Yet, with each new mass murder in the U.S. we have people from all over the world increasingly calling for civilians to be disarmed, for the indivudual's right to bear arms to be seen as a myth that never had any moral or intellectual foundation, and for only the police and the military to be allowed to possess firearms. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The basis for the 2nd Amendment is not to assure the right of vigilantism of every citizen, but to protect you against a tyranical government. If a police department is unresponsive or inept, corrective efforts should be made, but there's no reason to believe that civil lawsuits are the best or most effective way to regulate the police. Instead of paying off injured parties on a case by case basis, it seems like a state regulator would be better suited than occasional juries.

An egregious fact that is unconstitutional in spirit if not in fact. — Thorongil

What Constitutional provision is violated when the police fail to act?

The better argument is that sovereign immunity laws are assumed valid under the Constitution.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D12680%26context%3Djournal_articles&ved=2ahUKEwilyerfgbbZAhWBNd8KHXqSC0oQFjATegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw3ZO7y1WniYfIdSO-5fsve7

Generally speaking, governmental entities are immune from suit except to the extent the government permits themselves to be sued. Since democracies have no actual sovereign, the remedy for this supposed outrage is corrective democratic legislation. Understand that when you sue a democratic government, you sue yourself, which is why it makes more sense to change the laws you complain of.

The significant difference between the thermostat and the human belief is that the thermostat necessitates action, and in the human being belief doesn't necessarily result in action. One may or may not act on a belief. That's free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'd take this a step further and eliminate the issue of free will. I can have a belief without any behavioral correlate. I can believe I'm going to the store tomorrow and no one would ever be able to know it. A thermostat cannot have a belief without a behavioral correlate because there's complete identity between the behavior and the belief in the thermostat.

No, but then I don't really hold with phenomenalism in humans either. — Pseudonym

I can't make any sense of this statement.

If you wish to assert that "it's clear that something different is happening when I believe it's too hot and the thermostat switches on the furnace.". I'd like to hear an argument as to why you think that, I'm not going to just take your word for it. — Pseudonym

The thermostat isn't conscious, although I thought we've already been discussing that.

This is a philosophy forum, not a linguists forum, I'm not so interested in how the word is used so much as what we can learn from it. — Pseudonym

A meaningless distinction.

That's why I keep coming back to the question of whether there is any meaningful job being done by restricting the word belief to conscious creatures. What is it about consciousness that makes belief data different from any other data (such as that which is stored in the position of a bimetallic strip)? — Pseudonym

So are you admitting that there is a distinction between my belief and the thermostat's, yet you just don't think it's relevant enough to warrant it having a different term attached to it? If you're acknowledging my distinction, yet you just want to lump both as "beliefs," then we just disagree on terminology, not concepts.

What is it about consciousness that makes belief data different from any other data (such as that which is stored in the position of a bimetallic strip)? — Pseudonym

If consciousness exists in belief(1) but not belief(2), they are different.

A belief is an attitude to a proposition in some way, I think perhaps we can all agree on that (although maybe not). The question is whether there is any need for the holder of that attitude to be aware they are holding it. — Pseudonym

Is a proposition a linguistic statement? Are you now saying the thermostat has an attitude toward a linguistic statement? As best I can tell, all the spring does is expand, and that's what you call an "attitude"?

What differentiates a thermostat from the examples you give is that in the examples, there is no outside observer to whom the data is relevant. We're all quite comfortable with the idea that a computer hard drive contains data, it's all just diodes, but we call it data because the outcome is unpredictable to us. The ice in some way 'contains' the data that it's below freezing point, but that data was not unpredictable to us, the thermostat's data is. — Pseudonym

I don't follow any of these distinctions. The water freezes at 0 degrees and forms a barrier around our home to insulate us through the miracle of nature. I notice it does all that. Does the ice now have a belief it can insulate me? I can put mercury in a test tube and watch it rise with the temperature and use that for whatever purpose I choose, so now does the mercury have a belief? And if the thermostat exists in a house that no one enters, and the data it provides is relevant to no one, does it no longer have a belief? If I believe I'll have a ham sandwich for lunch, do I have a belief if that belief is irrelevant to everyone else.

