I've several years of graduate logic to call on.

You are a fool. — Banno

You kept attacking the OP because it started with an assumption by contradiction.
Moreover, you don't even know in what form OPs usually start either.
Who is the real fool here?

Disappointed at your level of knowledge on logic. You don't even understand what proof and assumption via contradiction in logical reasonings mean. That is so basic stuff in logic.

You do not have anything more than a superficial grasp of logic. You were not presenting a reductio. You are a bit of a twit. — Banno

I take that as your self-confession. :rofl:

You wriggle and squirm. — Banno

I am just trying to help you understand the points.

...unfounded...
— Corvus
You blatantly contradicted yourself, at least twice. — Banno

If you did read a good basic logic textbook, then you would have known that contradiction is necessary in some cases of logical reasonings.

If I contradicted myself, then it would have been for proving something using Reductio ad absurdum. Why do you find it unacceptable that contradiction was adopted in the process of proof or assumption?

Yet
I never claimed time doesn't exist.
— Corvus

Not so unfounded... — Banno

You seem to have problem of understanding under what form OP comes in general. They come in the form of suggestion and assumption for further discussions. OPs don't start with conclusions.
Also "existence" can mean many different things. "doesn't exist" implies it exists in other forms. Obviously your understanding of existence is 1-dimension only.

My suggestion it that it is a fictiticious placeholder, an abstraction of derived from physical process. — hypericin

That sounds not far from my idea on time too. But a fictitious placeholder sounds a bit unclear. Why "fictitious"? What do you mean by "fictitious"?

When you say "a placeholder", would it be in the form of concept? Or would it be some other form or nature?

But if there is such a thing, it is the same sort of thing as space. Space is the medium of arrangement, as time is the medium of sequence. — hypericin

I understand space as physical entity. Do you mean the placeholder could be in space somewhere?
Could it be in the form of property of space or principle of motion?

Corvus is incapable of shouldering critique. Been that way for years. Hence his response here is to attack you and I, to do anything but reconsider. — Banno

You don't hold back your unfounded critiques to others, but you are not prepared to accept others' critiques on you. That is an irrational attitude.

So blatant. Oh, well. There's nought queer as folk. — Banno

My point was to get over it, and just concentrate on philosophy.

The case of the high calibre politicians involved in accepting bribes seems to be viewed differently from country to country. For example in countries like China, or South Korea, it would be regarded as serious failing of the politician's moral integrity, and be judged as highly serious crime, which will get the politician sacked, or even jailed.

But in UK, the public and the law seem to regard them as just usual perks of the job. Would it be the case?

Aren't the perceptual functions and imaginative functions pretty much the same though? — Metaphysician Undercover

Perceptions require external objects, and the state of consciousness. Imaginations can happen with no external objects in the real world. When imagination happens from past memories or subconsious desires with no consciousness (while asleep), they are dreams.

That is incoherent. — MoK

I think I said it before, but will say again. It is difficult to understand from physics or math point of view. All they have is numbers and measurements of the movement, motions and change of the objects. That is not time itself. You need to rise above from the physical plain, and think in metaphysical plain.

I don't understand how that could be a proper response to our discussion. — MoK

Well, I have been trying to help you understand, but the progress seems to be slow and challenging.

Therefore there is a car that is moving. Therefore, changes in physical are real. — MoK

Change is from the original state to a new state. You don't say car moving is change. Car moving is driving or travelling.

I am discussing logic here. Could you have a change in a simultaneous process? — MoK

Change happens in a contradictory moment. The contradictory moment where forward driving force or energy on the mass (the stone or steel pipe), and the object (the glass) comes into the physical contact with each other. The force and the object being in contact with the mass with the force is in the contradictory moment. That contradiction is the instance of the change.

When the change had happened, it is no longer change. Before the change happened, there was no change. Change is the instance. It is not process. It is not continuity.

