One question that is occurring to me - given that time is passing more slowly now at the surface of the sun than for us, does this mean that there is in some real sense an ever-increasing temporal gradient between here and there? Relativistic time-dilation has an "event manifestation" if you visualize an astronaut leaving and returning to earth, which acts as an "anchor time frame." But gravitational time-dilation is ongoing. So it seems more akin to an increasing "temporal stress."

For, in that case, it's obvious that what we designate by "time" refers only to "the awareness of time," since, by your own admission, it can't even be considered & designated in any other way than that (& so you've answered your own question)." — ItIsWhatItIs

It's a question that is likewise asked of objective reality in general. Perhaps the experience of time offers avenues of conceptualizing this overlapping of the subjective and objective, in the context of the varying depths of consciousness of the "now" for example. There are material events that can be seen as consciousness-like in the sense of likewise being "temporally-inflated." Complex adaptive systems that rely on cyclical mechanisms, for example. The ontology of such systems is seemingly more trans-temporal than that of basic objects. Although, at the atomic level, cyclicality and resonance are also in evidence.

Yes. The universe appears to us as fractured into many different-discrete relativistic frames. Trying to correlate between those frames gives rise to apparent contradictions or aporias. Undoubtedly different mechanisms dominated in the very early universe. Probably beyond our ability to simulate, since they involved very large scale gravity wells.

That the concept of time only makes sense in the context of awareness.

I agree consciousness has what you would call OTE. re. OSE and MSE, an object has dimensions, and it moves through space, yes.

I'm just not seeing the utility of the distinction. Nothing anywhere stands still. An object in a quantum instant of time has a quantifiable momentum, which is a function of its motion, even if that motion cannot be represented in a zero duration moment.

If it does, it would mean that some of our "memories" are actually the past contained within the manifold of consciousness, and thus, are as real and direct as other percepts. This would mean such memories are not representational, and thus not subject to the skepticism regarding any potential representational corruption. — Ø implies everything

Ok. I understand your usages. I'm not sure I fully agree. To the extent that nothing is every truly at rest, the distinction between OSE and MSE breaks down. However, I agree the concept is a useful analogy for consciousness as presenting actual temporal extension (versus a vector motion through time, which is what your MSE characterizes, vector motion through space). Since historical pastness is literally embedded in the now (as the shape of the now) it seems to me that past temporal dimension effectively collapses into the now for objects (retrievable as information, depending on knowledge of both particular details and governing laws).

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

Are you saying the past is imminent in the present through influence — Ø implies everything

I think "influence" is misleading. For an ongoing process, the present is more like the face of the past, I'd say. Michael Leyton's book, Symmetry, Causality, and Mind looks at how the present is the "shape" of the past, how we extract time from shape.

I'm not so clear on your concept of object versus motion temporal extension.

So, does consciousness have a temporal dimension, or does it merely move through time? — Ø implies everything

Yes, this was the sense in which I was differentiating it from matter, which only moves through time, has a temporal vector. The objective past, for me, is embedded within the objective present and, insofar as it consisted of cyclical events or processes, is ongoing. I think there are a variety of neuro-cognitive mechanisms for memory that are viable explanations, but being if consciousness is "temporally inflated" then its lived experience encompasses something of the past and the future in the moment. Which seems to just describe awareness. Possibly knowledge of the causes of things can give some form of memory, as deducing the state of the past from the present.

I realized that Time is essentially a way to measure the "flow" of Energy, which is what we know as "Causation" — Gnomon

Yes, this is pretty much where I was going. I like to maintain a connection with the notion of energy. Also, you can 'topologize' the idea of energy by viewing it in terms of gradients in the environment (or forming an environment).

:up:

However, I see that as different from consciousness being in the future. — wonderer1

Semantics? Whose to say, its all in the results, which are in the future.

It was just something I've been musing. Not to worry.

