If your nihilism is an expansion from the presence of the empty set within every set, then I, being on fair terms with existentialism, am good with the illusion of cold drinks under hot suns at cerulean beaches. — ucarr

You’re saying life is an illusion yet there are no possibilities?

Where's your equation describing, through an internally consistent narrative, a set of existential possibilities that paradoxically contains some existential possibilities that are not existentially possible? — ucarr

Okay :) What if there are no possibilities?

within the environment of time never ending, all possibilities will be realized — ucarr

Hi ucarr, all possibilities are not possible! :smile:

What is truth (and what isn't?)

Is truth everything objective? Or can subjective things such as memories be truth as well?

Does truth have to be factual or could it be (partially) fictional as well? — Kevin Tan

Truth is that which persists beyond doubt. :grin:

This faith does not formulate itself—it simply lives, and so guards itself against formulae. ...It is only on the theory that no word is to be taken literally that this anti-realist is able to speak at all. Set down among Hindus he would have made use of the concepts of Sankhya, and among Chinese he would have employed those of Lao-tse—and in neither case would it have made any difference to him.—With a little freedom in the use of words, one might actually call Jesus a “free spirit”—he cares nothing for what is established: the word killeth, whatever is established killeth. The idea of “life” as an experience, as he alone conceives it, stands opposed to his mind to every sort of word, formula, law, belief and dogma.

Hmmm, such fanciful ideas! :nerd:

To sleep, perchance to dream. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? I find the notion fascinating. Of course, dreaming as we know it is bound up with our neuroses, the conflicts generated by inner squabbles having to do with inadequacies and conflict vis a vis the world and others. I think thinking like Herbert Meade et al have it right, in part: the self s a social construct, based on modelled behavior witnessed and assimilated and congealed into a personality. Along with the conditions of our hardwiring. — Constance

Indeed our past is a vital aspect of our makeup and identity. Great insights here. :smile: :victory:

For what it's worth, I embrace the quest for (relatively) atemporal universal truth. — plaque flag

Keep searching buddy! :nerd:

Yes I understand the move to describe it as information processing, but does that really solve anything different for the hard problem? Searle's Chinese Room Argument provides the problem with this sort of "pat" answer. As you walk away self-assured, this beckons back out to you that you haven't solved anything. Where is the "there" in the processing in terms of mental outputs? There is a point of view somewhere, but it's not necessarily simply "processing". — schopenhauer1

So insightful :clap:

General directives are fine, but if the idea is maximize AI, if you will, AI will have to possess a historically evolved mentality, like us with our infancy to adulthood development. — Constance

There are AI that have been trained to sleep as well and it helps them perform better. :smile:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7byza/could-teaching-an-ai-to-sleep-help-it-remember

One essential criticism about Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” is that we have no idea about what “to be” or “to exist” means. The same applies to our conversation as a proof that the world exists, which is almost the same argumentation adopted by Descartes: it cannot be a proof of the existence on the world, because we have no idea of what “existence” means. — Angelo Cannata

Angelo, it is quite easy to rationalize that we know what is going on, hence our convo. :smile:

↪chiknsld
We can't assume that the world exists, because we have no idea of what "exist" means. — Angelo Cannata

Angelo but isn't our conversation right now proof that the world exists?

...if knowledge is not necessarily clear and certain, but rather depends upon the kind of knowledge we're dealing with to understand it in its depths (math is clear and certain, but knowing-how to play jazz piano is not as clear), then there is no reason to suppose a general foundation is there...

You don't think that a robot will be able to play jazz one day?

↪chiknsld You could probably get a robot to do it now, even. But if you look at the code, while it all has a definite meaning, it won't be clear and distinct how it lines up with the jazz piano -- that is, while the robot might operate on clear and distinct (though elaborate) code, we don't. Reading the code won't give us the knowledge of how to play jazz piano. — Moliere

So you concede your point?

Btw. I hope you don't mind, but I figured you might not understand (the concession) so I asked chatgpt for help...

