable. — Luke
In this quote, the "point" at which what is in the present becomes past is the starting point of the present. In your terminology, this is when the past (proper) meets "the present" (the combination of past and future). There is also a second point where the future has not yet passed the present, which is the end point of "the present". In your terminology, this is when the future (proper) meets "the present" (the combination of past and future). — Luke
I know that you are trying to argue that there is some smooth, unnoticeable transition between them, but the distinct concepts won't let you. — Luke
There can be a period of changing, but at some point there must be a moment of change when what is present is no longer future and what is past is no longer present; when the past is no longer combined with the future and when the future has not yet become combined with the past. — Luke
Do you believe that, in order to distinguish memories from anticipation, we need to discover "real points in time"? — Luke
Moreover, if the present is a combination of past and future, as you claim, then how will the discovery of "real points in time" help to disentangle this entanglement of memories and anticipation? — Luke
Is "the chair of two seconds ago" in the present or in the past (according to your context)? — Luke
The relevant question is "when are you perceiving?" — Luke
It seems this discussion has become rather pointless, even though you are continually trying to insert arbitrary points. This you do simply for the sake of saying that I contradict myself when I say there are no points. — Metaphysician Undercover
It was not my example, you proposed two different types of experience. I just showed you why it wouldn't work. — Metaphysician Undercover
Come on Luke. Don't you experience awakening, that brief period when you're half asleep and half awake? And don't you experience this 'in between period' when you are falling asleep as well? — Metaphysician Undercover
I've been through this already. No point is required if "past" and "future" name different categories which may overlap, instead of them being opposing terms where one denies the possibility of the other by way of contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't see my use of "point" anywhere in those quotes, so I think you are constructing a contradiction from a misquote. — Metaphysician Undercover
I know that you are trying to argue that there is some smooth, unnoticeable transition between them, but the distinct concepts won't let you.
— Luke
You are treating the concepts as mutually exclusive, not as distinct. That is your failure to properly understand what I've already explained numerous times, not a contradiction by me. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is what I called the "zero point", and the fact that we tend to think like this, intuitively, instead of the way that I proposed, is evidence that we need to seek, and find the real points in time, to substantiate our way of speaking. — Metaphysician Undercover
In the overlap of past and future, which I described as "the present", consider that the proportion of each, the amount of past, in relation to the amount of future, is constantly changing. So if there was a beginning of time, then at the very beginning, there was only future, and no past. At the very end of time, there will be all past, and no future. We are somewhere in between, and the past and future at our present is proportioned accordingly. — 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
Do you believe that, in order to distinguish memories from anticipation, we need to discover "real points in time"?
— Luke
No you seem to misunderstand. In order to distinguish memories form anticipations within what we experience as "the present", (for example or sensations), we need such points. — Metaphysician Undercover
Moreover, if the present is a combination of past and future, as you claim, then how will the discovery of "real points in time" help to disentangle this entanglement of memories and anticipation?
— Luke
By providing a point of separation, like you've been desperately trying to do. But your points of separation are arbitrary, I'm looking for points with substance. — Metaphysician Undercover
Sorry, I do not follow. And I'm tired of trying to explain this point to you, it appears hopeless, just like trying to get you to quit inserting arbitrary points into my description of a continuous present. — Metaphysician Undercover
The relevant question is "when are you perceiving?"
— Luke
We are always perceiving at the present, and the present consists of past and future. We've already discussed this. Where's the problem? — Metaphysician Undercover
I have given you an argument for why there must be points of distinction between past, present and future. I'm not saying this for the sake of saying that you contradict yourself. However, you did contradict yourself, as I pointed out. — Luke
I'll grant you these "in between periods" of being half asleep and half awake. However, you must admit that there comes a point when you are no longer half asleep but asleep, and there comes a point when you are no longer half awake but awake.