I'm more skeptical that consciousness 'exists in the future'. I think our brains are continually modelling and updating their modelling of the future. This is what allows us to catch a ball flying through the air, even though our sensing of a moving ball's position is continuously time delayed. So I think it makes sense that it seems that our consciousness exists in part in the future. — wonderer1

If you perceive an event unfold, like an arrow being shot at a person, if you are really fast it is possible to "intercede" in the future of that event. i.e. You can shove the person aside, if you are fast enough. And if your powers of inference are good enough, you can even better predict events. Like seeing someone walking up with a bow. Which gives you even more time to intercede. Like temporal intuition.

I mean, the concept that observations are theory-laden is pretty ubiquitous. If you reduce a sensory input to a decontextualized quale, that perhaps might be a "bare perception". But the fact is that perception (cognition) functions by and through contextualization. Your visual perceptual system essentially performs inferences (as visual illusions illustrate).

it remains that perception doesn’t do logic any more than understanding does perception. — Mww

Hmm. I think it is pretty established that our perceptions are essentially pre-formatted with and by understanding. The whole catalog of cognitive biases, for example, pertains to the way that judgement infiltrates perception. Observations are theory-laden.

Indeed. As I said earlier, definitions are important — Leontiskos

I couldn't agree more. There was another thread some time ago questioning the philosophical validity or usefulness of definitions. I couldn't get involved. Without definitions, what else is there? If nothing else, you have to define what it is you are agreeing to discuss....

The phenomenon of music or melody does indeed ideally illustrate the continuous aspect of consciousness. I keep hearkening back to the Augustine I quoted earlier though. The more you try to put your finger on the concept (of time) the slipperier it becomes....

Or…..benefit of the doubt….why would perception care about order? How would it know of it? Is ordered perception different than chaotic perception? — Mww

I think.

I'm assuming there is some inherent relationship between the genesis of the biological cognitive faculty and the transcendental conditions of consciousness. Some sort of structuration would seem to be required. I think we are only able to perceive chaos against a background of order.

It would seem to me that awareness arises in a fundamental context of meaning. So that unless there is some kind of order or regularity to the change, there wouldn't be a foundation of awareness. Perception arises out of order, order (qua change) requires causality.

I would submit the irreducible awareness, that by which every single human ever, is affected, is change. — Mww

Ok. Do you think this equates with "causality"?

I’d agree with that. But then, in order to justify the concept itself, one has to ask…..what is the irreducible awareness which limits the context, such that without it, the concept wouldn’t even occur. — Mww

:chin:

I don't know. I guess my intuition is that, an event happens in a now. But we don't perceive discrete-instantaneous nows, rather a continuous flow. So the "awareness of time" is itself fundamentally temporal in nature, that is, is "stretched out" in time.

:up:

Suppose cosmological – the Hubble volume's – expansion is, in effect, all clocks winding down, or unwinding ... — 180 Proof

Yes, I am very interested in the relationship between time and entropy, including the possible temporal implications of negentropy.

What I find interesting is the temporal differential between relativistic and gravitational time dilation. For any sufficiently massive object, there is essentially a temporally inflated zone which includes both a relative past (nearest the mass) and a relative future (distantly orbiting the mass).

Just spitballing. Conjectures about the laws of physics themselves changing? I mean, if somehow there was a divergence of relativistic frames? I don't know. I will be interested to see where it goes.

I don't really have disdain for intuition, but I don't really care for people making it out to be something like magic or transcendent when it's more just thinking fast. — Darkneos

You are oversimplifying it. Discursive knowledge didn't appear all of a sudden out of nothing. It was assembled - based on intuitive insights. No point arguing. The vast majority of the thread is from people who have a genuine interest in examining intuition.

Perhaps there was a different phase of hyperinflation that affected the temporal dimension differently in the very early universe.

Under this view, all the arrows of time are a result of our relative proximity in time to the Big Bang and the special circumstances that existed then — universeness

Do you think this might relate to the apparently anomalous extremely-early galaxies discovered by the JWT?

A more massive object isn’t more strongly attracted, if anything a less massive object is, it’s how the moon orbits the Earth along with our satellites. This intuition has no basis. — Darkneos

Yes, I kind of assumed this was the extent of your scientific understanding.