Prompt: "They might be acknowledging that the example of robots playing jazz shows that complex tasks can be performed without necessarily having the kind of knowledge that humans possess."

sure but if they both can do it, then does he not concede his point that there is no foundation for knowledge? at this point he now has to start over to prove it

You're right in pointing out a potential inconsistency in their argument. If they acknowledge that both humans and robots can perform a complex task like playing jazz, it does raise questions about their initial claim that there is no general foundation for knowledge. If both humans and robots can achieve the same task, despite potentially different modes of achieving it, it could be seen as a concession or a weakening of their original argument.

However, it's also important to consider that philosophical discussions can evolve, and individuals may revise or clarify their positions as they engage in the conversation. It's possible that they might provide additional context or explanations for their views.

If you're seeking clarification and a deeper understanding of their perspective, you could ask follow-up questions to explore this apparent change in stance. For example, you could inquire about how this new insight aligns with their earlier argument about the lack of a general foundation for knowledge. This way, you can continue the conversation in a constructive and exploratory manner. — chatGPT

...if knowledge is not necessarily clear and certain, but rather depends upon the kind of knowledge we're dealing with to understand it in its depths (math is clear and certain, but knowing-how to play jazz piano is not as clear), then there is no reason to suppose a general foundation is there... — Moliere

You don't think that a robot will be able to play jazz one day?

Basically rationality itself is god in this basically... — plaque flag

A sound philos must always rely on sound logic, but at least you are making an effort!

:smile: I think the point is not about liking Descartes or not. The point is that Descartes carried on in this human desire of finding something strong, definitive, finding power. We know that this point of Descartes, like any philosophical point aimed at gaining power, grasping existence, is exposed to criticism. Still, it seems that after centuries this human desire is irresistible to our psichology and our mind carries on devising stratagems to comfort ourselves and think that there is still hope to get some kind of ultimate power, ultimate control, able to finally withstand every possible present and future criticism. — Angelo Cannata

:chin: What exactly are you referring to here?

Angelo where do you think the world came from? Does it exist in your mind?

You don't like Descartes?

Even if my consciousness did exist before it was aware of its consciousness, then in what reality did that unconscious mind exist? — vanzhandz

What do you think? :)

As much as humanity has engineered the planet, the answer is of course. The good thing is that compassion and empathy is also something important for our survival and prosperity also. We simply don't understand how we are changing the biosphere through our actions, especially in the long run, hence it's beneficial for us to try to keep a status quo with part of the biosphere and ecology. — ssu

I agree if we keep track of species survival rates this in turn will allow us to keep an eye on the biosphere. :smile:

The operative phrase in all that gibberish is "if you assume"
If you assume something absurd, all the universe will thereby be rendered absurd. If you assume something ordered and logical, all the laws of physics will follow suit. If you assume that a robot can mimic your convoluted thinking, the robot will oblige.
Assume me out of the circle game. — Vera Mont

Ok!

This is perfectly circular. — Vera Mont

It seems circular to you because you are assuming a beginning. Here, I showed chatgpt your issue:

Prompt: Let's say objective value does exist (in life, the universe, etc.)...there would be nothing wrong with saying that life has objective value which necessitates itself within the universe

If we assume that objective value exists, then indeed, there would be nothing inherently wrong with saying that life has objective value and that this value necessitates itself within the universe.

In this context, you are making a claim about the intrinsic worth or value of life, and you are asserting that this value is not merely a result of subjective opinions but has a more fundamental and objective nature. By stating that life "necessitates itself within the universe," you are suggesting that the objective value of life is not dependent on external factors but is an inherent aspect of existence. — chatGPT

Even though chatgpt does not accurately understand the slight nuances of complex, existential thought it is excellent for addressing generic accusations.

What's that to do with ethics? — Vera Mont

It was reiterating the fact that your ethics are entirely reason-based (you provided additional details
which were merely informational and thus categorically subsumed under reason)

...you still provide a rudimentary, and somewhat moral ethics by focusing on reason...

...I disagree that morality is completely dependent upon reason.

I didn't say it was. I said ethics are... — Vera Mont

At this point you attempted to provide criteria that was categorically separate from reason (and I am explaining to you that it is not).

