What is time?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: What is time?

Post by AlexW » Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:41 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:23 pm
OK. Different vocabulary.
I guess different vocabulary is the major cause for miscommunication anyway - good idea to establish how certain concepts are interpreted before fighting about who's right...
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:23 pm
"direct" means no mediation between two things
To me "direct" means: without intervening factors or intermediaries
I don't see the need to bring "things" into the game.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:23 pm
"direct experience" incontrovertibly suggests it is the experience of something
But when actually investigating "direct experience" you will find that it is not OF something - the experiencer is missing.
There is simply experience happening. The experiencer (as well as the experienced object) is a figment of the mind.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:23 pm
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.
Well, yes, to a degree. To me, direct experience points to the whole of experience whereas quale refer to a certain aspect - e.g. only a specific color. To state that we experience certain quale directly is ultimately also not correct, as there is only the whole - but yes, we have to use thought and language and this means we have to objectify otherwise there is nothing to discuss.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:23 pm
I call that an "impression".
OK
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:23 pm
No need to compare successive moments. We have the impression of the continuity of time.
I don't have such an impression...
I am really curious how you experience this "continuity of time". How exactly do you do that - meaning which senses are being used to experience time?

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: What is time?

Post by AlexW » Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:55 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:58 am
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.
Great - I like bananas too :-)

I am not saying that it is an impossibility to remember an extract of a certain experience - of course we do, this is how we learn, how we acquire understanding of certain things.
BUT: The memory of banana is NOT the taste of banana - guess we agree on this one.
The memory is actually so far removed that it is not at all the same experience - it is the experience of thought whereas the real thing is the experience of taste.
Now if one would not confuse one with the other everything would be fine, but people insist that they can experience things again in their head - even re-live a certain experience. They seem to believe that the remembered taste of banana is the same (or at least very close) to the original whereas this is not at all true. If they would see that it is simply the experience of a thought referring to something alive, but doing so using a dead copy of the original, then all would be fine - it would take the imagined life out of the imagined ego-self as well...
Logik wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:58 am
Further "experience" is itself a concept - is it not? You are talking ABOUT experience.
You are also experiencing talking ABOUT experience.
Yes, sure - experience is only a pointer to "what IS".
Logik wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:58 am
But the moment I take a sip of that one - the taste is with me. In memory. You can't separate the two.
The two are separate. One is taste the other thought about taste - one is alive the other is dead.
Your memory is a dead thing, thats why you crave the real experience, because it is alive.
Otherwise you would be perfectly content drinking wine in your mind.

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: What is time?

Post by AlexW » Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:13 am

Logik wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:19 am
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.
I guess what you are trying to say is that we cannot tell if an experience is first committed to memory (the brain?) and then read from this memory bank or if the data flows directly to the processor, right?

I don't think it matters.
Data received via a peripheral gets either processed and thus might give rise to a thought/memory or it doesn't get processed/interpreted and is simply known directly/as is. Of course if you want to extract part of the data a peripheral captures, e.g. to recognise a "dog", then this data also requires processing - the outcome is again a thought: "dog"
Processing always results in thought - no processing results, or rather is, direct experience.
Logik wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:19 am
So let experience be MIMO or PIMO. Which one? Doesn't matter - we are on the same page.
To be on the same page our processing (which is based on conditioning) has to be compatible - otherwise we will always be on different pages :-)

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: What is time?

Post by Speakpigeon » Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:22 am

AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:41 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:23 pm
"direct experience" incontrovertibly suggests it is the experience of something
But when actually investigating "direct experience" you will find that it is not OF something - the experiencer is missing.
There is simply experience happening. The experiencer (as well as the experienced object) is a figment of the mind.
Well, I would disagree here. It seems to me there's an incontrovertible sense of an experiencer. It doesn't need to be anything specific we could
describe the qualities or properties of, but one possibility is that we have at the same time the sense of our whole experience as well as the sense of whatever we are focusing on on the moment. The whole may be what gives us the impression of an experiencer. The thing experienced would then be the qualia we're focusing on. And thus, the experiencer would be not an experiencer as such but a sort of reference, the context of the experience, the background thing that gives a sense to the particular qualia experienced.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:41 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:23 pm
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.
Well, yes, to a degree. To me, direct experience points to the whole of experience whereas quale refer to a certain aspect - e.g. only a specific color. To state that we experience certain quale directly is ultimately also not correct, as there is only the whole - but yes, we have to use thought and language and this means we have to objectify otherwise there is nothing to discuss.
So, the experience is what play the part of the experiencer.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:41 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:23 pm
No need to compare successive moments. We have the impression of the continuity of time.
I don't have such an impression...

