In mathematics, a limit is the value that a function approaches as the input approaches some value. You are starting with an equation. Would it help to solve for x as a function of y and z, y as a function of x and z, z as a function of x and y? I can't see that you have given what the limit or limits would be...seems like some things are missing. Some classification of the type of math you are doing might help, just to look up references or example problems.
This is a philosophy forum so you're doing sort of a Hail Mary Pass here. There might be one or two good math guys or gals in the bunch, but it's not me.

Ok, I've looked epiphenomenalism and I don't like it. It's a form of dualism were the physical brain supports an immaterial mind that has no output capabilities. That's not what I was describing and I don't think it's a viable theory. And I haven't found any time perception explanations associated with it just looking at Wikipedia and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Dualism might have some general solution to time perception in the form of mind but I don't see any specific mechanism. Physicalism fails because you only have the physical present to work with. Presentism fails for the same reason. Eternamism fails if you don't accept past and future matter as existing.

How does the physical matter of neurons instantiate the non-physical content of future perception? — Mww

I agree the question stated your way is a hard problem that science doesn't have an answer to. There is a simpler question I was thinking about. That would just be, if time perception is (or is not) observable evidence that our brains actually use instantiated non-physicals? I would answer yes and our brains do a lot of it and the neurons of our cerebral cortex are specialized to do exactly that.
I've been looking and haven't found any treatment of the hard problem that looks at instantiated non-physicals by that or any other name. I will look at epiphenomenalism... heard of it but not familiar with it.

Physicalism thinks it leaves dualism behind, when in fact it simply ignores the subjective dimension of experience that is built into , but hidden within, the very assumptions of physicalism. — Joshs

This is just the thing I'd like to sort through with a birds eye view of the problem. My approach would be to develop physicalism to the point that the neuron instantiated non-physicals are recognized as emergent from physical matter. Then you are back to dualism with a defined form of the non-physical such as mind, thought, ideas and so on.
The general form that emerges is [neurons,(an instantiated non-physical)].
Some examples would be:
Information is a neuron instantiated non-physical.
Mind is a neuron instantiated non-physical.
Thought is a neuron instantiated non-physical.
Ideas are a neuron instantiated non-physical.

Philosophy and it's subdivisions also take this general form:
Philosophy is a neuron instantiated non-physical.
Dualism is a neuron instantiated non-physical.
Monism is a neuron instantiated non-physical.
Physicalism is a neuron instantiated non-physical.
...and on and on. The neuron part would be millions or billions of neurons, whatever is required to instantiate specific content.
I'm a little weak on the history of philosophy but you give a good overview. I only recognized a few names you covered, so I'm working on matching names to philosophy.

Cancel duplicate.

Cancel duplicate.

What are non-physical neurones? — Banno

I didn't use the term non-physical neurones, you did.

OR is it the information you think non-physical? — Banno

I think information cannot be non-physical. For example, thoughts have a non-physical aspect but are always supported by physical neurons (as in many millions into the billions).

I could set this up differently. If I set the big circle as the universe, a second circle as a brain, and a third inner circle as the cerebral-cortex (or other region) and stopped the Venn diagram there I think you would be satisfied. And it has some of the elements I want to examine.
Then looking at that Venn diagram I would ask if information defined as a neuron(s) instantiated non-physical is a viable theory

You are right, a bit of a gulf.
The point of the list was to show a universal principal or mechanism at work.

Sorry, didn't mean to chase you away.
I could be the the only one here who sees it this way and it must not be a common view by the reactions I'm getting. One reason I'm posting is to stress test it. Fishfry is good at it and I don't mind at all.
And I don't see philosophy as something where you take a position and defend it forever but more iterative where you try something and if it's not right you go back and try it again.
Edit: I should have said try something else. You shouldn't repeat if it's not working.

That gave me hiccups.
To answer your question in a roundabout way and re-establish my original premise, I made up this list:
An idea is a neuron contained (or instantiated) non-physical.
A paradigm is a neuron contained non-physical.
Information is a neuron contained non-physical.
Consciousness is back burner for me.
A concept is a neuron contained non-physical.
A belief is a neuron contained non-physical.
Mind is a neuron contained non-physical.
A conception is a neuron contained non-physical.

Actually I had a similar list made up but yours was more complete.
Edit: Please read neuron as neurons (plural).

Physicalism doesn't go far enough in exploring what non-physicals are or in what form they exist. I could be wrong, maybe you know some references. I'm always looking and I don't find much on it.

Thank you so much! Very good to know.

If one is a physicalist, then mind is ultimately explainable in terms of physics. I'm a pile of atoms and I have plenty of qualia and a rich internal life, so atoms must be capable of doing that. If one denies that, then one is forced to accept some kind of dualism. I think both alternatives are equally untenable. — fishfry

Here are my thoughts on this: Maybe, like in physics, philosophy should be looking for a theory of everything. So my opinion is that neurons, mostly cerebral cortex, possibly some more, do have the capability to instantiate non-physicals. If this is the case then you have an entirely physical process that supports non-physicals. Not sure if this would satisfy a duelist or a physicalist ( I would guess neither).
I'm kind of getting over Venn diagrams for just now.

[img]http://blob:https://drawisland.com/e150538f-5a00-4e6a-8046-c813abc5928a[/img]
Sorry I don't think this link works. Something about posting an image to the web that I'm missing and have never needed to do it before and it takes time to figure out.