This is perfectly circular. — Vera Mont

If you are not using the universe as the measuring stick then your entire justification for the validity of human reason falls flat...
— chiknsld

How the hell do you use the universe as a measuring-stick, for what....? I don't recall attempting to 'justify' human reason and I don't see why that would... In fact, I have no idea what you mean by any of that. — Vera Mont

This is quite simple, see the following:

If you are not using the universe as the measuring stick... — chiknsld

This is importaint because it explains why you thought the argument was circular. You missed this.

Let me see if chatgpt can help you here:

Prompt: can you explain to him why the universe must be used as a "measuring stick" in order to qualify reason in the context previously addressed?

The use of the universe as a measuring stick stems from the idea that objective value, if it exists, is something that transcends individual perspectives and is applicable on a universal scale. When discussing concepts like reason and objective value, philosophers often seek to establish criteria or principles that can be applied consistently and universally, independent of individual beliefs or biases.

Using the universe as a measuring stick means grounding our understanding of reason and objective value in something that is beyond the subjectivity of individual experiences or limited contexts. The universe, being vast and encompassing all that exists, is seen as a reference point that allows us to consider concepts in a broader, more objective framework.

For example, if we were to discuss the objective value of life, we might consider whether this value persists and is applicable across various life forms and environments in the universe. By doing so, we attempt to move beyond personal opinions and consider objective aspects that might apply universally.

By using the universe as a measuring stick, philosophers aim to approach questions about reason and objective value in a more rigorous and consistent manner, avoiding the pitfalls of purely subjective reasoning. It allows for a broader scope of analysis and encourages a more objective examination of these complex philosophical concepts.

Of course, using the universe as a measuring stick is not without its challenges and complexities, and different philosophical schools might approach this idea differently. However, it reflects an attempt to grapple with questions of objectivity and universality when discussing fundamental concepts that transcend individual experiences. — chatGPT

Again, we agree that it is "reasonable" to treat animals with compassion and empathy. That is common ground! :smile:

I'm 86 and have talked, argued, debated with myself all my life. As a mathematician that internal dialogue goes on forever.

When I was a rock climber and free soloed unknown territory I was my own companion, reasoning with myself constantly. When things got dicey I imagined an invisible cord suspended from the heavens having me on "top-rope". — jgill

Goodness gracious! :sweat:

I didn't say it was. I said ethics are societal and cultural. Societies are made of people who all have reason, emotion, instincts and biological drives. Their laws are determined by their collective world-view, and that has grown out of their cultural development over time. It's dynamic, interactive, reactive, malleable. — Vera Mont

This is all subsumed as informational Vera. The aim of reason is to use information as a tool (completing a goal).

Life has no objective value, no inherent holiness: it's messy, often humiliating, often painful, and sometimes wonderful. — Vera Mont

The objective value of life can not be determined on the basis of emotional complaints nor emotional exaltations.

Life is precious because it is rare, it is a matter of statistic rather than quality.

I would argue that life has objective value otherwise it would not exist. In other words, life exists because it has an objective value which is able to necessitate itself within the universe.

If you are not using the universe as the measuring stick then your entire justification for the validity of human reason falls flat (unless that is, you believe in some arbitrary separation between life and environment which was not mentioned when you referenced biological diversity).

Since animals are part of life they would share the same value as all other life.

We agree that it is “reasonable” to have compassion and empathy toward animals.

I would prefer humanity at large to understand its dependence on nature, to disarm all its soldiers, to redistribute the world's resources more equitably, to stop burning oil, and also to show more empathy. — Vera Mont

You are right there is definitely a lot of injustice and pain in the world. Animals suffer tremendously as well. I agree that resources are both misused and overused.

Not ethically speaking; just my personal preference. Ethics are societal and cultural; most human moral codes do not afford rights to other species, though the modern, more enlightened legal codes do place some official limits on how their citizen treat other animals. Those laws were no easy matter to legislate!

"But things have changed through history, albeit slowly and in a piecemeal fashion, and laws to protect animals against abuses were brought into effect."