Likewise, there comes a point where an event is no longer in the present (i.e., in combination with the future) but is fully in the past, and there comes a point where an event is no longer fully in the future but is in the present (i.e., in combination with the past). — Luke
Why must we "substantiate our way of speaking"? — Luke
This implies that the present (the combination of past and future times) consists of all of time. In that case, I did misunderstand you. This is not your typical Venn diagram, because the "past" and "future" circles here are perfectly overlapping with each other, one directly on top of the other. Thanks for clarifying. — Luke
Why do we need such points in order to distinguish memories from anticipation? — Luke
If you don't want any "arbitrary points" in your description of a continuous present, then there will be nothing to distinguish the present from the past from the future from a turnip. These temporal terms become meaningless. — Luke
Is there any reason that we would choose a "way of speaking" that makes it impossible to distinguish one object or event from another? That is what your "way of speaking" without "points" gives us. — Luke
I agree that "there must be" such points of distinction. That is what I've called the "zero point" and I've explained why intuition provides us with the premises which make such zero points a logical necessity. — Metaphysician Undercover
Empirical evidence shows us time as continuous, and without such points of distinction. And, because we need such points of distinction for our measurement procedures, though experience does not provide them for us, we impose them arbitrarily, according to pragmatic conditions. — Metaphysician Undercover
There is no such point though, in experience. When I awaken, I can say with certainty, "now I am awake", and also say with certainty that at some temporally separated (duration of time) past time, "I was asleep", but I cannot find within my experience, the precise point which separates the two. — Metaphysician Undercover
he problem is that the logical systems of mathematics. which are adopted by, and employed by science use premises derived from experience, these are the premises of continuity, and these premises are incompatible with your premises which produce the conclusion of a zero point. — Metaphysician Undercover
Notice the mistake there. The intermediary, the becoming or process of awakening has been represented as an intermediary state. — Metaphysician Undercover
The points have the characteristic of arbitrariness due to the relativity of simultaneity — Metaphysician Undercover
To be consistent with the empirical evidence, spatial-temporal reality is represented as a continuum. However, to be able to employ deductive logic, the continuum is divided into distinct states-of-being, and this produces the need for points of separation or division. The application of points is arbitrary as provided for by the axioms of "continuity". The mistake in this practise is that it does not provide for the reality, that in between distinct states-of-being lies the process of becoming which is fundamentally incompatible with states-of-being, and cannot be represented as a state-of-being. — Metaphysician Undercover
If it turns out that there are no points in time, then we should stop speaking as if there is, and get on with understanding the true nature of time as continuous. — Metaphysician Undercover
No they are not perfectly overlapping, you still misunderstand. At the beginning, there is all future and not past, therefore no overlap here. At the end there is all past and no future, therefore no overlap there. For all we know, these non overlapping areas could be bigger than the overlapping area. We have no way to measure this. — Metaphysician Undercover
Why do we need such points in order to distinguish memories from anticipation?
— Luke
You seem to be lost here. Suppose you are sensing (seeing) the chair. You cannot tell which part of the sensation is produced from memory, and which part is produced from anticipation. Points in time would enable a distinction to be made between the past part of the sensation and future part. This would be helpful to understanding sensation, therefore also helpful to empirical science which relies on sense evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover
We usually distinguish things from each other by reference to properties, not dimensionless points. So this is completely false. — Metaphysician Undercover
There exists a process/entity duality (which in some ways is akin to the wave/particle duality of QM) in the operations of cognition. For one example, our cognition naturally, innately, perceives physical objects, or entities, set against a background – objects that we can cognize as sometimes engaging in processes (e.g., the rock (entity) is rolling (process) down the hill (entity)).
