Does the past exist ?

[Obvious Leo]

There is only the here and now, an eternal blank canvas, upon which the story of life is written with water-colour paint upon an ever flowing river........

I realise that you use the term "ever flowing river" only in a metaphorical sense because the canvas upon which reality is painted is created by reality itself and thus cannot pre-exist it. Personally I find the metaphor of the canvas as a continuously emerging wave as being both more precise and more descriptive.

[Dontaskme]

There is only the here and now, an eternal blank canvas, upon which the story of life is written with water-colour paint upon an ever flowing river........

I realise that you use the term "ever flowing river" only in a metaphorical sense because the canvas upon which reality is painted is created by reality itself and thus cannot pre-exist it. Personally I find the metaphor of the canvas as a continuously emerging wave as being both more precise and more descriptive.

No wave ever emerged, emergence suggests post-existence, which hasn't been written yet. An ocean waving is an instantaneous singular unitary action. No such thing as pre-or post existence.

[Obvious Leo]

You've already demonstrated elsewhere that the difference between immanent and transcendent cause is foreign to you so I can understand why the wave metaphor cannot resonate with your way of thinking. Waves are self-causal.

[Impenitent]

This question properly belongs in a language comprehension class for pre-schoolers rather than in a philosophy forum for grown-ups.

Present: That which is in a state of existence.

Future: That which is not yet in a state of existence.

Past: That which is no longer in a state of existence.

As always I stand willing to help out with any further questions relating to the bloody obvious.

if it is in your mind, is it in a state of existence?

the Kantian dilemma once again

-Imp

[Dontaskme]

You've already demonstrated elsewhere that the difference between immanent and transcendent cause is foreign to you so I can understand why the wave metaphor cannot resonate with your way of thinking. Waves are self-causal.

I understand contradiction, I understand paradox...I understand the wave metaphor you are referring to.
I just don't agree waves are self -causal.

For me, waves are Acausal.

There is no difference between the ocean and the wave...there is nothing supernatural about this understanding.

[Obvious Leo]

if it is in your mind, is it in a state of existence?

If we're speaking of the notion of existence as that which is physically real then the answer is no. Although a mental state is of physical origin this doesn't mean that the conceptual abstraction which such a cognitive activity can bring forth is itself physical. I can conjure up an image of a unicorn but doing so won't bring a unicorn into the physical world.

the Kantian dilemma once again

I don't think Manny himself was even slightly confused about it but those who try and overthink the obvious can easily tie themselves up in conceptual knots.

For me, waves are Acausal.

What does this statement mean? Are you seriously claiming in a philosophy forum that the notion of an uncaused event is a logical construct?

[Dontaskme]

''For me, waves are Acausal''

What does this statement mean? Are you seriously claiming in a philosophy forum that the notion of an uncaused event is a logical construct?

I'm talking about the one who knows knowledge ...this one is Acausal.
All knowledge is accessible to us at any moment; it is one with us. No thing causes this one with the knowing, because one is not a thing to be known, ''things'' are mental constructs... can the mental realm be known?
The physical realm is known, the physical realm is only known via the help of a mentally constructing mechanism superimposing a conceptual overlay upon an object...or over an already existing existence. The knowing and the known are one unitary knowing, when a thought arises, it is known instantly in the exact same moment it arises from the mental realm, the mental realm is the assumed knower, the knower is always an assumption, and not an absolute known...therefore, the knower of knowledge is Acausal.

For example: your arm or your leg cannot know they exist, so what do you think it is that knows they exist? where is the knower of an arm or a leg?

Cause and Effect are a mental construct, outside of this mental framework, there is absolutely nothing happening.
Or, we can reverse the cause and effect to the physical realm, by saying the hand knocking the glass off the table cause the glass to break....yes this is true, but the seer, and the knower of such an event cannot be known, therefore, did the event really happen...yes and no, but mostly no, since every event return to the void of nothingness, only re-invented as a memory, so again, nothing is happening. You cannot see the seer of an event, neither can you know the knower of an event.

Why do you think the event horizon is called the event horizon ?....lean too far over the event horizon and you disappear into a black hole, where all knowledge of you is temporarily suspended....until it starts up all over again...enter the white hole ....it's a self sustaining feedback loop that it cannot get outside of...to look and know itself, and it doesn't have to because it's all already here complete and totally fulfilled...think klein bottle.