1000 tonnes attracting another 1000 tonne mass at a distance of 1 meter realizes 66.743 Newtons of force. 1000 tonnes attracting a 1 tonne mass at a distance of 1 meter realizes .066743 Newtons of force.

Granted, the partial intuition of the greater force exerted between greater masses is offset by the greater inertia, which is ultimately realized in the complete intuition (realized by Newton) that Force equals Mass times Acceleration.

So all that is really "settled" is your lack of intuitive comprehension of basic physical concepts. Hence, I suppose, your disdain for intuition.

Is it? I thought the concept of the thermodynamic arrow of time was fairly 'fundamental'.

:up:

One physical dimension that does interest me is the relationship between entropy and time. Usually, it is theoretically possible to trace any number of paths in any given context. However it seems like the arrow of time might be fundamentally related to the physical gradient of entropy. However the universe doesn't just align itself to the gradient of maximum entropy. There are discrete relativistic frames with - possibly - discrete timelines. And negentropic gradients exist within those frames. Does negentropy entail some kind of divergence of of temporality from its fundamental gradient? Stuff like that.

This doesn't correlate with my intuitions of time. It seems to reflect an inherently reductive mechanistic ontology (which would be reasonable for a physicist). And the correlation of the intuition of time and ontology was something Cassirer mentions. Certainly, from the standpoint of "pure objectivity" time is illusory.....

Yes. My strongest intuition of the meaning of the nature of time as we experience it might be summed in this excerpt of my favourite passage (by Fichte):

Shall I eat and drink only that I may hunger and thirst and eat and drink again, till the grave which is open beneath my feet shall swallow me up, and I myself become the food of worms? Shall I beget beings like myself, that they too may eat and drink and die, and leave behind them beings like themselves to do the same that I have done? To what purpose this ever-revolving circle, this ceaseless and unvarying round, in which all things appear only to pass away, and pass away only that they may re-appear unaltered; — this monster continually devouring itself that it may again bring itself forth, and bringing itself forth only that it may again devour itself? This can never be the vocation of my being, and of all being. There must be something which exists because it has come into existence; and now endures, and cannot again re-appear, having once become such as it is. And this element of permanent endurance must be produced amid the vicissitudes of the transitory and perishable, maintain itself there, and be borne onwards, pure and inviolate, upon the waves of time.

The sensation of the meaning of time contains not only trivial empirical-causal elements, but the awareness of being part of a culture, a species, a world, a universe. Right now I'm reading a chapter called "Intuition of Time" in Cassirer's Phenomenology of Cognition. It woke me up early this morning. A lot of times, I find reading about time to be...frustrating. It's as Augustine said: What then is time? Provided that no one asks me, I know. If I want to explain it to an inquirer, I do not know.

Cassirer mentions that different types of metaphysical systems correspond with differing types of temporal intuition, which I think is accurate. He says Parmenides and Spinoza embody the "present type" while Fichte is determined by futurity. Personally, I am exploring the idea that, while objects may have a temporal position, consciousness actually has a temporal "size." Objects are three dimensional and moving through or in time, as it were. But consciousness actually exists in the past, present and future, has actual temporal dimension. An intuition.

Also I said intuition is limited to the area of knowledge you are using it in. Without any knowledge to draw on you're just tossing a coin. — Darkneos

But this can't be entirely true. Strictly speaking, there hasn't always been discursive knowledge. I would say there is a pre-discursive intuition, which is a general kind of knowing how. Like a proto-human who is expert at hurling stones. He doesn't have a discursive understanding of gravity, or ballistics, but he does have an intuitive grasp of these things. Then there is a post-discursive intuition, in which the subject-matter of discursive understanding itself can become an object of the intuitive faculty. Intuition fills in the blanks.

For example, people intuitively want to believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Scientific thought seems to chide this. In fact, relative to any particular object, a more massive object is more strongly attracted than a less massive object, so this intuition has a substantial basis. The intuitive truth is simply not perceptible at human scales and conditions.