What really is, is casual processes. These processes can be mentally separated and made independent. Then, when we compare placeholders that are significant to us in these processes, such as revolutions of the earth, ticks on a clock, beats of a heart, you can compare the two: some amount of X placeholders in one process have transpired as some amount Y of the other has. — hypericin

I agree.

This is what we ordinarily call time. But this description doesn't seem to necessitate some separate, ineffable, metaphysical entity, the way the noun 'time' seems to suggest. — hypericin

This is interesting. What could that "some separate, ineffable, metaphysical entity" be? We need more elaboration on this.

The will of the majority is the worst form of government there is apart from for all the other systems of government which have been tried.

"Democracy Is the Worst Form of Government Except For All Others Which Have Been Tried" — RussellA

Genuine practice of democracy is rare. Due to the fact, most preachers of democracy give impressions of false pretense and their ignorance. Countless injustice and wrong doings have been carried out by the rouge regimes under the disguise of democracy.

Subjective time for sure is a substance so real. Objective time is required to allow a motion of the subjective time and it is not a substance. — MoK

I reject your claim time is subjective, real and a substance. If subjective time is real, then objective time must be fake, right? First, you need to demonstrate how and why subjective time is a substance.

Psychological time is mysterious. It can be easily experienced by the conscious mind when there is nothing that we can entertain our time with. Therefore, I think that it is a substance as well. — MoK

Your explanation here sounds like a mysticism. You claim that your explanations were based on logic, but here you seems to be admitting it is actually based on mysticism. Correct?

Taking critiques of or disagreements with your arguments personally makes doing philosophy in a fruitful way difficult if not impossible. It should be an opportunity to learn—to sharpen your arguments or find the humility to concede to a more well reasoned view. — Janus

You are making mountains out of a mole hill, as they say. My point was simple. Use INBOX for any non philosophical posts. Don't write your emotional writings in the public philosophy threads.

There have been no "ill manners". You are being over-sensitive. As far as I have witnessed Banno agrees when he genuinely agrees—and we have had our share of disagreements, so your fantasy of a "well established group" is looking a bit like a case of paranoia. — Janus

I was just commenting on your sentence "going to pity". That wasn't necessary, and it just sounded like personal attack. Honestly I have never seen someone will pity somebody in philosophical debates or books. It was very first time I ever seen anyone saying that.

Read over your postings. You have been noticed making many personal attack type comments on your postings. I was just pointing it out not making great deal about it. But if you read your postings, you make big deal out of it taking it very personally yourself for what had been started by your own emotional writings to others.

It tells me that you are very lenient on your emotional writings to others, but very sensitive and paranoid on other folks response to your postings. If you have any personal points to address, use the INBOX messages. Don't write your personal and emotional grievances in the public philosophical threads.

And try to be fair and honest. Don't be lenient to your own paranoia. Be objective. Be lenient to other party's response to your postings too as you are to your own paranoia, and think why they were addressing the problematic points as they did.

While the arguments are fallacious, I might agree with the basic premise: maybe time is a placeholder, an abstraction, there is no actual entity corresponding to the word. — hypericin

OK, my argument is not 100% accurate or free from logical consistency, but it is purely from my own reasoning, and I admit it could be fallacious in parts. This is where logical and rational debates are cried for, suppose.

Your post here is interesting, and intelligible to me. I am going to read it over, trying to understand fully and return with my further points on your ideas.

Sorry, I mean you are confusing the subjective time with psychological time. — MoK

Time is a concept. Like human is a concept. They are like sets. We say them, use them to describe the elements in the set. But they don't exist like cups and chair exist.

Time has the members in the set. T = {durations, intervals, instances, past, present, future ...etc}
Human has its members in the set H = {John, Paul, Peter, Jane, Mary, .... MoK ... another billions of persons}.

Continuity is a property of time. It is not time itself. It doesn't cause anything. The glass breaks due to the energy contact with the glass and the mass, not time. Time could capture the moments and durations of events.

I am still not quite sure what you mean by subjective and psychological time here.