All these experiences then result in our cognizing that everything physical is in an underlying state of flux, i.e. is process, or becoming. Yet the moment we focus on something it becomes a thing, or entity, within our cognition; and this applies to both perceived givens and concepts. For example, the concept of “running (as process)” itself becomes an entity (an individual unit) - linguistically, a noun – in the form of a specific type of process that we then can cognitively manipulate as concept. — javra
For cognition to in any way work, it is then absurd – or at the very least direly hypocritical – to deny either process-hood to physical reality or entity-hood to physical reality. — javra
What we in any way physiologically perceive via all physiological sense will hold a certain quality as phenomena – a quality of phenomena that is by us readily distinguishable from phenomena we, for example, either recall or else perceptually imagine to occur in the future. In experience, this physiological quality of phenomena lasts for a short but immeasurable duration, a duration that is yet distinct from the phenomena of things we consciously recall and from the imagined phenomena we anticipate. This duration in which physiological phenomena are actual (visual, auditory, etc.) relative to us is then what we intuitively deem our experienced present. — javra
My only critique would be that, on my own view, it is not our focus that causes something to become a thing or entity within our cognition; instead, it is the nature of language that requires these "units" or concepts. — Luke
Again, I don't see the problem as one of cognition, but as one of language. It is the constant, stable, static meanings/uses of words such as "present" which allow us to talk about it, but which does not capture the ongoing change that we perceive. You cannot step into the same river twice. The meaning of the word "river" stays the same, but the actual river is ever changing. — Luke
Good luck getting MU to agree that we can ever distinguish memories from anticipations, or the past from the present from the future. — Luke
I don’t find it credible that perception will of itself be fully contingent on language; though, of course, the language-specified concepts we hold will significantly influence that which we consciously perceive. — javra
But consider that objects which we commonly perceive with lesser animals are nevertheless perceived as background-independent objects by all organisms concerned. — javra
When you first mentioned this "zero point", you defined it as the point in time when an object begins a new motion after being acted on by a force. You are now saying it is a logical point instead of a physical point. This is fine, but please stick with one or the other. — Luke
There is both continuity and non-continuity in mathematics. And it's not my premises that "produce the conclusion of a zero point", but the grammar of our language. — Luke
Why blame the relativity of simultaneity for the arbitrariness? — Luke
To summarise:
1. Reality is represented as a continuum
2. To use logic (or grammar or language), the continuum must be divided into arbitrary states
3. Arbitrary states are incompatible with becoming (implying that becoming is continuous)
4. Reality is actually continuous, therefore we should not use logic (or grammar or language) to divide the continuum into arbitrary states — Luke
My question is: how do you intend to represent reality without dividing it into arbitrary states (i.e. without using language)? — Luke
Are you suggesting that we should stop using all temporal concepts until we know whether there are "real" points in time? — Luke
Do the past and the future exceed the present? — Luke
That is, do you use "the present" to represent (i) a combination of the past and the future (where past and future do not exceed the present), or do you use "the present" to represent (ii) a period of time that separates the past from the future (where past and future do exceed the present)? You earlier rejected (ii), that the present is a period of time which separates the past from the future. However, since you now say "they are not perfectly overlapping", this indicates that you accept (ii), because it implies that the past and future exceed the present. Or, do you accept both (i) and (ii)? — Luke
Perhaps I am lost, because I don't see how this is supposed to work. "Points in time" supposedly exist in reality, whereas memory and anticipation exist in my mind. How do we use real points in time to distinguish memory from anticipation? You say that the points would enable a distinction to be made between the past and future parts of a sensation, but how will that help to separate a memory from an anticipation? — Luke
If we distinguish past, present and future from each other by reference to properties rather than by reference to (arbitrary) dimensionless points, then why are you taking issue with arbitrary points? — Luke
There exists a process/entity duality (which in some ways is akin to the wave/particle duality of QM) in the operations of cognition. For one example, our cognition naturally, innately, perceives physical objects, or entities, set against a background – objects that we can cognize as sometimes engaging in processes (e.g., the rock (entity) is rolling (process) down the hill (entity)).
All these experiences then result in our cognizing that everything physical is in an underlying state of flux, i.e. is process, or becoming. Yet the moment we focus on something it becomes a thing, or entity, within our cognition; and this applies to both perceived givens and concepts. For example, the concept of “running (as process)” itself becomes an entity (an individual unit) - linguistically, a noun – in the form of a specific type of process that we then can cognitively manipulate as concept. — javra
All these experiences then result in our cognizing that everything physical is in an underlying state of flux, i.e. is process, or becoming. Yet the moment we focus on something it becomes a thing, or entity, within our cognition; and this applies to both perceived givens and concepts. For example, the concept of “running (as process)” itself becomes an entity (an individual unit) - linguistically, a noun – in the form of a specific type of process that we then can cognitively manipulate as concept. — javra
Unlike the future, though, our recollections of past present-durations wherein we in any way interacted with other minds will always reference events commonly stored (here overlooking mistakes of memory and such) within the memory of all minds concerned. Hence, the past will be fixed relative to all minds that once partook of it when it was a (commonly shared) present duration. In contrast, the future – not having yet been presently experienced – will not be.