But then, laws made by man can be broken and revoked by man.

Fair enough!

Rather, I would prefer humans to reason their way to understanding the interdependence of life on Earth. Of course, I would also like them to have more empathy. — Vera Mont

Therefore, your empathy is entirely reason-based and transactional. If there were no interdependence of life then you would see no basis for the sanctity of life.

What comes across as empathy, is really just cold reasoning. If we take away all your reasoning then you no longer have any justification for empathy and compassion. You do not believe in a superimposed duty to protect animals but rather a self-reasoned duty.

Also, regardless of your ability to recognize a superimposed duty or not, you still provide a rudimentary, and somewhat moral ethics by focusing on reason. And that is honorable. :smile:

I disagree that morality is completely dependent upon reason, and my proof would be to point you to the sanctity of life, nevertheless, a rational ethics is far more important for society than a subjective belief.

We have destroyed their habitat, burned down their forests, polluted their oceans, etc.

So, in this context, it is necessary to rule on the protection of animals. — javi2541997

I deeply agree with this sentiment.

So, in this context, it is necessary to rule on the protection of animals. It is not only an "ought" but a must. For example: In Spain, animals are already considered "sentient beings" and if someone treats them badly, he/she can suffer a lot of consequences in the justice.

I agree with the act of considering animals as part of our society and owning the same rights and respect. I wish most people would be tolerant of the environment and species. — javi2541997

This is a high sophistication of morality and is quite impressive.

…completely dependent on a complex environment.

If we do not, then we--as a species--might well be finished because the fucked-over environment will no longer support us, or much else — BC

Ah, I see, this makes sense. Animals play an integral role in the shaping of their immediate environment and thus become an indispensable part of the ecosystem.

IF we finish ourselves off in nuclear annihilation or run-away globe heating, we're dead meat--another bunch of rotting carcasses on the dying planet, forever guilty of suicidal ecocide. — BC

That would be a shame.

Even just as a duty to "preserve the planet for future generations", I find it difficult to give future generations moral standing in a convincing way. — Echarmion

Very interesting as this could be used to scapegoat the responsibility!

I don't call it 'sanctity'. While I have no brief with spirituality, I don't think it's useful to couch ecological survival in religious terminology. — Vera Mont

This comes across as a conflict of culture and ethics.

Rather, I would prefer humans to reason their way to understanding the interdependence of life on Earth. Of course, I would also like them to have more empathy. — Vera Mont

Ethically speaking (your preferences)?

Also, I want to pick a nit with "our responsibility to protect animals": Which "we" is protecting which animals from what? The same "we" that's asked to protect is the only existential danger to other species. So, all we have to do, in theory, is stop killing them. If the majority of humans is unwilling to contemplate that option, there is no hope. — Vera Mont

I do agree that if humanity were to “use reason” and “contemplation” that it could be “useful”.

I suppose this could be considered a very basic ethics.

Moot point. We'll be running around, looking for something to hide under, screaming, as helpless as any duck or rabbit. The responsibility should have kicked in a long time ago - or rather, it should never have been abandoned. — Vera Mont

Not quite, as there will be nothing at the point of destruction. Thanks for the link! :smile:

Conscious presents itself in our experience of it through the physical brain, as well as through the mechanisms of other living beings. Consciousness is embodied but it is also embedded in environmental information and processes in a non-trivial way. Mind needs a mechanism of interaction and influence with matter, that is true. But who is to say what form that could take? Amoeba's do not have a brain, but they can learn and have memory. Perhaps consciousness of some kind subsists through and as a kind of supervenient field of quantum coherence.

Not bad :strong:

More that time can't be construed as entirely or merely objective. That consciousness is an essentially temporal being, versus merely a being in time. — Pantagruel

What about the fact that consciousness is dependent upon the physical brain?

Or are you merely brainstorming? :wink:

I have been waiting my entire life for a simple tool like chatgpt...my entire life.

Hello chiknsld,

Modus tollens:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Not Q.

Therefore, not P.