Subjective time allows physical change whereas psychological time regulates our subjective experiences. — MoK

So do you mean we have three different types of time, which are subjective, psychological and objective? Which one is the real time. Now we can ask about the real time. You have claimed that there are three different times. They can't all be real. If one is real, then the rest of the two must be fake? Correct?

I agree that the subjective mental experience of a single person cannot be presented as objective evidence, but the subjective mental experience of 99 people in agreement can be presented as objective evidence. — RussellA

Well, depends on who those 99 folks are. Of course if they are the same type of folks who cannot see what objectivity is, then their subjectivity would be objectivity.

The more people in agreement, the less subjective the evidence and the more objective. — RussellA

But if you gather up 100 blinded folks in the room of 1 sighted person, then the darkness would be the reality of the world. Hence the reason why you should keep distance from the fallacy of authority or majority. Truth exists under the light of reason and logic, not in the crowd of the blind folks' shouting. :)

I already discuss that. What you are referring to is a simultaneous process. There cannot be any change in a simultaneous process. — MoK

That was what I have been explaining to you too until my face went blue. Physics and math cannot capture, describe or understand it, hence they would say that. Logic can. So what does it tell you? The world works under the principle of logic. Makes sense?

I agree, as long as society thinks that a strict legal system is moral. — RussellA

:ok:

The Argument from Hallucination against Direct Realism is making an objective case against Direct Realism. — RussellA

The contents and states of one's subjective and private mental experience cannot be presented as the basis of the objective evidence in the arguments. It could only be suggested as a possible point of consideration.

So do you step into the street when you see a car moving very fast and it will hit you if you step into the street? — MoK

No, you won't do that.  You also have reason to tell you not to do it.  Reason is not just for telling you what to do, or what or why the world is the way it is.  It is also for telling you not to do things when it is a possible danger.   

You have sense perception, but you also have reasoning ability for discerning things, telling you what is the case, what to do and what not to do.  You are not a CCTV camera just capturing the world. Are you?

So you are confirming what I said and at the same time saying what I said is wrong! — MoK

All I know is that time is a perception appearing in my mind, and change is also perception captured and appearing in mind. How they appear or why they appear physically or mentally is not philosophical topic or interest, I believe.

Later~

How could you have any perception? Are you denying that you have a brain and your perception is due to physical processes in your brain? — MoK

I think I told you before.  This is exactly where I agree with Hume.  When I try to see my own self, all I can see is perception.  My own perception of what I see.  I look at me and there is only perception of my body.  When I look around, there is only perception of the world around me.

Of course I don't deny I have a brain.  But I have never seen the brain in my life.  Folks say we have a brain, and the books say we have a brain, so I believe from my inductive reasoning, that I have a high possibility of having a brain.

And from that inductive reasoning, I also can infer that you also have your own brain.  What the brains do, is only my conjecture and knowledge from the books.  I have no direct sensation, experience or knowledge of the brain.   All I have is perceptions which are vivid and forceful in my mind and consciousness.  That is all I can be certain of myself. 

:roll: :wink:

So, do you agree that change is real? If change is real then what is the subject to change? — MoK

This point has been addressed to @Bob Ross also. Is it correct to say change is real? Are there fake changes?

I was not denying the fact there are changes. But My point was that change happens in the moment where there is co-existence of change and not change.

Before actual change happened, it was no change. When the change happens, it is no longer change or no change. It is a new state of the object or event.

I must do some daily living chores here for today, so will be getting back later for the rest of you points. G'day~

I think you have good philosophical knowledge in some areas, but you seem to lack some basic etiquettes for public discussions. If I may point them out,

1. Don't take sides on your pal's positions blindly when they are clearly wrong, or ever, even if they were right. Public discussion is not about taking sides or being a spokes person for the others. You should speak for your own, no one else. If you keep doing it, your integrity in public perception will go downwards.

2. Try avoid posting personal attacks or ridiculing type posts to anyone. If you did it, they will do it to you back. No one wants to see that. But if you started it, you will get the blame for doing so.