As an aside, I’m one to believe that such musings could (together with other principles) be applied so as to formulate a theory of presentism wherein the past is for all intended purposes perfectly fixed and the future is indeterminate – a theory of presentism that parallels the theory of relativity’s stipulation that simultaneity is always observer-dependent. But I’m here presenting all this simply to provide better general background for the current purposes, this in terms of defining the present in respect to the past and future. (In other words, though I’m aware these given premises could be further enquired into, I’m only here presenting them for the purpose of the current issue.) — javra
So, when we don’t focus on the past, present, and future we know that these are all aspects of an inseparable process. Yet when we focus on them, each becomes an individual unit distinct from the others. — javra
We then know from experience that there is no measurable distinction between the future and the experienced present, with the latter always changing to incorporate what in the past was strict future. The same lack of measurable distinction holds between the experienced present and the past. So we know all this to be process, for it's all continuous change. Notwithstanding, we also know that the experienced present is always qualitatively distinct from all past we can recall (be it the past of two seconds ago or that of two years ago, etc.). Likewise with future present-durations which we can in part predict and thereby anticipate.
So, when we don’t focus on the past, present, and future we know that these are all aspects of an inseparable process. Yet when we focus on them, each becomes an individual unit distinct from the others.
Furthermore, when we focus on the past, present, or future, we then cognize each of these to be composed of befores and afters. For example, I am in this current duration of the experienced present writing this word before this one. Upon closer experiential examination, all these befores and afters too are perfectly devoid of measurable distinctions. Yet, when we conceptualize these processes of lived experience – such as by consciously or unconsciously ascribing causality – each before and each after will then be cognized as a distinct unit. — javra
Logical conclusions require premises. If you want to characterize your premises as "the grammar of our language", then I will assume that your principle premise is "the way we speak". The problem with this premise of course is that we often speak falsely and deceptively. So it makes for an unsound argument. Such and such is the truth, because we say it's the truth. — Metaphysician Undercover
The arbitrariness to the points in time, at which acceleration begins and ends is due to differences in the frame of reference. — Metaphysician Undercover
4. Reality is actually continuous, therefore we should not use logic (or grammar or language) to divide the continuum into arbitrary states
— Luke
You got #4 wrong. Remember, I argue for real zero points. — Metaphysician Undercover
The mistake in this practise [of dividing the continuum into arbitrary states] is that it does not provide for the reality, that in between distinct states-of-being lies the process of becoming which is fundamentally incompatible with states-of-being, and cannot be represented as a state-of-being. — Metaphysician Undercover
My question is: how do you intend to represent reality without dividing it into arbitrary states (i.e. without using language)?
— Luke
What I proposed already, is that we need to find the real points of division, then we can avoid the arbitrariness of the current way of dividing. — Metaphysician Undercover
Are you suggesting that we should stop using all temporal concepts until we know whether there are "real" points in time?