I'm sure you could have it too.
AlexW wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:41 pm
I am really curious how you experience this "continuity of time". How exactly do you do that - meaning which senses are being used to experience time?
Clearly, there's no scientifically recognised "perception sense" doing this. But, I tend to regard all our cognitive faculties as perception senses: vision, hearing etc. but also nociception, memory, intuition and logic sense. So, I have to see this as indeed a sense. However, like memory and nociception, I could't specify the organ doing the job other than the brain or some part of the brain. I would indeed assume some part of our brain is responsible for our sense of time generally and therefore there must be a part responsible for this impression that time is both continuous and without the kind of granularity or graininess some people suggest. Obviously, maybe time has a smallest duration, perhaps the Planck time, and we just can' t possibly have any impression of time that would somehow reach beyond that limit. But we just don't know because all we have in terms of impression is the absence of a limit, somewhat in fact like we don't have any impression of the smallest distance, which explains why we have our concept of the Real numbers.
The mere fact that we should have these notions of continuity, only formalised in mathematics, not invented, proves we all have the same impression in this respect, and probably you too. I guess all you have to do is try to have any impression at all of the smallest period of time possible. All you end up with is a constant, continuous flow of change, even in your own mental state generally.
EB

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: What is time?

Post by AlexW » Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:20 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:22 am
I tend to regard all our cognitive faculties as perception senses: vision, hearing etc. but also nociception, memory, intuition and logic sense. So, I have to see this as indeed a sense.
OK, that makes sense then. If you classify the content of thought (concepts) as a sense then I agree - you can experience time :-)
I wouldn't agree if you limit senses to the classical 5 senses, though.
Thought, of course, via memory of the past can create the concept of time - if you now refer to this concept as a sensual impression then - voila - you experience time!
I for my part wouldn't say that I am experiencing anything that thought may think up/conceptualise - and there is a simple reason for that: To me, the directly experienced reality is alive, while the thought up, conceptual structures (e.g. time) are dead - they don't exist on the same level as directly experienced reality they are an abstraction and as such removed from reality.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:22 am
I guess all you have to do is try to have any impression at all of the smallest period of time possible. All you end up with is a constant, continuous flow of change, even in your own mental state generally.
Doesn't this in a way negate the idea of time as well as the possibility of experiencing it?
If there is only a "continuous flow of change" and no real "smallest period of time" that I might be able to experience then this thing called time merges with eternity... Eternity/infinity is not objective, and as such cannot be grasped by conceptual thought - thus it can also not be "experienced" via conceptualisation.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: What is time?

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:11 pm

AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:20 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:22 am
I tend to regard all our cognitive faculties as perception senses: vision, hearing etc. but also nociception, memory, intuition and logic sense. So, I have to see this as indeed a sense.
OK, that makes sense then. If you classify the content of thought (concepts) as a sense then I agree - you can experience time :-)
I wouldn't agree if you limit senses to the classical 5 senses, though.
Thought, of course, via memory of the past can create the concept of time - if you now refer to this concept as a sensual impression then - voila - you experience time!
That's not at all what I suggested.
There's no doubt that part of our notion of time (notion, not concept, concepts need to be logical, notions will be a bit fluffy) requires memory. That time extends into the past, any past, is a notion that requires memory of that past. That notion won't even be a thought, it will be an intuition. You just know this notion, without having to think about it.
Still, this bit doesn't relate to my claim that we perceive the flow of time. What I explained in my previous post suggested that we have indeed a specific perception of the flow of time through our perception of the present. The present as we perceive isn't point-like. It's a period of time, a continuous one, and it contains, inevitably, distinct events that in effect give substance to the flow of time.
So, we seem to perceive the flow of time. And that's as a direct experience as you will ever have.
AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:20 am
I for my part wouldn't say that I am experiencing anything that thought may think up/conceptualise - and there is a simple reason for that: To me, the directly experienced reality is alive, while the thought up, conceptual structures (e.g. time) are dead - they don't exist on the same level as directly experienced reality they are an abstraction and as such removed from reality.
But you do experience the thought itself, again as directly as you will ever do.
A thought is of course not a proof of anything, not on its own. But if you accept the veracity of your senses, then you have to accept any conclusion following from the premises of what your senses tell you.
AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:20 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:22 am
I guess all you have to do is try to have any impression at all of the smallest period of time possible. All you end up with is a constant, continuous flow of change, even in your own mental state generally.
Doesn't this in a way negate the idea of time as well as the possibility of experiencing it?
If there is only a "continuous flow of change" and no real "smallest period of time" that I might be able to experience then this thing called time merges with eternity... Eternity/infinity is not objective, and as such cannot be grasped by conceptual thought - thus it can also not be "experienced" via conceptualisation.
???
That's like saying that an infinite line that exists is made of an infinity of points that don't exist.
What we perceive are periods of time. Brief moments but moments that are not point-like, each moment being itself perceived as extended and changing throughout its extent.
The fact is, we're not perceiving point-like instants of time. So, time may well be quantified. Which doesn't seem to detract to the reality of time as we perceive it, or at least to the possibility that time exists as we perceive it, always extended, always continuous, and always changing.
EB