I'm a determinist, so as far as I'm concerned, a person putting a coat on is a direct mechanistic consequence of the environment acting on their biological system. No different to the air temperature acting on the thermostat and causing it to switch the heating on. Yet at some point in time, we want to be able to say that the person 'believes' it is cold and it is this belief that causes them to put a coat on. — Pseudonym

And was it submitted that determinism was incompatible with having a conscious or forming a belief?

In order to be a cause, this belief must be a prior state of the biological system. More specifically it must be exactly that particular state which causes the coat putting on activity. If that state is what a belief is, then logically, that same prior state must also be a belief in the thermostat. — Pseudonym

This is an antiquated view of determinism, but regardless, it's irrelevant whether the thermostat's reaction and the human reaction are pre-determined. I've not argued that beliefs arise from an other world miracle substance.

Not at all, there are many perfectly rational people (myself included) who consider consciousness to be an illusion, that we are distinguishable from thermostats only in the number of such computations we can carry out at any one time. In fact, I would go as far as to say that, if we allow for some phenomenal emergence, then actually most philosophers of mind agree that our brains work in this way. There is nothing ontological to distinguish us from thermostats other than volume of data processed. — Pseudonym

Do you suppose thermostats have phenomenal states?

As I said, if you've already made up your mind as to what 'believe' should mean and what is apparently "clear" about the differences between the state of our brains when we believe something and the state of the bimetallic strip in a thermostat when is 'believes' it is cold, then what purpose is there to your involvement in this discussion? — Pseudonym

I guess having an opinion bars one from discussing that opinion with someone who has an opposing view? I do think it is very clear that your claiming that a thermostat has a belief is not how the word belief is used among speakers of English.

Indeed, and the thermostat, if broken, might turn the heating off despite 'beliving' that it is cold, but we would in both cases be equally able to judge that something has gone wrong. I'm still not hearing anything of this magical difference between humans and thermostats which actually makes any difference to the meaning and use of the term 'belief'. — Pseudonym

I don't get why you put belief in quotes unless you're using it in a strained figurative sense and not literally. My understanding of your thesis was that thermostats had beliefs in the literal sense.

Firstly, no we can't figure it out, but that's an entirely different debate and unnecessary herebecause, secondly you're talking here about consciousness (which I agree it is easy to see the thermostat doesn't have). You have yet to establish why you think it necessary for belief to be linked to consciousness. What job does such a restriction do to the meaning and use of the word? — Pseudonym

Empirically, no computer makes it past a few minutes in a Turing Test. A belief is a product of consciousness. A comatose patient doesn't form beliefs.

So what about insects, bacteria, unconscious people, philosophical zombies, AI... Where do you draw the line on what can have beliefs and why? — Pseudonym

Sure, when is a chair a chair. Some things are clearly not chairs and some things clearly are, but that I can't tell you the exact dividing line hardly means there are no chairs. But, back at you, the same question. When is a belief a belief? Does the tree waving in the wind believe the wind is blowing? Does the ice forming in the freezer believe the temperature fell to 0 degree Celsius? Does the grape crushed on the floor believe that people are heavier than grapes?

Apparently metal expanding and flipping a switch is a belief, so I'm not real clear why all physical reactions aren't beliefs.

That's the whole point of my example. What are we defining if we insist that belief requires a concious state (a state which we cannot even reliably identify since no-one is agreed what conciousness is anyway)? — Pseudonym

We all know that we are conscious, and we subjectively have no doubt about it. That we can't precisely define it makes it like any other term, including "belief," the term we're trying to identify here.

If you think a belief requires conciousness in order to define it, in order to separate it meaningfully from other similar states without conciousness, then what is the job that adding conciousness as a condition is doing for our definition? What error would we be making if we were to describe the thermostat as 'believing' it was cold on the basis of it's behaviour (turning the heating up) other than insulting your anthropocentric view that humans must have a whole series of special words to describe their states of being? — Pseudonym

It's just a misuse of language to say a thermostat believes, and it's clear that something different is happening when I believe it's too hot and the thermostat switches on the furnace. Surely our language can support a particular word that distinguishes between thermostat behavior and human behavior.