— Luke
No, I said if we get conclusive proof that there are not points in time then we ought to stop talking as if there is points. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't know the answer of this. Remember, that was an example of how such an overlap could be real, and I cautioned you not to take it as necessarily the way I would conceive of time, just an example. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think I would choose (i), with a change, that past and future exceed the future. A combination of past and future where past and future exceed the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
I would say, that traditionally the background is of entities. The entity is what is static, and changes occur to it. This is the traditional logic of predication, the subject accepts changing predications. The static aspect is representative of what does not change as time passes, what is continuous, and this is matter in ancient philosophy, and matter is the background. — Metaphysician Undercover
What makes a thing a thing, is temporal continuity. — Metaphysician Undercover
If you define the past as absolutely fixed, and the future as absolutely unfixed, then we run into the same problem that I was showing with Luke's arguments when past and future are mutually exclusive contraries. There cannot be any overlap of past and future. Then, the nature of "the present" becomes extremely problematic. Since the present has to be a process (it cannot be a dimensionless point when a predicate changes to is contrary because this requires a duration of becoming), this time, "the present" must be completely distinct from past and future. But then we need to account for the process whereby the past becomes the present, and the present the future, and I think we'd have to posit some other form of time for this. It may become an infinite regress. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think that these points of distinction are imposed pragmatically, depending on the purpose. For example, you intentionally qualified "past" with what is consciously remembered as past. That is just for the purpose of having a clear division. If we allow all past, then we have to deal with things like "sensory memory", which I brought up earlier. — Metaphysician Undercover
Here is where the problems present themselves. When you say "focus on", I consider this to be conscious effort. — Metaphysician Undercover
The grammar of our language is not synonymous with "the way we speak". It involves the logic of our language and the meaning of words, e.g. why you cannot be both asleep and awake, but you can be both asleep and dreaming. It is also why the past and future cannot both exceed the present and not exceed the present. It does not concern any propositions or theories about the world, so neither does it concern truth or falsity in the manner you suggest. — Luke
How can differences in the frame of reference cause the arbitrariness to the points in time? This makes no sense to me. — Luke
So "the reality [is] that in between distinct states-of-being lies the process of becoming" which is not compatible with states (or arbitrary points). I don't believe I got #4 wrong. — Luke
I'm asking: what are we meant to do in the meantime, until we find them? — Luke
In that case, until we get "conclusive proof" that there are not points in time, then we ought to continue talking as if there are points. — Luke
Then that's both (i) and (ii). (i) is where past and future do not exceed the present. (ii) is where past and future do exceed the present. You are arguing for both, which is a contradiction. — Luke
That's a fair criticism to my response, although I wonder if it may be taking us off the track of the preceding discussion.
I think it's very difficult to say what other animals may or may not "think" or what "concepts" they might use. I use scare quotes because the words "think" and "concepts" typically apply to our human thinking and concepts, with which we are familiar, but I don't know if other animals have the same sort of thing or something completely different, especially when you are proposing that they may have non-linguistic thoughts and concepts. Therefore, I am reluctant to apply what we have, and apply those terms that usually mean human cognition and human concepts, to other animals. — Luke
No, it's not contradiction, your options were just not well formulated. My perspective takes parts from each. — Metaphysician Undercover
To be clear about what I meant, I qualiified the perfect fixedness of the past with "for all intended purposes". Meaning that the past is not, as I interpret it, absolutely fixed. — javra
So I so far don't find this epistemological prioritization to be a matter of confirmation bias. — javra
Not typically. Our vision, as one example, always holds a focal point (more technically, a "focal zone"), i.e. some given area of vision upon which we visually focus, which is itself surrounded by peripheral vision we don't focus on, itself surrounded by non-vision. — javra
And all this occurs, typically, in manners fully devoid of conscious effort. When we're very attentive visually, this focal point becomes smaller bringing more details into visual focus; when we "zone out" this focal point can become so disperse so as to virtually blend everything into our peripheral vision; nevertheless, most of the time, our visual focal point, or that which we visually focus on, will occur without any conscious effort. — javra
Nevertheless, you bring up good points. My tentative, overall understanding of what you've written is that it addresses the issue of time by prioritizing physical matter over conscious experience. (I say "physical matter" so as differentiate it from the Aristotelian notions of, for example, individual ideas being the constituent matter - or material substrate - of a paradigm (with neither ideas nor paradigms being physical matter)).
If so, our metaphysical outlooks will then get in the way of our agreeing upon the nature of time.
But if I'm not misinterpreting you with the just mentioned, I'd be interested to know how you would address time in regard to prime matter? This given that prime matter, from which all matter as individual units develops, is understood to be completely undifferentiated in all ways. — javra
But what do you call that part of the future that lies inside the present? Do you call that “the future” or do you call that “the present”? — Luke
Allow me to put it another way.
