It needs explanation how brain generates mind, how brain is linked to mind or how mind works from brain. — Corvus


Very true. — RussellA

Maybe you need to bring in Scientific explanation on this point along with Metaphysical analysis and elaboration.

But if space and time, in and of themselves alone, are said to represent conceptions the transcendental expositions of which are idealities, must it then be possible to intuit idealities in the same regard as appearances? No, for to cognize transcendentally is to reason, from which follows in the cognition of a ideal representation, we in effect represent to ourselves purely a priori nothing more than the ground of a principle, in this case for the use of sensibility in general insofar as by it the representation of appearances in intuition, re: phenomena, becomes possible. — Mww

:up: Yes, agreed.

Suppose in touching the apple I knock off one atom. The apple has changed. Is it the same apple even though it has changed or should I give it a new name because it has changed. — RussellA

It is still the same apple even if with some of its atoms are missing or altered. It is called identity through time. With time change in the universe, everything changes. But the identity of the object remains same, as long as it can be remembered by the perceiver.

When you were born x number of years ago, you were a newborn baby, Now you are a grown up adult, I guess? You now look totally different in height, weight and looks from when you were a newborn baby, but you are still you. You changed through time, but you remember you are you. You are still you.

What is more, you don't need to change your name, or give you a new name. No, you don't keep giving new names to objects, unless there are necessary reasons for it.

The deeper question is: in what sense would time exist absent any awareness of it? The difficulty is that as soon as you begin to think about that question, you are already bringing time into awareness, or rather, bringing your mind to bear on the question. So time is always already part of the consideration. — Wayfarer

OK, fair enough on that. But it doesn't say anything about why and how time is intuition, and nothing about the nature of time itself. Remember time is not a new topic. It has been one of the hot topic since ancient Greek era. We could like to try to figure out what the nature of time could be in more understandable and realistic manner from our own material world we live in.

Idealist's account of time would be meaningless and groundless, if it just says that time is something unknowable, and hard to understand, but it makes our perception possible and is a precondition of perception. Anything can appear in our intuition, and time is intuition. It does not really say much about the nature of time itself.

We still have to search, explore and aim to demonstrate in more concrete manner where in our material world time might be existing hidden in the form of different level or type of existence.

Yes, it does. Thanks for pointing it out, and sorry I was inattentive with my statements in the first place. — Mww

No problem. I was just curious on the statement that Time is intuition, said by Kant. I was trying to analyse and delve into what it meant in deeper angle. How could time be intuition. At this time, I am not in position for agreement or disagreement on the statement. I am trying to figure out what it could mean, and trying to make up some argument on it.

I feel it is not the conclusion or answers which is more important, but good logical argument on the point is more interesting on these metaphysical issues.

So your remarks about time being objective are broadly correct, but its objectivity is not really the point at issue — Wayfarer

You seem to have misunderstood my point in my previous posts to Metap. I was not saying time is objective, but measurements of time is objective. Because all measurements tend to be objective to be practical, useful and meaningful.

I am not saying Kant's idea on time is wrong, or difficult to understand. My position is more into the direction that we could try to analyse what Kant and other philosophers meant when they wrote about time. Because time is a very interesting topic.

If you say, well it is very hard to understand, so just keep reading what others said about it, then it is not good methodology of philosophy. The answer could vary on these topics depending on what direction you are coming from.

What could be a better approach is keep asking questions on unclear parts, and keep discussing until the ideas get clearer. This is not analytical issue where the answers are black and white right or wrong. This is a metaphysical issue, where the conclusions could be drawn after much analysis, questions and discussions, readings and contemplation have been made on the issue. If you have some type of prejudice on this approach, and conclude that the issue is difficult to understand, and keep suggesting the only way forward is go back and keep reading the OP, then it is not a constructive methodology or right way to approach the issue at discussion.

Before I used to believe time does not exist in the material world. Time could be illusion. But now I feel that it might not be simple as that. There are more to explore on the topic. And going back to the historical philosophers writings on Time might be a good idea, and keep thinking and discussing and asking about what they had meant, and could help us coming to better understanding of time, if not enlightening conclusion.

