Likewise, we do not experience duration — Metaphysician Undercover

So to avoid longer and longer posts, I'm going to focus on this particular statement because I think it is the focal point of the discussion.

For me, as I sit and meditate on the actual sense of being/existence, I only sense duration as a product of evolving memory. That is it in total. So for me, I experience the feeling of duration as an evolution of memory. It is right there and is complete. I can't find anything more.

Since my ontology is entirely based upon direct observation of experience, this is how I perceive the essence of my existence. This along with the creative force that presses into future possibilities that it identifies possible choices of action.

In the primordial sense time appears to us as a past and a future, the two being fundamentally different — Metaphysician Undercover

We all experience life, and I'm all about describing experience as precisely as we can by direct observation.

I can say on my behalf, that the duration that I experience is all in my memory. This is my experienced time.

With this said, if you experience time differently, then I cannot deny your experience. It is yours and you are the only one that can directly observe it. But, as a point of reference, there was a whole movement of modernist authors who attempted to describe their feeling of duration (Proust, Woolfe, etc.) and their works can stand as evidence of how others perceived their existence through duration. It's interesting to compare notes.

I remember you describing Bohm as a crackpot. Was not his poetry up to snuff?

I am not talking about conceiving of a possible future, I am talking about anticipation. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is fine. I understand the feeling of anticipation that one may have of a possible future. And I also understand the colloquial use of the term future to which I have no objection. However, when discussing time (duration) as we experience it, I believe what we are experiencing is a possibility that we create in memory as opposed to an experienced future. I believe this is an important concept to apprehend when discussing the nature of time, especially when contrasting it with some block view of time.

Nobody with a good understanding of physics can disagree with special relativity. — Agustino

The problem is that SR is only applicable to inertial frames which doesn't exist (except as an approximation), so SR had no relevance to any discussion about light or scientific time (my distinction,). Only GR is relevant. Under GR, scientific time becomes relative.

No, the imagination is not the memory. And as much as our anticipation of the future is not "in the future", this does not mean it is in the past. Likewise, our memories are of the past, they are not in the past — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not know of how to conceive of a possible future without it being in memory. I'm trying it right now. It is in memory. And it changes as possibilities change. However, there is a creative force that is creating these images in memory from memory. What we feel as the present is continuously moving into the past. I do not know if any way to speak of memory except as the past, but we can inconveniently drop all part, present, future terminology and just speak of memory pressing on into unfolding duration. This would be representative of the experience of duration.

is that the whole point of foundational mental being is to be a rustle of a billion possibilities — apokrisis

Definitely saving this for the summation of this thread. Physicalism at its most poetic.

Your system explains awareness thermodynamically; — javra

I must have missed something big! All I remember was the phrase Thermodynamic Purpose being invented out of thin air. Granted there were about 1000 words surrounding this little sleight of hand, but no amount of words is going to hide that obvious trick. I believe it came right before the other offering of "Cosmic Goal". It's easy to explain things if all you need is words. How about, a "Romantic Cell" or a "Hungry Gene" or better yet, the "Yankee Fan molecule"?

As for Peirce, he had no ontology that I could find other than "tychism", which for the uninitiated is another manufactured word to take the place of "I don't have the foggiest idea, it just happened!" After that it is easy for Pierce. Mind just happened and Matter happened from Mind. But no need to go any further than that. I guess "It just happened", can be considered an ontology, but hardly an interesting one. What is interesting is the number of big and manufactured words it took for him to say it.

When we perceive we create something.

If we don't perceive, then there is nothing.

When we are unconscious, there is nothing.

One can create the process of experiencing if one wishes.

But this is beside the point. Everyone experiences with a mind. Either one moves ahead and explores it or in simply shunts it aside as some illusion for the sake of expediency. As for me, my experience in this world is as someone experiencing and creating. This is what I am exploring because I am interested in the nature of life.

I'm the same as you. I'm only interested in understanding the nature of life and the nature of nature. I experience and I observe and I read, and I go where it takes me.