What do you call that part of the future which lies outside the present? You call that “the future”, right?
But what do you call that part of the future that lies inside the present? Do you call that “the future” or do you call that “the present”?
Now, does the future exceed the present? If so, then it is distinct from the present.
You are trying to use “the future” in two different ways.
And same for “the past”. — Luke
I agree that the past is fixed, and the future is not, but this creates enormous, seemingly unsurmountable problems for understanding the nature of the present. The first question is, what happens at the present, which could cause such a change? The unfixed future must consist of possibilities, and the past must consist of the results of some sort of selection process. — Metaphysician Undercover
Let me say then, that it is a limitation you impose. The problem with this limitation, limiting your understanding of time to conscious experience, is that if you adhere to it strictly, you get a solipsist position. — Metaphysician Undercover
Does what’s present change?It has always been so. I have always been in the present. The present is where I am now and where I’ve been my entire life. The present never ends. I am always in the present, even if my mind is elsewhere. — Art48
But what do you call that part of the future that lies inside the present? Do you call that “the future” or do you call that “the present”?
— Luke
You can call it either one, or both, depending on the context and what you are trying to say. What do you call those animals who are also human beings? Do you call them human beings, or do you call them animals? Obviously, either one, or both, depending on the context and what you are trying to say. — Metaphysician Undercover
Sorry Luke, I just can't see your point. Look, "animal" exceeds "human being", and "animal" is distinct from "human being". However, there is overlap because some animals are human beings. — Metaphysician Undercover
First off, what I expressed was about “prioritizing” and not “limiting” one’s understanding of time. Makes a world of difference. — javra
Obviously what I meant was: in the context of your argument, do you call it "the future" or "the present"? — Luke
I'll try another way. Do you agree with the following definitions?
(1) "The present" is the temporal region in which the past and the future are combined.
(2) "The past" is the temporal region which is not combined with the future.
(3) "The future" is the temporal region which is not combined with the past.
Can you see that there are two different definitions of "the past" and "the future" here? — Luke
If the past is not combined with the future as per (2), then how can the present be a region in which the past and the future are combined, as per (1)? Seems like you have two definitions of "the past". — Luke
If the future is not combined with the past as per (3), then how can the present be a region in which the past and the future are combined, as per (1)? Seems like you have two definitions of "the future". — Luke
That analogy would hold only if you were arguing that a human being is a combination of an animal and something else. — Luke
(1) "The present" is the temporal region in which the past and the future are combined.
(2) "The past" is the temporal region which is not combined with the future.
(3) "The future" is the temporal region which is not combined with the past.
Can you see that there are two different definitions of "the past" and "the future" here?
— Luke
Of course, 2 contradicts 1, and is not part of my conception. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then what is your conception? How do you define "the past" and "the future"? — Luke
There is "the past" which is not part of "the present" (call this P1), and "the past" which is part of the present (call this P2). There is also "the future" which is not part of "the present" (call this F1), and "the future" which is part of the present (call this F2). — Luke
Can we not distinguish P1 from P2 and F1 from F2? — Luke
Most people call only P1 "the past" and only F1 "the future", with "the present" as its own distinct third period of time that contains neither P2 or F2 (inside it) and to which P1 and F1 (outside it) are relative. I think you sometimes revert to this common usage, too. — Luke
I think this common usage is apparent in your claim that at the beginning of time there is all future and no past, and that at the end of time there is all past and no future. For what are "the past" and "the future" relative to in this scenario? — Luke
In your argument, the past and future are not defined relative to the present, as it is per common usage; instead you define the present relative to the past and future, as an overlapping region containing parts of each. — Luke
So why would there be all future and no past at the beginning of time on your view? This appears to be defining past and future relative to the present, with the present presupposed at the beginning, and all of time as F1 outside it. — Luke
I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future — Metaphysician Undercover
I define past and future relative to the present — Metaphysician Undercover
What I am arguing is that this separation between past and future is a misrepresentation, a misunderstanding, as the present is really a unity of the past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover
Right, I think that what is really the case, is that "the present is defined relative to the past and the future". That is the conventional definition, as I explained in my last post, It is "what is really the case". What I am proposing is something other than the conventional definition. My proposition is that we ought to define past and future relative to the present. This is not "what is really the case" it is what I believe ought to be. — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you agree that the past and future are defined relative to the present time? If not, then how do you reconcile this with your view that the present time is defined relative to one's conscious awareness?
