I agree with the gist of what you are saying.

I'm not referring to what we may or may not call time as physicists. I mean for uniquely humans.

I think at the sensory level of our experience, sensation and feeling, like it is for the rest of nature, there is no time. Sure, we say "only the present" or "successive nows," but its because "we" humans are not at the sensory level so we can't but incorporate time.

We're at the level of perception, where Mind conditioned by history, displaces sensation and feelings with code evolved to project in dialectical (this/that) linear form,(narrative--subject and predicate, cause and affect) evolving "time" as a necessary mechanism of that moving process.

Even calling it linear or dialectical is just as illusory as time itself. But as long as we're born into history, we can't but move in that world of codes.

as long as we're born into history, we can't but move in that world of codes. — ENOAH

That’s one for the scrapbook! :clap:

On further reflection, there is a self-evident subjective field immediately experienced by every subject, namely, the field of their own conscious awareness. Things appear within it, and disappear from it, without literally being either inside or outside of it in any spatio-temporal sense. It is demonstrably a unified field, insofar as to be aware of oneself a subject, is precisely to be the subject in whom a single field of awareness exists.

So the question for you is, does every point in that field have a mathematical description, as do the points within physical fields? And if not, does that disqualify its description as ‘a field’?

For what it's worth, I very much enjoy reading your conversations here. For me this is a place to understand what people believe and why. Your dialogues are particularly interesting as they are so reasonably argued.

I don't know whether idealism is real or not, but I have some sympathy for the arguments. I am keen to have a better understanding of philosophical ideas and to see how they are defended in discussions like yours. It does strike me that most people on this forum don't seem to change their views. They simply uncover more arguments and tools to defend them.

Thanks, nice of you to say! Glad someone does ;-)

I agree with the gist of what you are saying. — ENOAH

:up: :cool:

Even calling it linear or dialectical is just as illusory as time itself. But as long as we're born into history, we can't but move in that world of codes. — ENOAH

Agreed.

...does that disqualify its description as ‘a field’? — Wayfarer

No.

...a field is a physical quantity, represented by a scalar, vector, or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time.[1][2][3] An example of a scalar field is a weather map, with the surface temperature described by assigning a number to each point on the map. A surface wind map,[4] assigning an arrow to each point on a map that describes the wind speed and direction at that point, is an example of a vector field, i.e. a 1-dimensional (rank-1) tensor field. — Wiki: Field

Why call it a field? What is the use of such language, if there are no values attached to points in space?

Seems to be no more than a veneer of the scientism we reject.

So the question for you is, does every point in that field have a mathematical description, as do the points within physical fields? And if not, does that disqualify its description as ‘a field’? — Wayfarer

Field as a mathematical term or field as an area of land devoted to growing crops? Or field as an encompassing environment of some sort, a philosophical notion. Spacetime is not a math field, but contains various entities like magnetic fields that can be represented as math fields.

"Understanding" quantum theory means following the math, as Feynman said. Perhaps that is true of time as well. The math of relativity theory weaves an astounding vision far beyond what we might have imagined. If one entertains Tegmark's speculations that the universe is a mathematical structure, then time is one also. A reification of mathematics.

'field' as an encompassing environment of some sort, a philosophical notion — jgill

The field of conscious awareness is how I intended it. Aside from physical fields in biology there are morphogenetic fields. "A morphogenetic field is a region in a developing embryo where cells communicate and coordinate to form a specific organ or structure. The spatial organization of cells within these fields is controlled by chemical gradients (morphogens), gene regulatory networks, and cellular signaling (biosemiosis). Morphogenetic fields guide pattern formation, ensuring that tissues and organs develop correctly in relation to the body plan." It would hardly be surprising if 'field' used to describe consciousness has resonances with the biological rather than the way it is understood in physics.

Why call it a field? — Banno

Because it's an apt description of the nature of conscious awareness. In this context it is being used phenomenologically rather than physically referring to the way awareness manifests as a unified, continuous whole rather than as collection of discrete elements (per the 'subjective unity of perception'). Within that field, specific phenomena - specific aspects of 'phenomenal consciousness' - manifest as qualia, the qualitative attributes associated with specific stimuli or circumstances or cognitive challenges.

So your description of the "field of consciousness" is apt becasue it does not match the definition of "field"...

Others seem to think that this works. But you will have to forgive me if I continue to be sceptical.

Not forgiven so much as expected ;-)

So far as explanations go, saying that something is an example of a field exactly becasue it does not meet the criteria for being a field is... odd.

So far as explanations go, saying that something is an example of a field exactly becasue it does not meet the criteria for being a filed is... odd. — Banno

You limit "field" to "a physical quantity", then complain because Wayfarer's proposed "field" doesn't meet the criteria of your definition. But your definition is incoherent because "physical quantity" is self-contradicting.

You limit "field" to "a physical quantity" — Metaphysician Undercover

No I. and not to "physical" but to "quantity". That's the definition of "field" in science and mathematics.