In a dream state, our entire sensation of experience changes, e.g. the views, the possibilities? Current theories about the brain have no explanation for this switch in state. In fact, it is not even acknowledged. All of a sudden the computer in the brain goes haywire and then miraculously goes back to the awake state again. Understanding this phenomenon is the path to better understanding the nature consciousness.

If one wishes to engage in the exploration of consciousness then when must observe it directly in its totality. Consciousness is part memory and memory survives as in what is referred to as inherited, inborn, innate, traits.

we also anticipate the future, — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, we imagine possible actions, but this is done in memory, not in the future.[

quote="Metaphysician Undercover;108464"]All we have experienced is a changing past[/quote]

Yes, this is real time (duration) as it is experienced. From this we create the concept of simultaneity for which we need clocks. We experience duration (real time) whether or not we have a question about simultaneity.

The point I am trying to make though, is that in the more primordial sense, time appears to us as this separation between things experienced and things anticipated. — Metaphysician Undercover

If one wishes to observe real time passing, one should meditate focusing on the breath. This is the most fundamental form of duration. From this, one can experience the flow if life. It is quiet and continuous as sweet feel ourselves flowing into the present.

Thanks for the link. The concept is widely used in art as a means of capturing nature as we observe it.

It is only future and past. — TimeLine

As I said, we experience the past moving into the present. Anyone experiencing the future is referred to b as a fortune teller.

. I'm trying to get you to think in verbs — apokrisis

Verbs like Cosmic Goals, thermodynamic purpose, and constraints. Whitehead called all this God in his process metaphysics.

"Whitehead saw God as necessary for his metaphysical system.[114] His system required that an order exist among possibilities, an order that allowed for novelty in the world and provided an aim to all entities. Whitehead posited that these ordered potentials exist in what he called the primordial nature of God."

Of course you are right. Physicalism is a big bag of nothing (other than an unending stream of meaningless sentences) other than "It happens". After 28 pages of really no point, I believe the answer to the OP is no one had the foggiest idea, because it doesn't. The whole physicalism story (and it is truly worthy of being classified as great mythology), is simply a placeholder for an industry. It has no other value. When you are making a ton of money promising an end to all diseases, it is necessary to pretend you know what you are talking about.

How do you know unless you first try? — Banno

The existing model is not adequate for all of the objections being raised. It doesn't make sense c with the existing model without resorting to denial or illusion, neither of which explain anything.

There is substantial research being performed on a holographic model of the universe irrespective of NDE. There are problems all over the place that cannot be explained by existing models.

Evidence forces change. Quantum model of physics was forced because the old model was no longer adequate. It won't work to try to fit NDE into the existing model. That it's the source of the tension.

The evidence is there in many disciplines. Now the model had to be rethought for many reasons in many disciplines. Biological science had to much at stake to make any changes in their model but other disciplines have no such constraints. The evidence continues to suggest a new model is needed. An alternative approach is to deny all evidence because it doesn't fit into existing model. It won't last.

Yes. As evidence accumulates, more and more research and thought both in philosophy and science as well other disciplines is being turned to rethinking the nature of consciousness.

The difference which exists between past and future is likely the most important aspect of our living experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time as we experience only exists as an experience of the past moving into the present, continuously. No one experiences the future. What we do experience is some action that we imagine as a possible future. Possibilities, however are not future time. Imagined possibilities are not duration.

In order to provide some model of consciousness that may explain these experiences it is necessary to think of memory and observation in a different manner. Memory and consciousness is not confined to the brain.

There are holographic theories of the universe which may provide a workable model.

You have not presented any evidence at all to support the claim that NDEs are caused by the consciousnesses leaving the body. — Jeremiah

I don't know of any evidence of any kind about the nature of consciousness other than we experience it.