I actually did draw the Venn diagram you described on a cheap graphics program. The basic question I would ask is have some of our neurons evolved the ability to instantiate non-physicals. I would answer yes in the extreme but others might say not at all-a physical impossibility.

You see that number under my name? It might read 16 or 17, not too much so maybe that's my one time excuse. With models you might not always know the end from the beginning or maybe a snafu would lead to a second attempt and a better model.
If you or anyone else feels up to it there is an image icon above the comment box. Maybe draw your best Venn diagram or picture model and post it. I did some Venn diagrams on a drawing program but haven't worked out how to post it here.
There's a basic question here that I haven't stated which is have some of our neurons (probably in the cerebral cortex) developed the ability to contain (or instantiate) non- physicals? Think of it as a yes or no question with big implications.

I like the word instantiated but it's not a joe schmoe word. The subject of strong AI is possibly an exact analogy in containing non-physicals.
The form would be [computational electronics,(an instantiated non-physical)],
compared with [neurons, (an instantiated non-physical)].

I will try to write neurons instead of neuron; I meant neuron plural and you read neuron singular. It could be I have my own grammar on some of this and need to clean it up a bit. So if something seems off keep after me.
A guess, for humans, performing simple tasks, could involve tens of millions of neurons.
Something about Claude Shannon you may not know is he did not like the father of information (theory) title. His work was with signals, transmission rates, error rates and high level math for sure but the result was to implement on physical systems. Looking it up would be better than from my memory.
So my version of information is basically the mind stores and processes information and everything external is just physical matter. Communication works by coding (or encoding) and decoding matter in various forms

As far as the time perception model goes I could restate it in sentence form.
The past is an idea held by present neurons.
The present is an idea held by present neurons.
The future is an idea held by present neurons.

My use of the semi colon was to add clarification. And in common terms a normal average Joe would understand it and there wouldn't be an issue.

So I'm getting you don't like models that use anything non-physical.
That's just fine. I like any model and often going deeper has surprises.
So would your Venn diagram of reality be a big circle with all the matter in the universe and small circles as brains being a special class of matter?
And do you have a model or definition of information in any form you wish?

Yes, words sometimes fail. I'm trying to think of analogies that fit the relation. I could say my hand holds or grasps a physical object but how do I say my neurons 'fill in the blank' a non-physical? Would the word 'pair' or 'paired with' be more neutral? The important thing is to start thinking about the relation. Neurons have the capability to manipulate non-physicals and non-physicals cannot exist without being 'fill in the blank' by neurons.
I would think of a hydrogen atom as fundamental and the DNA molecule as emergent. Anything following the DNA molecule would also be emergent such as brains and the ability to process information (using the neuron contained non-physical definition).
I did get looking at neuron tables for various species and that's interesting if you want to correlate number of total neurons to capabilities. Interesting, a honey bee has 960,000 neurons and can do things like find food and get back to it's hive without direct visual input.

So without using the word contained, let's just show it this way,
[neurons,(a non-physical)] as an irreducible unit
and do something useful with it - model time perception:
[neurons,(the past)]; physically exists in the present
[neurons,(the present)]; physically exists in the present
[neurons,(the future)]; physically exists in the present

This model shows how time perception is always in the physical present but lets us perceive a past, present and future.

You are right. That part does need defining and I don't remember doing it before.
So non-physical (as in having no physical form, mass, location, energy) I would identify as physically non existent.
Maybe by mental process of default I identified 'neuron contained non physicals' as the way it is in order for non physical (thought) to physically exist. The pairing of neurons and content seems intuitive enough to me but apparently fails in a philosophy forum. I should work on that.
Also it's a long standing problem in many fields of understanding how neural states match with mental content. So it's not just my problem.

Please, if you are trying to sort this, go back to my original posts and not the paraphrased misquotes. In particular, I don't model neurons containing information, but redefine information as a neuron contained non physical. Since no one thinks of information in this way I maybe do expect some blowback.
Some of the main issues here:
Can stand alone non physicals exist? I would answer no.
Can neuron contained non physicals exist? I would answer yes.
Can non physical stand alone information (common usage) exist? I would answer no.
Can information redefined as a neuron contained non physical exist? I would answer yes and this is in fact how we always experience information. Neurons and contained content.

I just love having people self document.

And your reasoned opinion exactly why. You not think of bipartite form ever before Mr. 11.8k?

Oh, my model, outside the circle, is physically non existent. So that's not right. The neuron part of a neuron contained non physical is physical. It belongs inside the brain circle.

Did you consider that because a neuron contained non physical is irreducible it must (as a rule of logic) be considered a physical object? Therefore not a contradiction.

You're not another entropy guy, are you?

So the three ducks never existed but were a non physical contained by your neurons. As a second example you give the cat and the mat that never existed but were a non physical contained by your neurons. Why you not like this model in Venn form?

I hear you on the words and definitions problems. To keep things focused, do you think in a biological evolutionary process organisms could gain the ability to contain non physicals that would lead to a survival advantage?

So information is not even a thing, non existent, and cannot be placed in the Venn diagram. I'm trying to identify a hierarchy of things.

So is information physical, non physical or a physically contained non physical or something else?

Just by definition specific to this model. I really don't want to take on all definitions of information.
The problem is non physical information doesn't seem viable.
Also brains and the ability to process non physicals would have been emergent at some point in history and evolved from simple to complex.