Behavior is not what defines belief. It's just evidence of an internal state. If I'm shivering and exhibiting every sign of being cold, it is not necessary that I believe I'm cold. I might think I'm warm because I've become unable to distinguish cold from hot, or maybe I'm entirely numb, with no feeling at all and my body is reactively shivering.

And as I've also said, even when we look to behavior to decipher particular mental states, we are usually very adept at it and we notice clear signs that an entity is not conscious. That is, the behavior of a thermostat would not lead anyone to actually believe it has a belief or that it is conscious. We can figure out (just as we can when computers submit to a Turing Test) when an entity is mimicking conscious like behavior and when it is truly conscious.

To say the thermostat "believes" it's cold is no different than saying the tree believes it's windy because its leaves wave in the wind. You have just misdefined a word to a way no one uses it.

What error would we be making if we were to describe the thermostat as 'believing' it was cold on the basis of it's behaviour (turning the heating up) other than insulting your anthropocentric view that humans must have a whole series of special words to describe their states of being? — Pseudonym

Yes, you've discovered it. I don't believe a word I'm saying, but I feel the need to keep humans in their esteemed place in the world so I'm insisting upon an anthropomorphic definition of belief. No, I do believe that cats and dogs have beliefs too, but not thermostats or waving trees.

That spike in usage occurred at that exact moment in 1975 when this humble website began and we signed up our first anti-natalist. The word is his only legacy.

He was able to unify the Republican vote into a victory. It's not like Obama got any meaningful Republican support during his terms. Why is Trump's brand of other party exclusion worse than Obama's? Just because he's the personification of obnoxiousness?

First of all we are talking about a test to decide whether a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities with other people, not rape. — Sir2u

Rape is defined as non-consensual sex. Having sex with someone lacking the ability to consent is rape.

My idea would be applied before the act, not after. — Sir2u

So it's rape if I have sex with a 50 year old who has unliscensed sex?

Again here you go towards rape and victims, not age of consent which I was discussing. And apart from underage sex being called statuary rape there is quiet often a bit of willingness and even wantonness involved on the part of the victim. — Sir2u

Ummm yuck. I can't get aboard your victim blaming.

When Obama was President and Democrat views prevailed, no one talked about divided America. Only when the Democrats lose has the country been divided. I truly believe Democrats believe their suffering through Trump is more difficult for them than when Republicans suffered through Obama. It's unfathomable to them.

Other than being brash and obnoxious, what has he really done that screwed things up so bad? No wars, no economic collapse, no crime surge, no fuel lines...

I think philosophers in general ought to be more reluctant to take part in these discussions over "what is X?" questions. The debate about the meaning of the word can be endless and fruitless if there are no criteria for a succesful definition and no purpose served by the defining. — PossibleAaran

Belief is generally considered an element of knowledge, and it therefore is significant. I agree that words are contextual and can be subject to endless defining and redefining, but it's also obvious that we rely upon words as having some form of fixed meaning as well, else we couldn't use them to communicate. So, I think your attempt to jettison the whole debate as pointless isn't entirely fair, but I do think you could prove your point by continuously offering counterexamples to the definitions arrived at if you wished to prove your thesis that this discussion is pointless.

I can find you a thermostat which clearly 'beleives' it's cold — Pseudonym

If behavior were belief you could, but it's not. Belief references a conscious state, and since we can't observe the conscious state of feeling cold in another person, we rely upon outward behavioral manifestations, which may or may not accurately indicate the content of the conscious state.

And, by the way, when I get cold, I don't behave like a thermostat, as in I don't send an electrical current to the furnace and blow hot air through vents. I say this because we're taking for granted that thermostats are some form of undeniable AI that passes the Turing Test. In truth, it's fairly simple to determine by behavioral observation alone that even the most advanced AI systems are not conscious entities.

One will not find a belief by dissecting a brain. Beliefs are found in behaviour, including spoken behaviour. — Banno

Behaviorism doesn't hold that beliefs are behavior, but only that behavior is the only empirical evidence we have of beliefs. The belief is in the black box of your mind, and you can't see it because it's a black box and that's how black boxes work.