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: What is time?

Post by AlexW » Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:59 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:11 pm
That's not at all what I suggested.
OK, I misinterpreted you.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:11 pm
my claim that we perceive the flow of time
Ok, lets look at it again...
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:11 pm
But you do experience the thought itself, again as directly as you will ever do.
Yes, sure.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:11 pm
But if you accept the veracity of your senses, then you have to accept any conclusion following from the premises of what your senses tell you.
How do you know these conclusions are true? You have been told - at a very young age - that the world is a world of separate objects, of things. You have learned to label thousands of visual impressions, sounds, tastes, smells... you have been told how to recognise and extract a certain pattern from the flow of experience, cut it out of the background like a child using scissors to cut out a paper bird, and now you believe this cut out figure exists independently from the background - while in reality all you every know directly is the background - the cut out bird is not ever experienced as a separate thing - it is experienced as a concept, a thought-made entity that does not exists independently from the background (this background is direct experience/awareness/consciousness).
If you look at your direct experience, in all honesty and without falling for what thought tells you about it, then you will actually find the above to be true, you will find that there are no separate things in this direct experience at all...
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:11 pm
That's like saying that an infinite line that exists is made of an infinity of points that don't exist.
I like that - very good!
The infinite line equals eternity - the infinity of points on this line equals the distinct events that give "substance to the flow of time" ok?

I say: You ever only directly experience eternity (which is now). You can not experience distinct events or the flow of time as they are all thought up via objectification (and conceptual linking via more thought) of the undivided, of eternity/infinity (of course you experience a thought/concept referring to an apparent object, but the separate object itself is never experienced).
I guess you think its exactly the other way round, right?

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: What is time?

Post by Speakpigeon » Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:54 am

AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:59 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:11 pm
But if you accept the veracity of your senses, then you have to accept any conclusion following from the premises of what your senses tell you.
How do you know these conclusions are true?
I don't believe I do. I think I can only believe there's a tree in my garden and that I have a garden to begin with. Isn't that good enough? Do you think I will jump from what I believe to be a cliff just because I don't actually know it's a cliff? I think not.
AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:59 pm
You have been told - at a very young age - that the world is a world of separate objects, of things. You have learned to label thousands of visual impressions, sounds, tastes, smells... you have been told how to recognise and extract a certain pattern from the flow of experience, cut it out of the background like a child using scissors to cut out a paper bird, and now you believe this cut out figure exists independently from the background - while in reality all you every know directly is the background - the cut out bird is not ever experienced as a separate thing - it is experienced as a concept, a thought-made entity that does not exists independently from the background (this background is direct experience/awareness/consciousness).
If you look at your direct experience, in all honesty and without falling for what thought tells you about it, then you will actually find the above to be true, you will find that there are no separate things in this direct experience at all...
As far as I can tell all your claims here are indeed thoughts...
I don't believe that I take the tree in my garden to be a thing separate from the tree in the garden of my neighbour just because I would somehow have been trained as a child to see things as separate objects.
I think this is instead most likely the result of what all brains do even before any sort of formal training could possibly take place.
And this process has to take place very early on. And it is only because our brain can carry out this process on its own momentum that the child will hopefully get to the point when any formal training will become possible.
Social integration is crucial and because of that you could argue it's relentless, but social integration is only ever possible once the child can make sense of the world around him and there, the child is on its own. Try to train a child which is mentally deficient. I don't think it works beyond mitigating as much as you can.
AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:59 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:11 pm
That's like saying that an infinite line that exists is made of an infinity of points that don't exist.
I like that - very good!
The infinite line equals eternity - the infinity of points on this line equals the distinct events that give "substance to the flow of time" ok?
Except we don't perceive events as point-like and we don't perceive any event as point-like.
Most likely because it would be too costly in terms of cognitive resources. We're bound to see the world through an abstract and simplified representation, including time itself.
AlexW wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:59 pm
I say: You ever only directly experience eternity (which is now). You can not experience distinct events or the flow of time as they are all thought up via objectification (and conceptual linking via more thought) of the undivided, of eternity/infinity (of course you experience a thought/concept referring to an apparent object, but the separate object itself is never experienced).
I guess you think its exactly the other way round, right?
Not the exact opposite but, yeah, you're pretty off-base. I think we know your model couldn't possibly work. Mine may be wrong but I don't think we could possibly infer that from facts we know today.
And your view has a distinct idealist flavour to it. It's not even make-believe, it's make-pretend.
EB