It's interesting to me that those who don't believe that there is evidence that consciousness, for example, can survive the body, will not allow any experience count as evidence. Even if there are literally millions of consistent reports of people having experienced out-of-body experiences that can be objectively verified. I'm not talking about laboratory verification, but sensory experiences verified through testimonial evidence. I find that most of the arguments against this testimony to be fallacious (self-sealing). Why? Because even if the evidence is largely consistent, taken from a wide variety of subjects, can be objectively verified, it's still rejected out-of-hand. Unless one rejects testimonial evidence as a valid way of knowing, how can one reject the testimonial evidence as evidence for dualism? There is plenty of evidence of the dualistic nature of humans. People reject the evidence simply because it doesn't fit their narrative. I'm not saying they do it consciously, but it doesn't fit their world view. — Sam26

This is the point. I once bumped into such people. I don't know what to make of their testimony which was similar yet different. It appears to me that something is there to inquire about. Consciousness is a vast unknown. Even everyday phenomenon such as switches in states of consciousness such as sleep-awake, day dreaming, etc. are mysterious. The only way for a person to understand consciousness better is through inquiry your via direct observation and experience. It's an area of inquiry that I keep my eyes and ears open to.

Got it. You don't have the foggiest idea.

The thread was rather long but I enjoyed it. Can we invite Dennet to the forum to explain the selfish gene? I bet we get lots of vague-crisp from that discussion.

But as a positive metaphysical achievement, we can say that we pushed the limits as far as was possible. — apokrisis

Hardly.

One can say that Mind exists, and that's that. And Mind feels and that's that.

But not the physicalist! No they are categorically claiming that Mind came out of No-Mind. That life emerged of no-life. No-life is the physicalist starting point (unless it gets to uncomfortable, and then Cosmic Purpose is helicoptered in). That is the OP's question. How did Life come from no-life? The physicalist staked their own starting point. Interestingly Peirce smartly places mind before matter. He knows what he is doing.

So do you know how this miracle occurred? If not, then we stop at Mind exists. It is the physicalist that have to show how something occurred out of nothing otherwise we have no life, no mind. Or alternatively, they can take the universally applicable, "It just happened", which would be the vague-crisp that has suddenly become the foundation of the physicalist explanation of life.

I am wondering, that in order to contribute to the metaphorical body of knowledge, it is necessary to be able to say "I don't have the foggiest idea" in 10,000 big multi-syllable, manufactured words? Would Helen Keller be up to it? Would she even try such a stunt?

Constraints then emerge to regulate this chaos — apokrisis

Is this the mystical Cosmic Purpose?

is this idea publicly useful as a system of theory and testing?" — apokrisis

Precisely, how is "It just happened" useful in any fashion other than to continue the mythology that science has an answer?

It is hard to reply if you insist on being ridiculous. Anyone who ever came up with a powerful metaphysical view was reasoning from experience of the world. — apokrisis

Actually it's intuition.

Do you think it would be possible to have clever thoughts about existence if you are blind, deaf and dumb? — apokrisis

Now you are really showing your true colors.

I'm still unsure about the evolutionary advantage — JupiterJess

You would do best to set aside anything that biological science has to say about the nature of life. I believe the best and only path is direct observation of experiences, and experiences should be varied so that patterns of similarities and differences can be discerned. Biological sciences is hopeless and at the end, all you'll be left with is "It just happens"

Never mind. Our discussion is over. Thank you.

Stephen Robbins has the most comprehensive discussion on the subject, but it is taxing on one's duration. He has numerous YouTube videos and a comprehensive paper on his and Bergson's criticism of Relativity time in his site at:

http://www.stephenerobbins.com "Special Relativity and Perception: The Singular Time of Psychology and Physics"

It begins:

"Physicists mislead us when they say there is no simultaneity. When the camera pans to the heroine tied to the rails and then to the hero rushing to the rescue on his horse – these events are simultaneous."

To begin to fully penetrate the nature of time, one must begin by setting aside clocks and observe duration by closing ones eyes. That is philosophical time unfolding.

