Philosophy Now Forum

all you can discern is the representation of that which is directly sensed, yet your claim is that you cannot recognize that which you directly sense.

What you can discern is the representation of that which is represented. I do not claim that you cannot recognize what is represented. In fact that is what is recognized.

When you see a bird flying, there is not a bird in your mind but a representation of the bird flying. You deduce that the representation is a representation of an actual bird. But it is certinly not the actual bird you sense.

The brain doesn't interpret the bird. It simply creates the image.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:31 am

all you can discern is the representation of that which is directly sensed, yet your claim is that you cannot recognize that which you directly sense.

What you can discern is the representation of that which is represented. I do not claim that you cannot recognize what is represented. In fact that is what is recognized.

When you see a bird flying, there is not a bird in your mind but a representation of the bird flying. You deduce that the representation is a representation of an actual bird. But it is certinly not the actual bird you sense.

The brain doesn't interpret the bird. It simply creates the image.

we agree that the brain makes representations - back to the question: do you have direct access to "reality" to make the "comparison"? how do you "know" that that which is created by the brain actually represents something external? or actual? all you have is a series of representations...

-Imp

we agree that the brain makes representations - back to the question: do you have direct access to "reality" to make the "comparison"? how do you "know" that that which is created by the brain actually represents something external? or actual? all you have is a series of representations...

I could rationalize away reality but then what fun would that be?

My answer was flippant but I actually think that reality is physical reality and this can be confirmed by comparing physical measuements to representations in the brain. So the rpresentation in the brain does not reveal gravity which is revealed by instruments. Distance is represented in the brain by appearance of objects but is measured in reality by yardsticks or instruments. Mass is also determined by displacement of water not by represetations in the brain. Is this definitive? Counter arguments will get less and less plauible as the realist suggests this and other arguments.

I dismiss the rationalization of no reality for some plausible reasons.

It seems like rain comes from clouds, wets the ground, runs into rivers and flows to the sea. Could they be indepent representations instead? In your imagination..

The reason that reality is not just representations is because representations are indicative not causative.

Some people might say that representations cause in the sense of induce but representations don't produce.

Some people say that the past doesn't exist but representations of the past do exist and the present doesn't produce representatins of the past. And representations don't produce representations. So what is producing representations of the past? Perhaps that would be memories.

3 dimesnions exists at the largest level (universe) and the smallest level (atomic particles). The dimesnions can be expanded or reduced to fit the situations. There is no way to remove a dimension in reality. A point is a theoretical geometric concept but the point has no dimensions and contains no portion of reality. Adding points won't reveal reality. It will reveal many nothings.

This same logic pertains to time. Time cannot be a dimension less point but seems like a verry very small segment. Does the brain create the segment or does the segment exist? The segment exists because time is external to the brain but the brain might extend the segment into a discernible length.

The time segment is the same time segment for the universe and the atomic particle.

Time is active. As it acts it creates a sequence. The sequence is not time. A time line does not reflect the action of time only the results of time. Moreover the time line translates a time sequence into a distance sequence. Is the fourth dimension active? If it is, it is not due to the geometric representation of time sequence. It is because of active time which is independent of space. Without time, space is frozen in place.

Without sumthin' to measure (the decay of that dead cat in the box), and the measurer, there ain't no time.

Time is perceived change of state, change of status, changes in conveyed information.

So: Rick Hunter built his Time Sphere for nuthin' cuz he and it are stuck 'here and now' with the rest of us monkeys.

You are right. Without movement or change there cannot be time, at least not relational time. Can there be absolute time? That's not measurable.

One can infer time from changes but one cannot perceive time.

"one cannot perceive time"

Exactly, cuz time is the result of perception...time is that sense of progression and sequence...time is what we see reality 'do'.

Time is the index which we use to measure changes in reality. A second is always a second for any and all changes. The rotation of the Earth sets the index for all times.

Exactly. We perceive change, we measure it (formally and informally), and call one aspect of this perceiving/measuring 'time'.