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: What is time?

Post by AlexW » Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:11 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:54 am
I don't believe I do. I think I can only believe there's a tree in my garden and that I have a garden to begin with. Isn't that good enough? Do you think I will jump from what I believe to be a cliff just because I don't actually know it's a cliff? I think not.
Being able to objectify reality is obviously not a bad thing, humans are able to perform this feat and it gave us a certain advantage over other species - so great, no reason to condemn it.
But it is equally important to understand where these things/objects originate from, to see that they are not something that is truly separate from the whole and is, as such, ultimately, not other then I.
If this mental understanding turns into living knowledge, and if this would be possible for the majority of humanity then this planet would be a very different place... and I am not talking about people jumping off cliffs because they think that the abyss is also my self, no, I am simply talking about natural functioning.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:54 am
As far as I can tell all your claims here are indeed thoughts...
Sure, all claims are thoughts.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:54 am
I don't believe that I take the tree in my garden to be a thing separate from the tree in the garden of my neighbour just because I would somehow have been trained as a child to see things as separate objects.
I think this is instead most likely the result of what all brains do even before any sort of formal training could possibly take place.
I find that when observing very young children/babies it seems very much like they live in a non-objective world... but this is just my observation.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:54 am
We're bound to see the world through an abstract and simplified representation, including time itself.
Depends what "we" stands for. If we is the mind/thought/the ego-self then yes, the ego is bound to abstraction/conceptualisation (as it is itself a concept).
Consciousness on the other hand is not bound at all. It sees the world as it is - as its very self.
People tend to see the world from the perspective of the ego - but what they actually overlook is that also this perspective is nothing but an arising in consciousness and that the ego itself is not more than an idea (just like all other objects/things are simply ideas arising in consciousness) - but again, this doesn't mean that we will physically function differently (of course the bus will still run you over if you are not careful).
"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."
Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:54 am
I think we know your model couldn't possibly work. Mine may be wrong but I don't think we could possibly infer that from facts we know today.
You believe in a certain model/map and thus you see things from the perspective of this map - I, as well, see things from a certain perspective, and as we use similar maps we are able to communicate - but I also know that this perspective is only an interpretation, not ultimate reality, and that life happens in reality, not in the map. Many people live primarily in the map... mistaking it for life... Maps are good, life is better.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: What is time?

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:07 pm

AlexW wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:11 am
You believe in a certain model/map and thus you see things from the perspective of this map - I, as well, see things from a certain perspective, and as we use similar maps we are able to communicate - but I also know that this perspective is only an interpretation, not ultimate reality, and that life happens in reality, not in the map. Many people live primarily in the map... mistaking it for life... Maps are good, life is better.
The tree I know is definitely all in my mind. I certainly believe there's something outside my mind that somehow does look to me like a tree, but I can only believe that. Thus, if there actually is this something out there, something that looks to my mind like a tree, I just don't know. But, again, I certainly believe there is and belief seems really just good enough for the purposes of life.
So, the "map" is what I know. And the reality that I believe is represented by this map I know can only be something I believe, rather than know, that it exists. I trust the map because that's all I know.
That being said, while I definitely know the reality of my mind, i.e. the "map", I'm not sure were there is any room in this tableau for us actually knowing what you call the reality of life. I'm sure there is something which is the reality of life. Something that looks to me as life. What I don't get, is how we could somehow know this something which is the reality of life.
Our mind is the map. As I understand it, any cognitive system would be subject to the same predicament, if it is a predicament at all, that a cognitive system only knows the representation it makes of the world, not the world itself. So, presumably, there's nothing we could do about that until we get much, much better at understanding the world through science and technology. And even then, I can't even imagine that would make any difference.
Also, I'm not sure how you could possibly suss out that the reality of life is somehow "better" than the map. In fact, I'm would assume myself that the map is as good as could possibly be in the context of life as natural byproduct of our environment. And I don't even expect you to have anything to offer to flesh out your perspective...
Do you know anything that's not the map?
EB

AlexW
Posts: 603
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: What is time?