For Kant, it is tricky to say one way or another on his positions in Space and Time in CPR. If you are aware, he wrote and published more than 1 version of CPR, and also many other publications on Natural Science and Metaphysics. His wordings and ideas are known to be different on all these publications. And there are many Kant scholars who have different opinions, understandings and interpretations on Kant's ideas on the topic.

Hence, I feel that we shouldn't be too eager or quick to prejudge on the topic and Kant's ideas, but keep discussing, asking questions, and just concentrate on answering to the questions if you have any ideas or your own answers to the questions rather than suggest reading OP again, or insist that the topic is too hard to understand.

Intuition is a mental activity, time is not a mental activity therefore not an intuition, but derived nonetheless from mental activity. — Mww

Does it mean that you disagree with what Kant wrote? i.e. Time is intuition?

Time is not known or knowable, so there’s no need of perception of change for that reason. — Mww

But if nothing changed at all in the world, would anyone perceive time? The fact of the matter is, things change (e.g. Sun rises every morning), hence people notice time passing.

The apple is a single object. The table is a single object. But is the apple on a table a single object? There seems to be no reason to think so. But we could name an apple on a table “apptab”. Is the apptab now a single object just because we have given it a name? — RussellA

I think you are seeing two objects, not a single object. You can say it is one object, and call it apptab, but no one else will understand what you mean by it.

This raises the question, do objects exist in the mind-external world or are they created by the mind? — RussellA

Objects exist in the external world if we can see and interact with them. Some objects which are not visible because they are too distant or hidden inside buildings could be inferred as existing if there are good reasons to believe them existing such as Papua New Guinea, or folks in the houses and hotels.

No. I assume the mind is no more than the brain, but others disagree. — RussellA

Brain definitely is the source or foundation for the functions of mind, but saying mind is brain sounds too simple and meaningless. It needs explanation how brain generates mind, how brain is linked to mind or how mind works from brain. This is a Philosophy of Mind topic.

But if I did not have the concept of “cup”, how could I know that what is in front of me is a “cup”? I would know something was in front of me, but I would not know that it was a “cup” — RussellA

We are not interested in knowing it was a cup. We are interested in if the cup exists as a real object. It is all what realism is concerned, isn't it? Knowing is not existence, is it?

The neurons of the brain exist as matter and energy. My assumption is that concepts in the mind are no more than arrangements of neurons in the brain. In that sense, concepts also exist. — RussellA

Can you prove and demonstrate the existence of concept as arrangement of neurons in the brain?

Time doesn’t change at all; one moment is exactly the same as every other. — Mww

If time doesn't change at all, then how do humans perceive it? What is it that humans perceive as time passing e.g. from this morning to midday?

It isn’t the passage of time we notice; it is change in relations. — Mww

If time is intuition, then intuition is change in relation?

If time is intuition, then it is internal to our mind. Correct? Then why does it need perception of change in relation to know time?

Time and space are both intuitions, hence there is no difference in kind between them;
Space and time never were and cannot be treated as objects, hence the assumption of a difference in kind in their treatment is not the problem being addressed in the text. — Mww

Space and time are both intuitions. This statement needs some clarification.
Time changes every moment. If time is intuition, then what changes in intuition? If time is not object, then what do we perceive, when we notice the time passing?

No. I need the concept of a cup in my mind before I know I am looking at a cup. If I don’t know the concept of a cup, I don't know what I am looking at. — RussellA

OK fair enough. But going back the DR or IR, they are both realism. Isn't realism about existence? It is not about concept, or knowing. It is about existence. Even if you don't have concept, you cannot deny what you are seeing in front of you - the cup shaped object, and it is real.

Does existence of cup need concept of cup? What do you mean by existence? Even if, you don't have a concept of cup, you cannot deny the existence of cup shaped object you are seeing.

Therefore my concept of “cup”, a combination of a square shape being cream in colour has come from regularly seeing the combination of a square shape being cream in colour. — RussellA

It seems to indicate that you don't need your internal cup in your mind to be able to see the external cup in the external world. At the beginning first time you saw the cup, you didn't have the concept of cup, but you were still seeing it. After having seen the cup many times, you named the object "cup".
Would it be correct?