— Luke
I think I may have said that earlier, that past and future are defined relative to present. But now I see I may have misspoke on this as well. I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future, which are defined relative to conscious experience. This means that conscious experience gives to us, past and future, as the memories and anticipations which I mentioned, and from this we derive a present. "The present" is derived from conscious experience, but from an understanding of the elements of it (past and future).
So what we call "conscious awareness", or the conscious experience of the present, is really an awareness of the difference between past and future. Since these two are radically different, yet appear to be in some way a continuum, we conclude that there must be a "present" which separates them. — Metaphysician Undercover
This is evidently false. You have it backwards. The past and future are conventionally defined in terms of the present. — Luke
You, on the other hand, are proposing that the present is defined in terms of the past and future, because you define the present as an overlap between the past and future. — Luke
Here is more of your earlier quote, by the way. From page 3 of the discussion: — Luke
Are you will to start with your conscious experience of being at the present, experiencing the passing of time, without reference to measurement? — Metaphysician Undercover
I say that the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think I may have said that earlier, that past and future are defined relative to present. But now I see I may have misspoke on this as well. I think what is really the case is that "the present" is defined relative to past and future — Metaphysician Undercover
I define past and future relative to the present — Metaphysician Undercover
The past is defined as what has gone by in time — Metaphysician Undercover
The future is defined as what will come in time — Metaphysician Undercover
I do not define the present as an overlap between the past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover
The overlap is the true nature of what the present is, and what time is. — Metaphysician Undercover
Time consists of the two aspects, past and future, and where these two are observed as overlapping is known as the present. Refer back to my Venn diagram explanation. There are two overlapping categories, past and future, and where these two overlap is called the present. — Metaphysician Undercover
That there is such an overlap is a logical conclusion which is produced from defining present by conscious experience, instead of defining it in relation to past and future as is the conventional way. — Metaphysician Undercover
You really don't pay attention to what I write sometimes Luke. — Metaphysician Undercover
The present ought to be defined relative to conscious experience, and from this we'd derive the conclusion of an overlapping past and future. It took me a while at the beginning of the thread to realize that the problem with the conventional conception is that "present" is defined relative to past and future rather than conscious experience. That is why my understanding of "present" which is based directly in conscious experience is so different from the conventional. Making the present the separation between the mutually exclusive past and present, instead of defining it in a way which is based directly on experience, creates the problem I've been talking about. — Metaphysician Undercover
Don't you experience awakening, that brief period when you're half asleep and half awake? And don't you experience this 'in between period' when you are falling asleep as well? — Metaphysician Undercover
"the grammar of our language" discourages us from claiming that we are both asleep and awake at the same time, it does allow us to say that we are neither asleep nor awake. — Metaphysician Undercover
How do you counter-argue the claim "experiencing the passing of time," is measuring time? — ucarr
I note that you were not referring to convention here, but to your own opinion. — Luke
Did you misspeak when you said "the only coherent way is to define past and future by the present." on page 1? — Luke
The answer to both of these questions is: the present. — Luke
Past and future are defined relative to the present. — Luke
Again, this contradicts what you said earlier: — Luke
This could not be misconstrued as anything but you defining the present as an overlap between past and future. — Luke
I agree that the present is defined relative to experience or being, but I disagree that it is not conventionally defined this way. The present is conventionally defined in relation to (or as the time of) being, existing or happening, and the past and future are conventionally defined relative to this, with the past as what has been, has existed or has happened, and the future with what will be, will exist or will happen. — Luke
Can you accept, as another representational example of your above claims, the lap dissolve, a scene transition mechanism essential to the continuity of motion pictures? — ucarr
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.