3. Don't use any foul language. It just make you look and sound an uneducated barbaric chap, who has no capability doing philosophy or any academic discussions, even if it is not the case.

4. If you don't agree with the other party, then just walk away, or say you don't agree. Don't ridicule the party's point using low level language or personal attacks. If you agree with someone, then you can either walk way, or say you agree, and that is all you need to do.

5. If you want criticise the points or threads, then stick to purely on the logical arguments based on reasoning for doing so. Don't use any emotional claims or assertions. When you do that, your position becomes unworthy for further discussions.

6. Don't be a supporter of fallacy of authority or majority. Whenever possible, bring your own ideas for the points in discussions. Don't ridicule minority points or creative points. You can just tell they are wrong, or you disagree, but don't forget to add the reason why they are wrong instead of emotionally attacking or ridiculing the posters.

OK, I hope you would understand these points, and keep them in mind. I am only saying this because you came here and kept on making points which seem not fair and, also not the case. I was not agreeing with that at all, but I also had these points in mind from the past unpleasant experience with yous. I hope we can avoid the negative situation, and try just talk about philosophy, and learn from each other via edudaimonian discussions, if we could. Thanks.

yes, but your comment seems to be coming from taking side of Janus position blindly. You seem to be totally ignoring it is Janus who started personal nature of comments in his post saying he would pity if you cannot imagine a world without mind.

Do you honestly think or believe that sort of comment is philosophical or relevant? Why do you say you pity the other party, when you cannot understand the other party's point? Should you not just walk away and do something more constructive things in life instead posting personal attack type of comment in the postings?

I think ↪Janus point very pertinent. — Banno

It has long been noticed you have well established group of folks supporting each other when one gets criticism due to their ill manners. Hence no surprise. :wink:

Hardly highly unlikely. "In the 21st century, hudud, including amputation of limbs, is part of the legal systems of Brunei, Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen" (www.studycountry.com) — RussellA

Not quite sure on these countries at all, as my interest is not in legalities. But let us think this way. They have very harsh punishment in the legal system which will protect the innocent normal folks from the crimes.

You may live in some western country with very lenient or loose legal system, which let the criminals over power the society. You and your family are not protected well from the criminals. You or your family could easily become victim of the crimes, and suffer horrendous harm or damage from the crimes. So, it is not bad thing to have the strict legal system in some aspect, would you not agree?

Direct Realists may reject the Argument from Hallucination, but many Indirect Realists accept it as a valid argument. — RussellA

Hallucination is not extreme case. It is a subjective case.

You may well be right that this last is false. But it is not what is being suggested. — Banno

My point was you cannot imagine anything without your mind, let alone a world. It was not about a possible world. But obviously it seemed clear that my point was not understood by Janus. He only emphasized his own point only, and ridiculed other's point.

Not a philosophical appeal or relevant point, it seem to be the case. As he put it himself in his own post, he was after some trivial truth, whatever that meant. It sounded like, that he was after trivial truth to ridicule other parties, not the truth itself or good philosophical argument.

Anyway, I know my mind can imagine a world without minds,. — Janus

The point here was about logic, but you seem to talking about your own imagination. Anyhow this is not even main topic in this thread. Please refrain from posting off-topic trivialities.

and if yours cannot imagine a world without minds then I can only pity you. — Janus

Should it not be self-pity on your part? :lol:

And since (p&~p)⊃q

:confused: — Banno

Could you explain the symbolic statement in plain English? Is that statement true or false?

I never claimed time doesn't exist.

This is a joke right?: — Bob Ross

Why do you think it is funny that you cannot tell the difference between a conclusion and assumption (suggestion)? The conclusion has not been agreed yet in this thread. We are still in the middle of the debate on the conclusion.

The OP is not for conclusion. The OP started with the premises and assumption and suggestions.

Water is definitely real: no one disputes that. To say it is not real, is to say that it does not exist in reality. You deny that water exists in reality??? — Bob Ross

Something is real, if there are also fakes of the thing. Have you seen fake water? Have you seen or heard of fake time?