Not sure about "transcends". I talked about this in wonderer1's thread, the difference between not reported and not reportable, and the difference between not reportable in principle and not reportable as a practical matter. I get the feeling you're alive to the issues here, hence the careful phrasing. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I said if not transcends meaning as a limitation. That's the funny thing about language. If you're not careful, it can sound like the opposite of what you mean.

I have an further example in mind, but I want to think on it a bit further....

Excellent example. To me it seems that socialization is the supreme 'art.' — plaque flag

For sure. My second wife is a master of sociability. I emulate her as much as possible. It's an art but it can be learned.

That’s not what the research shows again. Without any sort of training or knowledge it’s no better than a coin toss. — Darkneos

I don't think you read my reply. I agreed with you, intuition is integrally related to knowledge. I just don't see it as a trivial occurrence.

May I ask your background? Based on our earlier discussion I can see that you are scientifically insightful. — wonderer1

Sure. Academically I have university courses in maths, physics, and astronomy, a degree in literature with a minor in philosophy (one course shy of a major). I also have a college diploma in programming and have been a computer systems administrator and analyst since 1996. Currently I'm an electronic medical records specialist and privacy officer.

Fundamentally, I am a melioristic-optimist. I believe that human actions have a real effect on the universe; and, all things being equal, assuming capability (and responsibility) is inherently more reasonable that pessimistically denying it.

It’s not my intuitions about it it’s just the simple fact. Even what you cited before about observing people lots of times it’s knowledge, knowledge of body language.

You’re making it more than it actually is which is something a lot of people like to do.

Intuition is rooted in knowledge — Darkneos

Interesting. You may be making less of it than it actually is. I fully agree that intuition is related to knowledge in that one is always intuiting something in some context, and that the more detailed knowledge you have, the more intuitive knowledge becomes possible. But it is the entire nature of intuition that it extends if not transcends the current limits of what can be discursively extracted from the context. The expert diagnosis of a very experienced MD versus an intern for example.

Still, if you can cite something discussing a practically implementable information processing system which maintains analog fidelity, I'd be interested in taking a look. — wonderer1

Yes, I'm aware of the eventual loss of accuracy that results from extensive analog processing. I'm talking at a purely theoretical level where what is being processed by the neural network is already pre-sliced data. My hypothesis would be that the brain in fact operates simultaneously in a way that is analogous to digital processing (when "conceptually-constrained" information is processed) and also in a way that is more analog in nature (since, qua organic entity, we are, in fact, in contact with the universe at an "analog" level). And that intuition can be productively construed as an exploitation of information that may be embedded in our "overall sensory input" but not as yet conceptually construed. I gave the example of a cat's brain, which exhibits no indicative activity in response to a certain "hearable" tone until such time as that tone is paired with a recognized event. Thereafter, the tone is "heard" (manifests in brain activity).

Simply considering the fact that our visual system relies on discrete rod and cone cells, producing outputs in the form of spike trains, points towards ideal analog representations not being what our brains have to work with. — wonderer1

That fact that the visual system is already highly evolved and differentiated doesn't mean there aren't other aspects of exploitable analogicity. The complexity of actual connections between things in the world is anybody's guess. I'm certainly not limiting the possibilities to whatever might be the current state of the human visual system. It works well enough, for a bipedal ape.

Also, it's not exactly the case that "digitization only encodes what it is specifically designed to encode". There is a trivial sense in which that is true, in that digital hardware is designed to encode bit states and can only encode bit states. However, it is very much the case that digitally instantiated artificial neural networks, after training on whatever inputs were provided to the ANN, will have a great many bit states which were not determined by the designer — wonderer1

I am not talking about bit states, I am talking about the objective data (information) which is digitally encoded. Since data is being specifically symbolically encoded, digital neural networks have only that known data to work with. Versus an analog system which works with a "signal" whose total data properties are not necessarily so restricted. You can talk about bit states being "information", it is a level of abstraction below that at which artificial neural nets actually operate, part of the underlying mechanism and addressed via back-propagation, which is a function of error-correction, which is determined at the top informational level.