Think of this example.

1. Amad died and his biological body was found in his house.
2. Amad's biological body was removed from his house after his death.
These statements sound not correct and misleading.

Biology is a term which has strong connection with and implication to life or living which has biological function such as breathing, eating, digesting, growing or getting old.

Just because you can extract DNA from the dead body, you insist it is biological body.
That is a claim which is devoid of logic and also linguistic coherence, which is incredibly silly.

Your claims sound so illogical and nonsensical. It reminds me of reading something in the shady internet commercial sites, or ChatGPT stuff. Dead body has no life which is devoid of biological functions. You don't say something is biological when there is no life in it.

It is you who keep returning to this petty point, and telling off I am wrong. I am just replying to you trying to be polite not ignoring your posts to me even if there is nothing interesting or worthwhile in them.

From perceiving something in my senses, I infer that there is something in the mind-external world that has caused my perception. — RussellA

Why do you have to "infer" the perceived object, when you are seeing it?

Suppose in my mind I have the concept of something that I know as “cup”.

Suppose I perceive in my senses a single instantiation of this concept. — RussellA

Where does your concept of "cup" come from? How does your internal concept of "cup" instantiates in the external world?

I am not sure where you are quoting your claims from. It sounds like some AI or internet information. I am totally relying on my own reasoning on these concepts to come to the definitions.

From my reasoning, you are not just wrong, but also you sound like you are relying on the doctrine of authority or popular media.

Sorry mate, your claim is not accepted.

It only makes sense that the direct object of our perception and cognition exists in our mind, — RussellA

Does it mean when you see a cup on the table, the cup exists on the table, and it also exists in your mind?

So are you saying this is your interpretation of what you saw? Or are you saying that your church members and church leaders also aimed to provide false promises or illusions? — Tom Storm

It was obvious from the observations, many members were there for increasing their business, making more contacts preferably richer older folks, and they were told to bring more friends or whoever into the church, and they will have more blessing from God. Some were attending the church because they were lonely, and wanted to find partner. Of course, it wouldn't be all 100% of them were like that, but quite a lot of them were like that.

You don't say a corpse with no biological function, a biological body. It is just nonsense. Please understand that Logic and Semantic are closely related, if not the same.

I have no time to argue with you on the point which is not even main issue with this thread. Enjoy your poetry mate.

No, it isn’t different wording; it’s a fundamentally different lens. Your example is a common secular view of religion that uses pejorative language to describe aims. See below. — Tom Storm

My points were from my experience of observing the church members when attending the churches in my teens.

I'd say religions aims for truth not false promises or illusions. What you are describing is not the aim of religion but a skeptic's view of religions aims. — Tom Storm

There are many different types and sectors in religions. They may operate and behave all differently. Not saying your points are wrong.

You can extract DNA from rocks. Dead body is not biological body. It is a corpse.
Biological body means a body with the biological functions.

Yes, we seem to be talking in different planets for sure. I can tell you are into poetry.

Isn't the measurement (of time) objective? — Corvus


It is. If you read the OP as saying it isn’t, then you’re not reading it right. — Wayfarer

My point was measurements of time has to be objective to be meaningful for science or practical life. But time itself doesn't exist in the world. Only thing we see is the duration of the movements, changes and successions of objects.

Kant said time is intuition, and precondition of perception. That sounds like time is subjective and internal in the mind, which is innate.

If it is true, then what would be the content of the intuition? What is the nature of the precondition? I am still not seeing time as something that I can understand what it is.

We see objects changing - sun rising and setting, birds flying, cars passing, people walking, but where is time itself? I recall what happened yesterday, and it is today. But where is actual time itself?

If time is intuition, I should be able to know what time it is without looking at the clock, but I can't. I must rely on watching the clock for telling time. If it is precondition of perception, then why I can perceive the cup in front me, but not time itself?

and an infinite number of those infinities, and... (infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and...) continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and.....(…)… — an-salad

Infinity is a concept saying that there is no end in counting (in math), or final point (in physics or the material word or movement). If there were the end point of counting or movement is reached, then it wouldn't be infinity. Hence it is just an abstract concept, which doesn't exist in the real world.