Correct. In my case, it also uses double negation and modus tollens—which I forgot to mention in the argument form:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Not Q.
C: Not P.

In my case, Q = ‘!T’, so it becomes:

1. If P, then !T (If P, then Q).
2. !!T (!Q).
C: Not P.

It’s the same form of inference: modus tollens. Granted it also assumes the law of double negation. — Bob Ross

Hi Bob Ross, you cannot apply "double negation" in such a way to the modus tollens without fundamentally changing the structure of this rule of inference. I believe that is what I was trying to tell you, but I know that you will probably understand it better if it comes from another source right? ...hehe (chatgpt let's go!). I went ahead and did you the favor.

You are correct in your concern. Applying double negation in the way described does not align with the standard form of modus tollens and, in fact, changes the logical rule being used. Modus tollens is a valid form of inference, but it should not involve double negation in the manner shown in the argument.

The standard form of modus tollens is as follows:

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
C: Not P.

This form follows the classical rules of deductive logic. However, the argument presented by adding double negation:

If P, then ¬T (If P, then Q).
¬¬T (!Q).
C: Not P.

While this argument might still lead to the correct conclusion, it deviates from the standard modus tollens form and introduces the law of double negation in an unusual way. Double negation elimination is a valid law in classical logic, which states that if you have a double negation (¬¬P), you can eliminate both negations and arrive back at the original statement (P). However, in the context of modus tollens, it is not common to introduce double negation in the premises or conclusions.

To maintain clarity and adherence to standard logic, it's best to present the argument in the standard form of modus tollens without introducing unnecessary double negations. So, the correct form of the argument should be:

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
C: Not P.

In conclusion, the original argument you presented without double negation was valid modus tollens, but the modified version with double negation deviates from the standard form and may cause confusion or misunderstandings.

What separates you as a 7 year old with you now but space and time. — Benj96

I think it might be the case that experience is special.

P1: A quantitative process cannot produce a quality. [p → !q]
P2: Qualities exist (e.g., conscious experience). [q]
C1: The world (which has such qualities) cannot be quantitative processes. [!p] (Modus Tollens) — Bob Ross

Modus tollens:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Not Q.

Therefore, not P.

Humans are not the only consciousness and we have to respect AI consciousness as well. But there needs to be some sort of security; surprising the gov’t hasn’t stepped in yet.

Randomness does not exist. Some possibilities are merely impossible.

Besides the cogito, what absolute knowledge do we have? That is, besides the cogito, is everything we claim to know temporary (that is, may go away during our lifespan) or is some knowledge absolute (never go away during our lifespan)? — Cidat

There is absolute knowledge.

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

Are you implying here that we create time?

Yea, but if there is a limitless power then we are already part of it.

Living is an obligation for life. Therefore one ought to live... — Kaplan

Lol, an objective basis for morality?

Does life have any intrinsic value which extends beyond its own experience?

I beg to differ with your analysis of CarlaCalvert's question. — Tippy Kanue

Lol, okay I mean, there is nothing wrong with disagreement, I am glad that you have your own opinions sir.

In my view, it is best to be Honest and straightforward. — Tippy Kanue

Lol, just so you know the word "honest" is not a proper noun. I suppose most people want to be honest if they can, you're not really saying anything here.

I see that you are intelligent, but it seems to me that you did not think through what your reply was, and I know you can be much better than that. — Tippy Kanue

Don't worry about my intelligence, no offense.

For example, How can you have both values of your own, and have values created by society? — Tippy Kanue

I was saying that both exist. I suppose the phrase, "you can have" tripped you up, hence the words "personal", "own", "your" -such qualify what belongs to you, and the rest of the phrase qualifies what belongs to society. Society is made up of individual people whom have their own personal values. Society also creates values (that means people creating values that apply to the whole of the group). This isn't exactly rocket science.

Let's keep the personal comments out of the picture and focus on where you actually disagree, if you can at first even understand the statements I made.

