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?

Of course, not, but that is trivially true...so what? — Janus

What do you mean by trivially true? Why is it trivially true?

It says nothing about the ability of a mind to imagine anything. — Janus

Isn't it obvious? Imagination is a mental operation which is one of the functions of mind. How else would you imagine something without mind?

What allows the mind to create for itself, a multitude of distinct and completely inconsistent realities at different times. How is it possible for me to believe, when I am asleep, that something is real, which is completely distinct from, and inconsistent with, what I believe is real when I am awake? Am I a completely different person when I am asleep, from when I am awake? — Metaphysician Undercover

You still need a biological body and functional brain to be able to have dream. Therefore could dreams reflect the state of your body and brain? The perceptual functions of brain might be dormant during sleep.

But some brain functions such as imagination could still be active, which triggers all sort of images and activities happening in random manner, and feeding the created information into the dormant perceptual and memory functions?

Hence dreams can be the operations of your imagination while the other parts of your brain functions are dormant.

Being an extreme case doesn't in itself make a logical fallacy. — RussellA

It wouldn't be accepted as valid or meaningful arguments on the basis of either non relevant or highly unlikely example.

The Argument from hallucination deals with an extreme case and is used as an argument against Direct Realism. That it is an extreme case does not mean that it is not a valid argument. — RussellA

Again, the other party can reject the arguments on the basis of highly unlikely example or irrelevant example for the main point.

I don't think that society would willingly accept a legal system that was immoral. I have no evidence, but I am sure that this is the case. — RussellA

No one forces a society to accept their own legal system. The members of the society accept sets of legal system and laws themselves. Do you honestly believe someone else who are not a member of the society or country forces certain legal system or laws into the societies and countries?

Being an extreme case doesn't make it a fallacy. — RussellA

Appealing to Extremes is a formal fallacy.

For my point there, any common sense use of the word will do. You cannot claim the time does not exist (or is not real) merely because people can fail to recognize it as such: that's a bad argument, and that is exactly what you are doing when you bring up indigenous people who fail to understand that they age. — Bob Ross

I never claimed time doesn't exist. Your perception seems not quite accurate here. The OP wrote it as a suggestion for discussions and consideration.

I think I have given you a good example to consider making analogic inference. For aging, you don't need time. For you to get aged, you or someone must notice the aging. It is a momentary perception of realising that you have aged. You don't need time to notice your aging, or aging of wine.

Beyond that point of contention, I would say that what is real and what exist are different; because there are things which have being but are not a member of reality (e.g., the feeling of pain, the phenomenal color of orange, a thought, the a priori concept of quantity, etc.). — Bob Ross

That doesn't prove time is real or time exists. You just keep saying the content of your perception as if they are time. Time is a concept.

You cannot say time is real. It would be like saying water is real. Water is hot or cold, not real or unreal. Likewise time is not real or unreal. You either know what time it is now, or yo don't.
You could say it took too long time, or time passed fast. But it is all your linguistic expression of your psychology. You are not saying anything about time itself.

Time is a concept. Concepts are not real or unreal. You either know a concept or you don't know it.

How could deny change as a mere concept? It exists in the natural world. Are you an idealist? — MoK

Change was not denied here. The actual change itself cannot be captured by physics and math. That was an assumption. No denial.

Are you an idealist? — MoK

No, I am not an idealist. I think I told you before, but you seem to have forgotten already. I am a bundle of perception.

Time does not cause a change. It allows the change. — MoK

No. Again wrong. Time is a concept. Time doesn't allow anything. Change and motion can be described in time.

No, physical changes take place in continuous time. — MoK

That is an illusion from your latent memory. Change takes place in an instance physics and math cannot describe, capture or understand. The moment of change takes place in co-existing moment of unchanged state and change.

You are mixing psychological time with subjective time. There is also objective time. — MoK

What is the difference between psychological time and subjective time? Can you mix time? Time is not liquid or powder. You cannot mix time.

No. I was suggesting time is a concept. It is a way to describe changes, motions, movements, and durations and intervals too.

Because time is a concept, it cannot cause any physical objects or events to change.
It can only capture them in perception, and describe them.

The physical changes take place in a slice of moment, where the cause and effect co-exist in the window of the change. Lumping them altogether, and seeing them as process or continuity would be categorical illusion from the latent memory in the brain.

The law could state that the punishment for stealing anything valued up to £50 was the amputation of the right hand. — RussellA

Isn't this an appeal to extreme case fallacy?

Are you arguing that a particular law must be followed by a society even if that society believes that that particular law is morally wrong? — RussellA

Isn't the law formally accepted legal system by the people of the society? Wouldn't it be self contradiction to say your country's legal system is wrong, when the people have accepted their legal system to protect the society?

No, as only moral laws are valid. It is not morally wrong to break a law that itself is not moral. — RussellA

Morality only judges the moral actions of the folks. Legality judges the acts and also hand down the punishments according the law, hence legality precedes morality. It matters to folks' life physically. Morality only affects the folks reputations. Hence legality comes first. Would you not agree?

Breaking a law not founded on moral principles is not morally wrong. — RussellA

Well, Socrates wouldn't agree with that claim, I guess.

Even if the system is morally wrong? In abiding by a system that is morally wrong, then one is condoning it, meaning that abiding to a morally wrong system is in itself an immoral act. — RussellA

Morality and legality is not the same. Just because you feel your country's legal system doesn't suit your taste, it doesn't mean the moral system is also wrong too.

↪Janus Yep. — Banno

That is not a philosophical posting, is it?

The part of your claim that is unargued is as to why it should be impossible to use a mind to imagine something that has no mind. — Janus

If you had no mind, would you be able to imagine a world?, or be able to imagine anything?

I don't think the public would accept a legal system that was not fundamentally moral. Sooner or later they would revolt and overthrow the system. — RussellA

Isn't it itself an act of moral wrongness to break the law, revolt and overthrow the system? You are committing more serious moral wrongness under the excuse of moral wrongness. It sounds like a contradiction to me. According to Socrates, even bad law is law. Breaking law is morally wrong.

True. I have no choice, regardless of whether I believe the system to be immoral or not. Though I could emigrate. — RussellA

Emigration? What if the new country had more hidden injustice in the system? Would you not regret? There is no utopia or paradise in this world. It is a product of dialectical transformation from the ancient beginning. You have options to get adjusted to the system whatever system you live in, and flourish under the system knowing it and abiding by it.