Trying to count or prove infnity using math formulas or functions on the concept sounds silly and obtuse.

But in essence, most religion works to build community around a shared notion of the transcendent. — Tom Storm

Building community sounds like recruiting the disciples and converting folks. but in different wordings.

they reviewed their beliefs and felt God lacking real traction. — Tom Storm

I read the opposite stories - Please have a read on the life of A. J. Ayer his final days.

Below is a video I made (less than 10 minutes) about why religions have failed to find the truth.
In short, religions disagree about what happens when I die, how to be saved, etc. Religions have had thousands of years to find the truth and have failed. The video show why. Comments (here or on YouTube) appreciated. — Art48

We need to think about what religions try to achieve. If we agree that religions aim to achieve converting the ordinary folks in the streets into their cults and sectors giving false promise and illusion for afterlife and reincarnation, then they have been successful, because there are many believers in the teachings.

If the would-be followers turn to sceptic on the religions doubting if the teachings are true, the religions still succeed, because then the sceptic will turn to a philosopher reading philosophy of religion not quite committing himself to the teachings, but still thinking about and going over the teachings.

And sooner or later, the non-belivers and agnostics tend to turn to religions when they get older.

Whether religions actually offer the real afterlife or reincarnation remains mystery, which belong to the realm of faith.

The biological body does not cease to exist at death. — AmadeusD

Dead body is not a biological body. It is a body. It is about logic.

Corvus was saying that (1) there is something, namely the state of being dead, which lasts forever; — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

When a death occurs, the biological body ceases to exist. The fact the death has occurred will exist and remain forever. Death is not the biological body. Death is a fact.

How would you determine the numeric value of anything without comparison to a scale? That's what the instrument does, it applies the scale to the item and makes a comparison. Think of the tape measure example, a thermometer, a clock, any sort of instrument of measure. — Metaphysician Undercover

Comparison to what? Do instruments know what to compare with? The instruments read what they are designed to read, and display the figures in numeric value, which are read by humans or intelligent devices for further actions.

If you recall the point of our discussion here, my point was the read figures must be objective value. If they are not objective, then measurement will be useless for practical purpose.

there is a huge difference, since Your perception of the world is not the same. — bizso09

Does that mean that the world is fundamentally self-contradictory? — bizso09

Difference is not self-contradiction. Contradiction means true and false at the same time. Experiences are meant to be different, and it is the nature of experience, not self-contradiction.

From What I can tell, all of it. Nothing is direct description or argument for anything - it's just (admittedly, very nice and enjoyable) ways to describe your position. That's fine, btu does nothing for hte things I've put forward. — AmadeusD

I have no idea what you are havering about.

I don't have a definition. But I can tell you that flowery, interesting ways to put forward ones opinion isn't doing philosophy. I'm sure you'd agree (acknowledging you doin't think you've done this - fine). — AmadeusD

I don't agree with you.

Actually, measurement in its basic form, is simply comparison. So no "instrument" is required for basic measurements. If Jim is short, and Tom is judged as taller, that is a form of measurement. The tools, standard scales, and instruments, just allow for more precision and complexity, for what is fundamentally just comparison. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't agree. Measurement is not comparison. Measurement is finding the numeric value of the measured objects or movements.

We're talking about measurement, not taking pictures of the measured thing. The radar instrument, with the integrated computer analysis is what measures the speed. The camera does not, it takes a picture of the speeding car, to be sent to the owner. That's why it's called "photo radar", the radar machine measures, and the photo machine pictures what was measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not true. Radar is not involved in the machine. There is no such a thing called photo radar.

So I asked you, if duration is measured, and it has no physical existence, then what is it? It must be something real, if we can measure it. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have explained this to you already. Please read my previous reply on this point.