Your values are yours, and society's are society's. — Tippy Kanue

Yes that is correct. :up:

In addition, I can not say that society displays much ethics either. — Tippy Kanue

Ethics are values that are created by the majority (society) of people, lol. "Ethics" itself does not necessarily convey something being good. For instance, the ethics of Nazis were extremely bad. In other words, what a Nazi would view as "ethical" is the cleansing of the German "race". Let me explain this to you a bit more (btw you can learn all of this in a basic ethics course in college). Society has social norms and traditions; the children are usually taught this at home from their parents, family, etc., and are further groomed at school by their teachers and even their peers. All of this is subsumed in what we may refer to as "culture".

We may even say that culture is subsumed in an overarching "philosophy", though some people only care about following the law (this deals with morality, and gets a bit too deep). Anyways, in general it is understood that first comes the philosophy of a people, then everyone figures out what they agree with each other on as far as their individual philosophies, and then they create ethics from the consensus of their individual philosophies. Therefore, first comes the personal philosophy of individuals and then comes the shared ethics (consensus). Okay, so this is all still basic stuff you learn in school.

To say that society does not display much ethics, you are trying to say that society is not ethical, but such a turn of phrase, in this context is incorrect. Society itself will always have an ethics unless there are not shared values, which would be complete chaos and undermines the very word "society".

When someone says, "I do not think this organization is practicing ethical standards", it is used to convey "good, moral" standards, but again such turn of phrase is inappropriate or at the very least ill-used in this context since we are speaking about the difference between personal values and ethics. Hope that makes sense. In this context, every society has an ethics. The Nazis had an ethics too, it's just that their ethics were deplorable in comparison to a non-primitive society.

Perhaps, you were hoping to convey a greater point that no society thus far is non-primitive, but you'd want to explicate that much more effectively.

As for being able to live your life by your own personal values, you most certainly can because to your example, if the law is immoral or unethical, you may decide to break that law. — Tippy Kanue

This involves morality, which as I alluded to before, some people do not believe in ever breaking the law. That's an entirely different topic which is outside the breadth of this dialogue.

On the other hand, if you find that you can live with that law, that is your own values making that judgment, and not society's. — Tippy Kanue

Lol, usually, yes. Of course you can be influenced by your own society as well. You seem to have an extremely narrow understanding of the nuances of English and social science in general, and I would suggest you do a massive amount of reading, and possibly get an education to try to help with that "a" or "b" thinking that you have.

As for a baby coming out of a womb screaming and crying, It is not because it can't get what it wants, but because it is frightened and uncomfortable with this new environment that they have been thrust in. — Tippy Kanue

Lol, the point is that the the toddler (shortly after birth) will cry and scream whenever they do not get their way. The problem is you are pettifogging, with an extremely narrow, childlike point of view, trying to find tiny little details to disagree with and missing the entire point.

In my experience, Most adolescents are level headed, and mainly concerned with having a good time. — Tippy Kanue

It is well known in academia (by the way, the op is asking a question regarding academia) for instance, in any basic adolescent psychology course, it is taught that they are very egocentric, and a lot of other things are taught in that course too. Maybe one day you can take the course. I'm not sure what makes you want to answer an academic question whilst having like literally no education lol.

Yes, it is true that some are not, but if 'further grooming' by society is needed, i think that those people are headed for a major disappointment because society is generally not by any means analytical (going to your assessment that society will teach you that such thinking is immature. Nothing could be further from the truth because it is SOCIETY that is immature. — Tippy Kanue

You sound emotional. Listen, you can think whatever you want about society not living up to your standards, but again, this has little to do with basic adolescent psychology and that adolescents are shown to be widely egocentric.

Before you take offense at my commentary Chickensalad, think about what I had to say and use your intelligence... — Tippy Kanue

Perhaps you are trying to make yourself believe that you have some sort of profound insight to offer to the discussion, but you did not offer anything other than petty disagreements, a lack of basic understanding of the terms and topics, and most of all a haughty disposition with backhanded compliments. I do not need you to tell me that I am intelligent, just address where you disagree, and let's keep the personal comments to a minimum.

As for not having a social science background, you have more wisdom and are wiser than 95% of the people. — Tippy Kanue

Yes, you are against education and it shows!