Entering this very late, but here's what a belief is:

It is trust or confidence in the truth of something.

Beliefs might be rational, irrational, justified, or unjustified, and a belief requires no language skills. A cat can have a belief, as can a pre-lingual baby. I might believe a cat is a hat for no reason at all, but truly believe it. My cat might believe a stick is a snake and attack it, even if it never saw a snake before.

Even if my belief about the definition of "belief" is wrong, it's just as much a belief.

It's not a matter of subjective interpretation, it's the question of can we apprehend an object directly with the intellect, without the medium of sense phenomena. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't follow your distinction. I'm saying that the thing in itself is unknowable because all we have are appearances that cannot be said to reflect the thing in itself. You're saying that we can't know the thing in itself because it's mediated by sense phenomena. In either event we seem to be saying there's something causative between the noumena and phenomenal, so I don't see where I've gone astray calling the phenomena interpretative.

I moved it. It's called Kant's Noumena. If you don't like the name, I'll change it.

However, just like how we come to learn about external objects, we also come to learn about who we are (our subjectivity). This is not something that we see clearly - we can (and often are) wrong about what we want, who we are, what we react like, what will make us happy etc. It is only by going through phenomenal experience that we come to learn more (hopefully) about who we (phenomenally) are. But we are often deceived about our intentions, our desires, and our inner states. Often, we also deceive ourselves into thinking we are so and so, or we are capable of so and so, when in truth we aren't.

So yes, TimeLine is right that there is a subjective "in-itself" - but she's wrong that we have access to it. — Agustino

This question, like all things Kant, is complicated. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mind/#4.6

If you want to go through all this, I could try, but I think it deserves a different thread.

Not so much of a question type test, but more in line with psychological development and maturity. Obviously there would be a part of it that would question the person's knowledge about the risks and consequences of sex would have to be included, but it would be more important from my point of view to evaluate their ability to make rational decisions.
And I don't think that there should be a practical section to the test. — Sir2u

Work this through then. Bob's been arrested for statutory rape, so he puts the girl on the stand and proves she's mature, or not, and if the jury sides with him, he goes home, but if not, he goes to prison. Bob goes free after having sex with a street wise 14 year old but Joe goes to prison for having sex with a naïve 22 year old?

Rape shield statutes specifically protect rape victims from having their sexual past presented at trial. Are in favor of eliminating those so that juries can consider the background of the victim, despite the fact that no rape victim with an extensive sexual past would ever want to press charges?

My point here is that laws have to be clear and let the public know what to expect and what is expected of them. Since the passage of the test you propose generally will follow age, it seems to make sense to base these laws on age instead of case by case bases, especially considering the scrutiny the victim will be forced to undergo at trial and the uncertainty the accused will have in knowing who they can have sex with.

That's why Aristotle placed intuition at the highest level of knowledge. Kant simply defines "intuition" in an odd way (as you explain in the other thread), and this dismisses "intuition" in the traditional sense, disposing of our access to the noumenon. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think Kant is right on the point that we can't know an object freed of all subjective interpretation. The perspective from nowhere makes no sense.

You're asking how moral atheists ground their morality without God? They pretend like they're not relying on God even though they are. Maybe that answer is personal commentary, but I'm open to hearing your answer.

They didn't need to 'save' anything, the amount of money they spent taking this child away from his twin and his mother could have been used to give the entire family a comfortable life and both children an excellent education in their respective country. — TimeLine

I know nothing of Thai law, but are you suggesting the child was sold from a needy family as opposed to the child being without capable parents? If so, I don't know why the twin being left behind is relevant. I'd be opposed to the sale of people whether they're sold in singles or pairs.

I am currently moving through an adoption arrangement in Australia (known as Permanent Care) and despite the fact that the child cannot be taken care of by the parents due to a number of possible reasons and hence why the courts take responsibility that enable the order for myself to be the primary carer on a permanent basis, if the parents are still alive we are legislated to ensure visitation rights a number of times. Because, psychologically, this is important for the child. — TimeLine

In the US, the termination of parental rights is extremely difficult as long as the parent expresses an interest, but the suggestion that it is based on protecting the interest of the child is wishful thinking. Many of these children would benefit if their parents just let them go. That's a sad reality. The state's hesitancy to terminate parental rights is based as much on its protection of the sanctity of the family unit as it is on the needs of the child.

I am as certain that most adoptions are for reasons pure and true as I am that your adoption will be. Unless you have some supportive data, it's hard for me to accept that couples are bringing little ones in their homes because they match the shrubbery.

The church and state are divided, and that's a good thing. What's left is a legislature that can impose laws, but it doesn't operate with any moral authority. Do you turn to your city council for moral direction? We've very intentionally created a godless government, so, yeah, if you want God, you have to go to church.

You could love a person not because you actually love them, but because they epitomise the right type of object that furthers your social position. It is the same thing, just more sophisticated. — TimeLine

Sure, there are thousands of ways people can be in bad relationships, but how is that more prevalent in industrialized, complex, modern societies than in more traditional ones, especially those that formally relegate women to subservient roles? And I'd reiterate that the escape from consumerism in modern society (in the grand ole USA at least) is typically religion, where a higher power decrees meaning and worth regardless of social standing and material wealth. From my American eyes, I just really see this thread as a standard lament that modern society has abandoned God, and I'm having difficulty placing it in the Continental framework you're espousing. You sound like Joel Osteen in the video I posted (that you doubtfully suffered through).

This thread also heavily reminds me of Buber. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou

How is subjective (being the unconscious) phenomenal? — TimeLine

Subjective experience is defined as phenomenal. Are you positing the subjective as an objective entity that experiences? Maybe I'm not following you. The world of experience (the subjective) is phenomenal.

If subjective experience is noumenal then we are attaching knowledge to the unconscious realm, which is unknowable. — TimeLine

Subjective experience is phenomenal. The object of the phenomenon is noumenal. If you say the noumenal is knowable, reading generously, I read that as rejecting Kant as opposed to misunderstanding Kant, but I can't follow your suggestion that the subjective is noumenal (i.e. the phenomenal is noumenal).

Be careful. This is not the shoutbox so I would appreciate you responding appropriately or not responding at all. — TimeLine

Fair enough. I'll try, but I gotta be me.

You're talking about the dichotomy of thing in itself and appearance and have no clue what that even means. Great. I mentioned that your metaphysics isn't very good, no wonder you don't participate in many of the metaphysical discussions here. — Agustino

I don't follow why one couldn't believe that our perceptions have been skewed by societal expectations and then further hold that we can somehow transcend our skewed perceptions and then correctly perceive the thing in itself. That is a common view afterall. It's the idea that clarity can be obtained by contemplation, meditation, prayer, or whatever. I get that it's counter to Kant, but so what? I'd think even the staunchest direct realist would admit to false perceptions, yet contend they could be clarified.

Productive self-experience. The framework that determines our value through others is paradoxically narcissistic, despite a reliance on others, because there is an absence of an active orientation towards being. — TimeLine

Can I summarize this then as it's better to give than receive and we should take time to smell the roses because there's meaning even in the smallest moments? I'm not sure who disagrees, and I think attributing the opposite view to the consumer driven capitalists is a strawman. Adhering to an economic philosophy for pragmatic purposes says nothing of the person's theological position. My cite to Joel Osteen was meant to point out that you are espousing traditional Judeo-Christian values, which are held most closely by the consumers you condemn.

I read recently that a couple adopted a child from Thailand and the mother had twins, but they took only one child and never looked back neither did they help the family. To them, adoption was an image, they did not actually care about the child clearly by not caring about the family of the child, they just wanted a token adopted child for social reasons rather than moral. — TimeLine

Either that or they could only save one life, so they did what they could do. The couple did a deed far greater than I, as I adopted no one. I'd also say that even if (and I don't think it's the case) this couple adopted a child and saved him from misery and did it for no reason other than for fame and attention, I still applaud them. A child saved is a child saved, regardless of intent.

Point me in the direction of an authentic Marx practitioner.

At any rate, without making general attacks, I do believe my objection is valid, which is that religious practitioners do find meaning from their practice despite the various Marxist objections you raised, including that acceptance of a higher power is an abdication of one's free will or humanity.