Post by AlexW » Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:23 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:07 pm
So, the "map" is what I know. And the reality that I believe is represented by this map I know can only be something I believe, rather than know, that it exists. I trust the map because that's all I know.
To me, knowing and conceptual understanding are very different things. Knowing is direct - e.g. pinch your arm, feel that? this sensation is directly known - understanding is mediated - you look, interpret part of the seen as a tree and now understand that this is an object called "tree".
You can know the direct experience labelled "pinch of the arm" but you cannot know "tree" - while you do know the direct visual experience containing the part labelled "tree" - and, vice versa, you can not understand the direct experience of "pinch of the arm" but you understand the concept "pinch of the arm" (replace with any label you like).
So, to me, the map is what is being understood via a process called conceptualisation while reality is always directly known (but cannot be understood without extracting a random part and labelling it).
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:07 pm
What I don't get, is how we could somehow know this something which is the reality of life.
You always only know "the reality of life" - then you conceptualise it and create a map... thought can only refer to parts of the map - you don't use the map to refer to the whole map, right? - you only refer to parts, thats why you made it - this is exactly why thought can't get/understand reality.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:07 pm
any cognitive system would be subject to the same predicament, if it is a predicament at all, that a cognitive system only knows the representation it makes of the world, not the world itself
I think it does what it's meant to do - so great, we can understand parts of reality, but we cant understand the whole - I guess understanding this is good enough, now we (thought) can stop pretending to know it all and it can be used appropriately. It has its value but also its drawbacks/boundaries - its as good as any tool. We can use it for what its meant to be used - we don't use a hammer to change a lightbulb, right?
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:07 pm
Also, I'm not sure how you could possibly suss out that the reality of life is somehow "better" than the map.
Well, better is maybe misleading. Only life is alive, while the map is dead.
Its the difference between thinking about drinking a glass of wine and really drinking/tasting the wine...
The real thing is "better" otherwise you would prefer drinking it in your mind.
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:07 pm
Do you know anything that's not the map?
Sure. Taste the wine.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What is time?

Post by Logik » Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:11 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:07 pm
What I don't get, is how we could somehow know this something which is the reality of life.
Epistemology is somewhat backwards.

You can't know reality, but you can know when your map of reality is wrong. So you can gradually correct/improve it as new information arrives.

When you expect A, but you experience B. Error. Learn. Repeat.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: What is time?

Post by Speakpigeon » Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:11 pm

AlexW wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:23 am
Sure. Taste the wine.
It seems to me you're merely making the trivial distinction between thinking and perceiving and dressing this trivia with words like real life and map. Merely confusing.
Also, again, what's not enough in the notion of qualia to convey what you mean? The taste of wine is a bunch of qualia and we only know our qualia and nothing else. Physical reality is inferred from our qualia, both intuitively and by thought.
And I'm on record for saying we don't know anything about the material world.
So, I still don't see what's your point.
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: What is time?

Post by Speakpigeon » Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:17 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:11 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:07 pm
What I don't get, is how we could somehow know this something which is the reality of life.
Epistemology is somewhat backwards.
You can't know reality, but you can know when your map of reality is wrong. So you can gradually correct/improve it as new information arrives.
When you expect A, but you experience B. Error. Learn. Repeat.
You won't know that your map of reality is wrong. You merely realise, or not, that your map is inconsistent, and then you revise, or not, the map. Revising the map won't make you know reality. It will only make you feel better about your map. Whether better is good enough, we don't know. The map is really your system of belief. As long as you believe your beliefs work, it's fine. Me, I do.
EB

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: What is time?

Post by Logik » Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:26 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:17 pm
You won't know that your map of reality is wrong.
Lets suppose that's true for just one second to prove you wrong.

Speakpigeon wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:17 pm
You merely realise, or not, that your map is inconsistent, and then you revise, or not, the map.
If I knew that my map of reality is "right" (e.g NOT wrong) then why do I have to keep revising it?

Surely a correct map requires no revisions?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests