What is time?

[Dontaskme]

You have never told yourself you are hungry..that's the illusion....

Hunger arises to no body, that's real.

Does no body need real food?

When hunger arises..eating happens yes.

[Logik]

When hunger arises..eating happens yes.

What needs to arise for breathing to happen?

[Dontaskme]

When hunger arises..eating happens yes.

What needs to arise for breathing to happen?

Breathing is automatic...so are hunger pangs, eating follows automatically as triggered by hunger pang.

[Logik]

Breathing is automatic...so are hunger pangs, eating follows automatically as triggered by hunger pang.

Dodging the question.

If hunger pang triggers automated eating. What triggers automated breathing?

What is that which automates breathing and eating?

[Dontaskme]

Breathing is automatic...so are hunger pangs, eating follows automatically as triggered by hunger pang.

Dodging the question.

If hunger triggers automated eating.
What triggers breathing?

What is that which automates breathing and eating?

There is awareness of bodily sensations, like breathing and such...no body is doing this, it's all being done.

[AlexW]

You are paraphrasing something we have already established.

I = reality is the same as "We experience the map, not the territory".

I agree with "I = reality" but I don't think I have ever said that "We experience the map"...
All you experience is the territory, but you conceptualise it and "see" (not visually, but mentally) only the map.

So what did you experience when you interpreted a "dog"?

The closest you can come to visual experience using concepts is "color and shapes", but this is also only an interpretation of experience.
What you truly experience when you seem to experience "dog" is reality, the unified whole - "dog" is only an interpretation of a selective part.
Its like naming a wave in the ocean and ignoring that its made of water...

True - its all the map.

Hence. I = reality

No.. all you (seem to) understand is the map - I is not the map - only the ego-self is part of the map.

So we are back to: "You can recognize a dog but you can't recognize a grobmunf".

If I had learned to pattern match a "grobmunf" and isolate it from the flow of direct experience then I sure would - as I have never seen one... no.

[Logik]

I agree with "I = reality" but I don't think I have ever said that "We experience the map"...
All you experience is the territory, but you conceptualise it and "see" (not visually, but mentally) only the map.

You don't experience the memory of the delicious glass of wine you had last night?
The succulent chicken your wife cooked?
The joy of childhood?

I do.

I am a spatial/visual thinker. My mind is like YouTube - only lower fidelity.

The closest you can come to visual experience using concepts is "color and shapes", but this is also only an interpretation of experience.
What you truly experience when you seem to experience "dog" is reality, the unified whole - "dog" is only an interpretation of a selective part.
Its like naming a wave in the ocean and ignoring that its made of water...

Precisely. That's Phenomenology 101. It comes from intentionality. Depending on my intent and reason for looking at the dog, I could see the dog (as a whole). Or just the color of its hair. Or the wag of its tail. When I think "ocean" I am ignoring the fact that it's made of water. I am thinking "fish, coral reefs, waves".

The process of "selecting out" that which you intend to see from that which is irrelevant is called phenomenological bracketing.

No.. all you (seem to) understand is the map - I is not the map - only the ego-self is part of the map.

Metacotnigion is about understanding the "I". Or rather - understanding that there is no single, unified "I" except linguistically.

If I had learned to pattern match a "grobmunf" and isolate it from the flow of direct experience then I sure would - as I have never seen one... no.

So how did you learn that the direct experience and pattern of a "god". Where did you get the word "dog" from?

[AlexW]

You don't experience the memory of the delicious glass of wine you had last night?

Sure I do - I experience thoughts/memories referring to many different experiences.
How does your memory taste? As delicious as when you actually really take a sip of this great wine?
Fetch any type of food, maybe a nut (if you are not allergic), an apple, or even a glass of wine (if its wine-time) - then, before actually eating/drinking it, recall how it tastes - really do your best at experiencing the memory. Now, taste the food/drink for real.
Notice the difference?

Precisely. That's Phenomenology 101. It comes from intentionality. Depending on my intent and reason for looking at the dog, I could see the dog (as a whole). Or just the color of its hair. Or the wag of its tail. When I think "ocean" I am ignoring the fact that it's made of water. I am thinking "fish, coral reefs, waves".

The process of "selecting out" that which you intend to see from that which is irrelevant is called phenomenological bracketing.

Yes, yes, but you are only talking about mental processes - more and more thought. And its not a bad thing anyway that we can do this "phenomenological bracketing" ( as you call it ) - helps very much when trying to avoid the bus thats coming from the left - I am only trying to point out that all these objects (and even colors/shapes are still objects) are still part of the map, and that non-conceptual experience is the source of it all.

Next time you have a sip of your delicious wine experience it fully, without labelling and comparing the taste - thats what I am talking about.

So how did you learn that the direct experience and pattern of a "god". Where did you get the word "dog" from?

Not all concepts are based on visual stimuli. The concept "god" might bring up thoughts of golden statue once seen in a church, a quote from the bible or just a foggy haze, its simply acquired concepts, some based on experience, some based on other thoughts, some on both...
Pretty sure I learned the word dog when I was very young, my mum repeating "hund" (the german word for dog) and holding a funny picture in front of my face.

[Logik]

Sure I do - I experience thoughts/memories referring to many different experiences.
How does your memory taste? As delicious as when you actually really take a sip of this great wine?
Fetch any type of food, maybe a nut (if you are not allergic), an apple, or even a glass of wine (if its wine-time) - then, before actually eating/drinking it, recall how it tastes - really do your best at experiencing the memory. Now, taste the food/drink for real.
Notice the difference?

You are arguing for fidelity ( the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced) between direct experience and memory. Already recognized.

The reason I ate a banana this morning because I remember what it tastes like and I wanted to experience that taste and texture at its full intensity and fidelity again (I like it).

If I didn't remember what a banana tastes like I wouldn't have a reason to want one.

Yes, yes, but you are only talking about mental processes - more and more thought. And its not a bad thing anyway that we can do this "phenomenological bracketing" ( as you call it ) - helps very much when trying to avoid the bus thats coming from the left - I am only trying to point out that all these objects (and even colors/shapes are still objects) are still part of the map, and that non-conceptual experience is the source of it all.

Well yes! Experience is a mental process! What else could it be? Further "experience" is itself a concept - is it not? You are talking ABOUT experience.
You are also experiencing talking ABOUT experience.

As in - right now.

Next time you have a sip of your delicious wine experience it fully, without labelling and comparing the taste - thats what I am talking about.

That *IS* what I do. I don't think in words. I only communicate (with you) using words. So are making a bad inference.

But the moment I take a sip of that one - the taste is with me. In memory. You can't separate the two.

[Logik]

Next time you have a sip of your delicious wine experience it fully, without labelling and comparing the taste - thats what I am talking about.

Here is the pertinent point. If the "I" (that which experiences) is the CPU and the taste buds are some peripheral.

Using the language of computer science the peripheral is either wired directly to the CPU (direct experience), then copied to memory.
Or the peripheral writes its data to a memory address then the CPU reads it FROM memory.

The distinction is known as MIMO and PMIO in computer science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory-mapped_I/O

Fact of the matter is that from where either of us are standing, we are unlikely to figure out which hypothesis is the "correct" one without the help of some neuroscience, or some experiment (which I am having trouble coming up with).

The point is simply. Either one is plausible. We both recognize them. And we have a language to talk about them.

So let experience be MIMO or PIMO. Which one? Doesn't matter - we are on the same page.

[Dontaskme]

Here is the pertinent point. If the "I" (that which experiences)

To state (that which experiences) implies an experiencer.

The I is an experience NOT the experiencer.

It's one unitary action, there is no separation between the experiencer and the experience.

You will never know I because you are I




"It infuriates me to be wrong when I know I am right."

[Logik]

Here is the pertinent point. If the "I" (that which experiences)

To state (that which experiences) implies an experiencer.

The I is an experience NOT the experiencer.

It's one unitary action, there is no separation between the experiencer and the experience.

You will never know I because you are I




"It infuriates me to be wrong when I know I am right."

I agree.

[Dontaskme]

Here is the pertinent point. If the "I" (that which experiences)

To state (that which experiences) implies an experiencer.

The I is an experience NOT the experiencer.

It's one unitary action, there is no separation between the experiencer and the experience.

You will never know I because you are I




"It infuriates me to be wrong when I know I am right."

I agree.

"A heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes."

It's different that's all.

.

[Logik]

To state (that which experiences) implies an experiencer.

The I is an experience NOT the experiencer.

It's one unitary action, there is no separation between the experiencer and the experience.

You will never know I because you are I




"It infuriates me to be wrong when I know I am right."

I agree.

"A heretic is a man who sees with his own eyes."

It's different that's all.

.

I agree.

[Speakpigeon]

Instead of believing somebody else's thoughts/ideas its better to look at whats actually really happening now (at least thats what I believe in).
Its easier than you might think - maybe its too simple for someone that expects/believes in the complicated...

No, I suggested Descartes because you won't be able to read my own book.
I didn't need Descartes, and he didn't fully understand what he was talking about. Still, reading Descartes and trying to understand his idea, the Cogito, is in itself a good exercise. Most commentators got it wrong.

Its everything that happens right now minus whatever interpretation thought might come up with.

OK. Different vocabulary.
Problem: "direct" means no mediation between two things. So, calling something "direct experience" incontrovertibly suggests it is the experience of something; like perception is perception of something, a tree for instance. And that is interpretation. So, if you remove all interpretation as you ask then there's nothing left. So, "direct experience" seems the wrong expression.
Why not "qualia"? A quale is a quality without interpretation as to what signification it may have such as being the colour of some physical thing.
Subjective experience is the collection of all qualia.

Use your right fingers to pinch your left arm - feel that? That is not a thought, right? It is direct experience.
The statement "I pinched my left arm" is a (after)thought, an interpretation, an objectification of something that is not objective.

I call that an "impression".

Contrary to your suggestion that we don't experience the succession of moments in time, me I have the experience of the passage of time.

How does it feel to experience the "succession of moments in time"?
Is there something like "a succession of moments" if you don't think about it? The idea that a succession of moments exists requires the memory of a previous moment - a moment that is not now, right? What is this memory if not thought? To experience time you would have to experience the previous moment as well as the current moment at the same time - which is obviously impossible - otherwise the experience of time is not more than the experience of one thought talking about another thought.

Yes, I have the clear and distinct impression at each moment that time is passing and passing during the moment. A moment that would be like a period of frozen time just doesn't exist. We think of time as continuous and we don't know of something that would be the smallest period of time. We think that not because we can but because this is actually the impression of time we have. What you call "direct experience". No need to compare successive moments. We have the impression of the continuity of time. Each moment.
EB