What do you think of the following quote: I do not only see the rose, the rose also sees me. — TimeLine

Sounds to me like you're waxing poetic as you gaze into that bouquet you got from your sweetheart on Valentine's Day. Awww.

Of course, but why speak of roses, when truly it is the giving to another person that provides the greatest rewards? Are we just not restating the Golden Rule?

But none of this is true. It's just some guy saying it. People do in fact feel a sense of meaning by relying upon a higher power, even if that defies a fundamental tenant of Marxist thought. I haven't found Marxists to be the most joyful of folks.

And so respond to your question. What is it that is of real value if not the acquisition of things and fitting perfectly in to societal expectations. If others don't determine your value, and if your proof of self-worth isn't proved by tangible wealth and success, then what is the answer?

Isn't yours the question that drives people to church every Sunday? https://youtu.be/UNcu6g7sXPs

With regard to slavery, the following passage condemning slavery was contained in the original Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, but it was deleted in order to gain passage:

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery

The question of slavery and the phrase "all men are created equal" drew criticism at the time of signing.
"In 1776, abolitionist Thomas Day responding to the hypocrisy in the Declaration wrote, though the first draft stated " All free men are created equal": If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal#Slavery_and_the_phrase

Regardless, the truth of the statement "all men are created equal" is unaffected even if those who uttered it were hypocrites.

You suggest that it does not, that a plant's growth has purpose, but no intent. I find that difficult to accept, as I see no other meaning to "purpose", except as an object to be attained. The object to be attained is what the thing intends. We could however, assume that "intent" refers to a special type of purpose, a type of purpose specific to conscious agents, so that "intent" implies "purpose", but "purpose" does not imply "intent". — Metaphysician Undercover

It's purpose is survival, which is the purpose of all living things, and is the basis for evolution theories. As with plants, it's clear they grow up toward the sun in order to survive, but no plant decided or intended to grow upward. It's simply that if they had not, they would not have survived and those of similar genetic code would not have seen a next generation.

I think the same is true of birds and of higher biological organisms. It's clear that a causal explanation is not entirely complete when describing bird behavior, as in, just telling me the physical and chemical causes of wing flapping will not explain to me why the bird is going south for the winter. I do need to know why the bird is going south in order to understand bird behavior, but that answer boils down to survival of the species. It goes south to eat, to reproduce, and to raise its young, without which it won't survive.

When it comes to people, though, it's not entirely clear why we do the things we do, and it's not clear we as a species are advancing our survivability, but maybe we are doing the best we can in our environment. Afterall, human populations are at the highest ever.

Let me see if I understand your claim. We observe that living things act with purpose, but this does not provide us with what we need to conclude that living things act with purpose. Commonly called "the problem of induction". — Metaphysician Undercover

There needn't be intentionality (which seems to be how "agency" is being used here) where there is teleological behavior. A plant grows upward toward the sun for the pupose of survival, but entirely without intent. The evolutionary pull of survival, posited as no different than any other law of nature, offers the causative, non-teleological explanation for its behavior just as gravity explains why the rock falls to earth when dropped.

Nothing in the article about "a human could observe another person's time slowing relative to his own."

As you said, it is incoherent. — Rich

I didn't say recognition of time slowing was incoherent. I said experiencing another's phenomenal state was.

No one has ever observed another person's life slowing. — Rich

Read the cited material. That's precisely what they've done. That no one has experienced another's experience is a given. Having a first person experience of a second person is incoherent.

Clocks are not time. — Rich

I specifically stated that time and events were distinct, so I'm not sure who you're arguing with.

Of course v they do. They do it all the time and they vocalize these feelings — Rich

They feel like events are occuring slowly. Humans can't sense time itself. Stop conflating time with events. If I feel like something lasts longer than it did, I didn't feel time slow down because it didn't.

Never heard this happen anywhere by anyone. This is comparable to flying dogs. I'll be v this under the c heading off fabricated evidence? — Rich

I cited the reference you didn't read.

So science denies that people can feel time slow, despite the enormous evidence to the contrary, but feel it is perfectly sensible that one human can observe another person's time slowing. — Rich

This isn't theoretical. It's empirical. Read the cited material.