Let's do it again. A field has a value at every point in the space it describes. That is what a field is.

Subjectivity does not have a value at every point in some space. Indeed, it is not the sort of thing that can have a value. Moreover, from what I can work out, Wayfarer and others agree with this.

Hence subjectivity is not a field.

The context was this quotation:

Under objective idealism, subjectivity is not individual or multiple, but unitary and universal: it’s the bottom level of reality, prior to spatiotemporal extension and consequent differentiation. The subjectivity in me is the same subjectivity in you. What differentiates us are merely the contents of this subjectivity as experienced by you, and by me. We differ only in experienced memories, perspectives and narratives of self, but not in the subjective field wherein all these memories, perspectives and narratives of self unfold as patterns of excitation — Bernardo Kastrup

What precisely is the matter with that again?

This bit:

The subjectivity in me is the same subjectivity in you. — Bernardo Kastrup

is exactly wrong.

We differ only in experienced memories, perspectives and narratives of self, but not in the subjective field wherein all these memories, perspectives and narratives of self unfold as patterns of excitation — Bernardo Kastrup

We differ in "experienced memories, perspectives and narratives of self"... so what is left that is shared? What are those "Patterns of excitation" that are not "experienced memories, perspectives and narratives of self" and which also do not have a value?

There is nothing left here, for the field to consist in.

The subjectivity in me is the same subjectivity in you.
— Bernardo Kastrup
is exactly wrong. — Banno

Why? What's wrong about it? A mere assertion does not an argument make.

...

There is nothing left here, for the field to consist in. — Banno

You cannot know what the subjective "patterns of excitation" in someone else are, let alone they are the same as your own.

You're not answering the question, you're simply deflecting.

Your question is a nonsense. You want a shared subjectivity that is also private.

Still not an argument....

..so what is left that is shared? — Banno

The fundamental level of self-awareness that characterises beings. What would remain if you had complete amnesia and forgot who you were.

Well, I've presented a counter case to your notion of "field" for several pages now. If you have not followed that, there's not much more to be done.

Let's do it again. A field has a value at every point in the space it describes. That is what a field is.

Subjectivity does not have a value at every point in some space. Indeed, it is not the sort of thing that can have a value. Moreover, from what I can work out, Wayfarer and others agree with this.

Hence subjectivity is not a field. — Banno

Reply to that, if you would, instead of changing the topic.

The fundamental level of self-awareness that characterises beings. What would remain if you had complete amnesia and forgot who you were. — Wayfarer

Not a field.

Reply to that, if you would, instead of changing the topic. — Banno

You're the one who changed the topic, and you're now trying to shift it back within your comfort zone.

Where was it you lost those car keys? ;-)

Not a field. — Banno

Why not? If you were amnesiac, you would presumably be conscious, even if you didn't know who you were. Your autonomic and parasympathetic nervous systems would be functioning. You would see things around you in the room, and other people, even if you didn't know who they were. All of those would be part of your field of awareness.

Balls.

Here's were you invited my comment:

Kastrup puts it much better than I could:

Under objective idealism, subjectivity is not individual or multiple, but unitary and universal: it’s the bottom level of reality, prior to spatiotemporal extension and consequent differentiation. The subjectivity in me is the same subjectivity in you. What differentiates us are merely the contents of this subjectivity as experienced by you, and by me. We differ only in experienced memories, perspectives and narratives of self, but not in the subjective field wherein all these memories, perspectives and narratives of self unfold as patterns of excitation; that is, as experiences.

As such, under objective idealism there is nothing outside subjectivity, for the whole of existence is reducible to the patterns of excitation of the one universal field of subjectivity. Therefore, all choices are determined by this one subject, as there are no agencies or forces external to it. Yet, all choices are indeed determined by the inherent, innate dispositions of the subject. In other words, all choices are determined by what subjectivity is.
— Bernardo Kastrup

@Banno — Wayfarer

To which I replied:

Dreadful stuff, seeing as you asked for my opinion. The phrases "unitary and universal" and "bottom level of reality" and "prior to spatiotemporal extension" ought set one's teeth on edge; they are vague to the point of incoherence. The magic hand wave of "The subjectivity in me is the same subjectivity in you" contradicts the very use of terms such as "subjective" from which it derives.

Wayfarer, you do not have my memories, nor I, yours. That's kinda what "subjective" is. It is not shared.

The science you castigate and beg to become more "subjective" functions exactly because it works to overcome subjectivity by building on what we do share.


This is what I tried to explain on our little walk. — Banno

Why not? — Wayfarer

...becasue a field has a value at every point...

The science you castigate and beg to become more "subjective" functions exactly because it works to overcome subjectivity by building on what we do share. — Banno

Hence my essay on the superiority of philosophical detachment to scientific objectivity. Here's a gift link for you.

...becasue a field has a value at every point... — Banno

Dogmatic? Me?