I gave you a couple of examples of measuring instruments, in my examples. I used a tape measure, keeping things nice and simple so as to avoid unnecessary complications. And in the case of measuring time I used a clock. What more are you asking for? — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not asking for anything. I am just stating that any act of reading measurements is involved with some sort of measuring tools. You cannot read size, weight or time with no instruments or measuring tools. The measuring instruments or tools become the part of reading measurements. You cannot separate them.

I wouldn't use a "speed detection machine" as an example, because I really don't know exactly how it works. I do however know that it works by radar, not "camera vision". So you are just continuing to demonstrate how wrong you are. — Metaphysician Undercover

A speed detecting machine is a good example for this case, because it integrates many different technical modules for measuring, reading and also decision making and processing in the device.

To take photos of the speeding cars, it uses camera vision, not the radars. Radars are used for mostly flying objects in the sky and aeronautical or military applications, not for the speed traffic detection.

Why and how does your ignorance on the technology proves that I am wrong?

Then what does "duration" as the thing measured, refer to, if not a length of time? And if it does refer to a length of time, how can there be a "length" of something which has no physical existence? — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a good question. Measurement of time is always on change. That is, the changes of movement of objects. It is not physical length. It is measurement of the duration on the start and end of movement the measured objects.

Think of the measurement for a day. It is the duration of the earth rotating once to the starting measurement geographical point. It takes 24 hours. Think of the length of a year. It is the set point where the earth rotates around the sun fully, and returns to the set point, which the duration of the movement is 365 days.

Think of your age. If you are X years old now, it must have counted from the day and year you were born until this day. For this measurement, you don't need any instruments, because it doesn't require the strict accuracy of the reading / counting. However, strictly speaking, we could say that your brain is the instrument for the reading.

1. The person using the instrument reads the number from the instrument.
2. The instrument does not read anything from the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you could think of some measuring instrument, you will change your mind I am sure. Think of the speed detection machine for detecting cars driving over the speed limit on the road.

The machine monitors the road via the camera vision, and reads the speed of every passing cars. When it detects cars driving over the set speed limit in the machine, it will take photo of the car's number plate, and sends it to the traffic control authorities, from which they will issue a fine and warning letter with the offense points to the speeding driver.

If you think only humans can read, but machines and instruments cannot, then your reasoning seems in fault.

3. As I already explained, it is not "the value" of the object itself which is determined by the measurement, but the value of a specific measurement parameter, which we might call a property of the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here, I feel that you seem to be trying to complicate the issue unnecessarily for some strange reason. This is a simple issue. Time doesn't have physical existence itself. It is measurement of perceived duration. Human mind perceives duration, but it lacks accuracy of the readings to be any use for science or even daily routine in the society, hence they must rely on the accurate time reading instruments. That is, right you guessed it I hope, clocks and watches.

All I can say, is that what "measurement" means to you is nothing like what it means to me. And since what you said looks nonsensical to me, I can tell you with a high degree of confidence, that you will never be able to make me understand what measurement means — Metaphysician Undercover

It is such a simple explanation to understand for anyone. But you seem to be determined refusing to see it. Why is it so difficult to see it? Why do you bring in such a bizarre ideas of "measurement" (property of property?) of time into the discussion?

I'm sorry Corvus, but this line, ("It is reading of the objects in number") makes no sense to me at all. How could a person read an object, unless it was written language like a book. Are you suggesting that you, or an instrument, could look at an object and see numerals printed on it, and interpreting these numerals forms a measurement? That's craziness. — Metaphysician Undercover

It sounds crazy to me if someone cannot read numbers on the speedo meter or watch. Do you mean you can only read English words, but not numbers?

Yikes! You seem to believe in that craziness. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was trying to make you understand what measurement means. But it seems not going well. Well is it time to go to sleep?

The point I made is that if we adhere to a strict definition of "objective", meaning of the object, then measurement is not objective. This is because measurement assigns a value to a specified property, it does not say anything about the object itself. Assigning the property to the object says something about the object, but assigning a value to the property says something about the property. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your confusion seems to be coming from the fact that you misunderstands the idea of "measurement". Please read the proper definition from my previous post. It is not property of property. Measurement is always in numeric value of the objects read by the instruments.