That's a one-sided view. It's also a method for judging how fast an event happens compared to a fixed standard. — Agustino

This would be another way of saying the same thing. There is a standard which is used for measuring simultaneity with some event (with the standard) and then there is another event being used to measure simultaneity. The two events can then be judged against each other.

Crucial to understand is that measuring simultaneity had nothing to do with time as we actually experience it in life. Duration is life and evolves whether or not there are clocks.

Your experiences and what you can and will observe, depends upon sensitivity and intuition. This is a skill that takes time to nurture. My favorite means to develop my observations skills and intuition are the arts, sports, chess, music, dance, Tai Chi. To see more one must practice to see more. Reading books may help to develop intuition if you read intuitive authors.

There does appear to a mental 'reunion' of sorts for me upon waking, but that feels more Thomistic than Aristotelian. — JupiterJess

If mind permeates the body, then the cellular mind continues while the larger, imaginative mind moves through started of consciousness, dream, dream-like and unconsciousness. I suspect consciousness had multiple layers. However, this does not explain the Why? Why does the mind move through these different states? Forget about brain. It will not lead to any understanding or explanation.

In effect, the philosopher thinks of time as transcendent. Time is something above and beyond this world, something objective, by means of which events in this world can be measured — Agustino

Duration (real time) from a Bergsonion perspective, would be actual evolution as experienced. It is not transcendental, but rather the actual. It is continuous (indivisible) and heterogeneous (feels as though it is moving faster or slower).

Duration in the manner that we experience it, is quite different from what scientists call time. Time, for science, is a method for judging simultaneity of events based upon some standardized rhythm of a chosen standard. While time appears in relativity, it appears in two different forms. Special Relativity contains the standard time that we know of in school, and is used to explain why two observers may disagree on the simultaneity of two events as they experience it. Beyond this Relatively time is given some ontological significance which begins to produce paradoxes which are always red flags, especially since Special Relatively can only be applied to a non-accelerating environment, e.g. one that is not within a gravitational field. Time in General Relativity is defined differently than in Special Relativity because the measurement problems are different.

The differences between the two can be seen as a function of what is one trying to inquire into. It one is inquiring into the nature of life, then understanding philosophical time is crucial, including the time we experience when we are asleep or unconscious. If one is attempting to transpose one set of scientific observations taken in one frame of reference into another frame of reference, then the Lorenz transformations are used.

The error would be to elevate any version of time as it appears in scientific equations, including Relativity, to a ontological level. They are simply measurements. They do not grasp the full meaning or experience of life. To substitute equations for life just leads to mass confusion which generally reveals itself as paradoxes.

From Peirce's Law of the Mind:

"I have begun by showing that tychism must give birth to an evolu-
tionary cosmology, in which all the regularities of nature and of
mind are regarded as products of growth, and to a Schelling-fashioned
idealism which holds matter to be mere specialised and partially
deadened mind."

From this, I observe:

1) Peirce favored labeling his papers as Laws, apparently enjoying the additional gravitas.

2) Cosmology is the product of chance (tychism). He favors the naturalist "it just happened" approach to science. A convenient and all encompassing explanation for pretty much everything and anything that science has no explanation for.

3) First came Mind and then came Matter.

For my taste, very muddled but juxtaposes nicely with the current scientific point of view, that everything just happened, with the big exception that Peirce places Mind ahead of Matter in evolutionary growth. Current naturalist thinking apparently puts Matter first with the additional observation that Cosmic Purpose is sort of hovering around ready to strike at the soul of chemicals. I think this is the story. After this, chemicals just start communicating with each other as any normal chemical might, about their feelings, emotions, dietary preferences, favorite sports team etc.

If I may be so bold, I think I understand the theory. A thinking, breathing, living cosmos with purpose, infused itself into chemicals via thermodynamics to bring them to life.

I would say it is a cross between panpsychism and the Biblical Genesis story of God infusing life into Adam, where chemicals are the stand-in for humans. There is a subtle form of chemical worship in the theory which contrasts nicely with other similar theories that worship technology.