The knower is not what you think it is.

The universe is building itself as it goes along...when you look at the world out there, you are looking at the past. The past is what gives continuity to the present moment which is not built yet, and so borrows from what is built aka the past, creating the illusion of a living universe now. You only know you are alive in the moment because of past memory of you. The surrounding environment acts as a mirror, reflecting the thought of you via an object seen, the mirror effect is the cause of you...It's an uncaused cause...because a mirror is totally transparent, otherwise it could not reflect...believe it or not.

We could reverse this and say your thoughts reflect the environment. Same difference.


Why do you keep reminding me this is a philosophy forum, is it for specific knowledge only? is it prohibited to say the word Acausal on a philosophy forum now... ?

[Lacewing]

There is no difference between the ocean and the wave...

Sort of like the lava in a lava lamp?

Harbal... thank you for your clarifications in this topic. Tears of joy have cleared my eyes for this day.

[Obvious Leo]

is it prohibited to say the word Acausal on a philosophy forum now... ?

Not at all. However when you use non-standard forms of language you must be expected to explain what you mean by them.

Your post does not describe an uncaused reality at all but a self-causal one, which is exactly the metaphysical point I've been making in this forum since the day I joined it. When we define reality as that which is continuously being made we need invoke no spurious transcendent cause as Plato did with his eternal forms and physics does with its mythical "laws of physics", whose origins supposedly lie external to the universe itself. When we do this we conflate the map with the territory, or the phenomena with the noumena, thereby freezing reality into an immutable eternalist block where our intuitive notions of past, present and future are modelled as illusory. In other words we're overthinking the bloody obvious because the noumenon exists only in the present and its phenomenal representation exists no longer because in a universe with a finite speed of light we can only observe a past which once existed and now no longer exists. This phenomenal representation is therefore entirely the cognitive construct of an observer observing a reality which doesn't exist any more. This profound metaphysical truth cannot possibly be wrong and yet Special Relativity models the universe as if this were not so. This is a complete and adequate explanation for why the current models of physics are mutually exclusive and collectively describe a universe which makes no sense.

[Impenitent]

if it is in your mind, is it in a state of existence?

If we're speaking of the notion of existence as that which is physically real then the answer is no. Although a mental state is of physical origin this doesn't mean that the conceptual abstraction which such a cognitive activity can bring forth is itself physical. I can conjure up an image of a unicorn but doing so won't bring a unicorn into the physical world.

the Kantian dilemma once again

I don't think Manny himself was even slightly confused about it but those who try and overthink the obvious can easily tie themselves up in conceptual knots.

no, all one has, is access to the perceptions, not the thing in itself...

-Imp

[Obvious Leo]

no, all one has, is access to the perceptions, not the thing in itself...

I thought I'd made this point abundantly clear.

This phenomenal representation is therefore entirely the cognitive construct of an observer observing a reality which doesn't exist any more.

[Impenitent]

clear as ...

If we're speaking of the notion of existence as that which is physically real then the answer is no. Although a mental state is of physical origin this doesn't mean that the conceptual abstraction which such a cognitive activity can bring forth is itself physical.

except the conceptual abstraction of the mental state itself? must be a pineal gland...

-Imp

[Obvious Leo]

except the conceptual abstraction of the mental state itself? must be a pineal gland...

The pineal gland was certainly the theory of Descartes but it is an unloved hypothesis in modern biology. Cognitive neuroscience acknowledges no such concept as the physical "seat of consciousness" implicit in the dualist narrative but instead defines consciousness purely as an embodied PROCESS. All processes are only definable in terms of events occurring in time and the spatial orientation of such events are regarded as nothing more than a convenient heuristic.

[Dontaskme]

This is a complete and adequate explanation for why the current models of physics are mutually exclusive and collectively describe a universe which makes no sense.

What do you think of this model of the universe Leo?



Itzhak Bentov describes his theory of The Continuous Big Bang Universe a form of Eternal return.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPhfA9N2uMg

Sort of like the lava in a lava lamp?

Yes, good analogy, see the above video.

[Dontaskme]

Not at all. However when you use non-standard forms of language you must be expected to explain what you mean by them.

By using the word acausal I mean non-separation. Having no external cause, the cause being an inside job, in that it is a non-identifed perpetuated 0 phenomena.

This video explain it quite well, ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG4DlLQuiwg