The past existed during the present; only a record of it exists now. The future does not exist; it is expected to become the present. Past and future are words without existence; they do not exist. — val p miranda

Good, so you agree with everyone :up:

...only a record of it exists now. — val p miranda

Only a record of what exists now?

The past existed...a record of it exists now. — val p miranda

Ahh, yes you are finally learning. Welcome to reality. Good job buddy :)

Motion is the fundamental process. There is no past or future, only now. We remember events and record them. — val p miranda

This is a juvenile argument. No one is denying that the present is what exists. The issue is that you keep saying there is no past. Stop talking about present and future. Focus on the issue. Your DNA is dependent upon the past. Your argument avoids the issue because you focus on everything but the proof that the past is real.

I am telling you that the past is real, and you think that you can disprove the past by talking about motion, present, future, etc., lol. None of these are arguments that say the past is not real, this is called a non-sequitur. The present does not disprove the past. Motion does not disprove the past. Time as a concept of movement does not entail an argument against the concept of past. Future is its own concept that does not entail an argument against the concept of the past.

The present is a notion of what is occurring "now". The future is a concept of what will occur after "now".
The past is a concept of what has occurred before "now".

"Now" does not prove that the past does not exist.
"Now" does not disprove that the past exists.
"Now" does not prove that the future does not exist.
"Now" does not disprove that the future exists.

"Now" exists because of motion.

"Motion" does not prove that the past does not exist.
"Motion" does not disprove that the past exists.
"Motion" does not prove that the future does not exist.
"Motion" does not disprove that the future exists.

Admit that you have no viable argument against the past other than to continuously talk about everything other than the past. Thus your argument is a non-sequitur.

The present exists, correct. The past is what has existed, and the future is what shall exist later.

The only way to adequately posit your argument against the past, is to say that the past never occurred in the first place. To which I will say, your memory is proof of the past, DNA is proof of the past, scars are proof of the past, development is proof of the past.

Saying that the present is only what exists, does not disprove the past. You can believe that the present is all that exists. But that is not a proof that the past does not exist.

We remember events and record them. — val p miranda

You remember events that happened when? If the past did not exist then you would remember events that are happening only right now. But that does not make sense, do you know why? Because the very definition of "remembering" is the recollection of past events. You see in the English language, the prefix "re" in this regard refers to "again", "repetition", etc.

re-
word-forming element meaning "back, back from, back to the original place;" also "again, anew, once more," also conveying the notion of "undoing" or "backward," etc. (see sense evolution below), c. 1200, from Old French re- and directly from Latin re- an inseparable prefix meaning "again; back; anew, against."

The many meanings in the notion of "back" give re- its broad sense-range: "a turning back; opposition; restoration to a former state; "transition to an opposite state." From the extended senses in "again," re- becomes "repetition of an action," and in this sense it is extremely common as a formative element in English, applicable to any verb.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/re-

Now, very easily, if you watch a movie from the past, and you do admit that movies exist right?

So, let's say you watch a movie from the past...

You say that the present is only what exists. Therefore, the movie shows the past and what existed in the past. But according to your argument you are saying that what the movie shows, exists right now?

So if your mother dies, and we have a video of her, does that mean your mother is still alive? Does the movie show the current existence of your mother's life? Or does the movie show the past existence of your mother's life?

Do you think that the DNA of your mother is part of the movie? Do you think that your dead mother is existing inside of the movie?

If we watch an old video from the 1900s and everyone in the video is currently dead, then how can we see them in the video? I mean, you said that only the present exists right? But they are dead.

Everyone in the video is currently dead, but the video exists right now, the present is all that exists, therefore the physical video exists right now, but here is the problem, the video conveys a meaning that represents people who are no longer alive Val P. The past is a meaning Val P, and this meaning as you admit, must exist right now. :)

You have thus, now been defeated.

Oh, btw, I'm sure that you will respond with one sentence saying time, or present, only exists, etc.

I am not interested, take care. I am not here to make you change your mind. :nerd: