Seeing Time

[AlexW]

You seem to be trying to offend me.

No, wasn't my intention at all. Sorry if it came across that way.
What did I say that offended you? I was just explaining how I see time - is it really offending just because its different to how you see it?

And it's a surprise that you have a son because you reason like a teenager.

Truth is not complicated. You only make it so.

[jayjacobus]

You seem to be trying to offend me.

No, wasn't my intention at all. Sorry if it came across that way.
What did I say that offended you? I was just explaining how I see time - is it really offending just because its different to how you see it?

And it's a surprise that you have a son because you reason like a teenager.

Truth is not complicated. You only make it so.

Your logic was offense to me.

But your premises are not acceptable.
Your logic is all over the place.
And your conclusion (There is no absolute time) doesn't follow either your premises or your logic.

[A_Seagull]

Raymond Tallis keeps his eye on time.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/84/Seeing_Time

Tallis states: "All animals, all material objects, are caught up in events that seem to have a temporal location, a temporal order, and a temporal duration. Outside of human life, however, this is implicit rather than explicit. We alone table time and clock it."

This is a rather anthropocentric view of the world. Just because other animals don't have much use for tables or cuckoo clocks, this does not mean that they don't have a viable concept of time. The Sun moving across the sky makes an excellent clock and is used by many animals. Other animals have an internal clock that is used for hibernation.

With such a questionable assertion at the start of the article, the validity of the whole article becomes unreliable.

[AlexW]

Your logic was offense to me.
But your premises are not acceptable.
Your logic is all over the place.
And your conclusion (There is no absolute time) doesn't follow either your premises or your logic.

I have posted this in the other thread as well, just to make this easier to read, here it is again:
You become upset, not because I oppose your theory, but because you don't see or understand where I am coming from. See, you subscribe to a dualistic view of reality where separation rules whereas I see the world from the unified perspective where everything is an expression of the undivided whole. This non-dual perspective/knowledge is based on how reality is directly experienced whereas the dualistic perspective, while at times practical, is not more than an abstraction (and as such ultimately untrue).

If you investigate the primary map you will find that reality knows nothing about time. You will find eternity in the now, pure presence, unified being... but no separation. The only place where you can find time is in the overlay to the primary map / reality that thought has created.

[AlexW]

Hi A_Seagull,

Just because other animals don't have much use for tables or cuckoo clocks, this does not mean that they don't have a viable concept of time. The Sun moving across the sky makes an excellent clock and is used by many animals. Other animals have an internal clock that is used for hibernation.

I dont think an animal (or human) performing certain activities at certain times during a day or night is a reasonable proof that there is something like time.
The sun sets, predators become active and start to hunt. No concept of time required.
Time only appears to manifest if you start to plan ahead... "I will have to go hunting when the sun sets... How long to go..? Ah.. the sun is still high, some more time to snooze..." See, time requires a projecting forward (or a memory of the past) to exist. Without a past or a future time is non existent. Time is as such dependent on thought as thought is the only place where the past and future exist.

[A_Seagull]

Hi A_Seagull,

Just because other animals don't have much use for tables or cuckoo clocks, this does not mean that they don't have a viable concept of time. The Sun moving across the sky makes an excellent clock and is used by many animals. Other animals have an internal clock that is used for hibernation.

I dont think an animal (or human) performing certain activities at certain times during a day or night is a reasonable proof that there is something like time.
The sun sets, predators become active and start to hunt. No concept of time required.
Time only appears to manifest if you start to plan ahead... "I will have to go hunting when the sun sets... How long to go..? Ah.. the sun is still high, some more time to snooze..." See, time requires a projecting forward (or a memory of the past) to exist. Without a past or a future time is non existent. Time is as such dependent on thought as thought is the only place where the past and future exist.

The position of the sun in the sky mimics the positions of the hour hand of an analogue clock (or rather it is the other way around), a clock in the sky for all to see.

To make the assertion , as the author of the article does, that animals do not have a concept of time requires considerably more evidence than that presented.

BTW even spiders plan ahead.

[AlexW]

BTW even spiders plan ahead.

How do you know that whatever they do is not purely instinctual?

[jayjacobus]

Your logic was offense to me.
But your premises are not acceptable.
Your logic is all over the place.
And your conclusion (There is no absolute time) doesn't follow either your premises or your logic.

I have posted this in the other thread as well, just to make this easier to read, here it is again:
You become upset, not because I oppose your theory, but because you don't see or understand where I am coming from. See, you subscribe to a dualistic view of reality where separation rules whereas I see the world from the unified perspective where everything is an expression of the undivided whole. This non-dual perspective/knowledge is based on how reality is directly experienced whereas the dualistic perspective, while at times practical, is not more than an abstraction (and as such ultimately untrue).

If you investigate the primary map you will find that reality knows nothing about time. You will find eternity in the now, pure presence, unified being... but no separation. The only place where you can find time is in the overlay to the primary map / reality that thought has created.

You seem to misunderstand my point. In your logic you use "you" (which is me) in a way I consider offensive not because you oppose my theory. And you are still doing it.

Plus your conclusion (there is no absolute time) still doesn't follow you arguments.

Here is not there. Therefore duality. Representations are here. What is represented is there.

[A_Seagull]

BTW even spiders plan ahead.

How do you know that whatever they do is not purely instinctual?

How do you know that you don't?

[AlexW]

In your logic you use "you" (which is me) in a way I consider offensive not because you oppose my theory.

Ok... I don't really understand your point, but I will strive to avoid the word "you" when addressing you from now on.

Plus your conclusion (there is no absolute time) still doesn't follow you arguments.

Newton: Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external.

How I see it: Adding anything to the absolute (time, distance whatever one might think of) is redundant. If some-thing is absolute, it is by definition unlimited, infinite, eternal - otherwise it wouldn't be absolute.
To add a quality to the absolute (e.g. that it is moving or flowing) is not more than an idea. Once we enter the non-dual, which is where the absolute resides, all descriptions, added qualities and properties lose their meaning.

Here is not there. Therefore duality.

Which is fine the way we work and live, but in reality there are no locations. In the absolute there is only the here/now (which is everywhere/always).

[AlexW]

How do you know that you don't?

I do know that I don't (plan ahead) simply because there is no separate I/self to do that.
Doesn't mean that planning ahead doesn't happen
Planning ahead is just thought stating that "I will do this or that" - doesn't mean its really going to happen...

[jayjacobus]

In your logic you use "you" (which is me) in a way I consider offensive not because you oppose my theory.

[jayjacobus]

In your logic you use "you" (which is me) in a way I consider offensive not because you oppose my theory.

Ok... I don't really understand your point, but I will strive to avoid the word "you" when addressing you from now on.

Plus your conclusion (there is no absolute time) still doesn't follow you arguments.

Newton: Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external.

How I see it: Adding anything to the absolute (time, distance whatever one might think of) is redundant. If some-thing is absolute, it is by definition unlimited, infinite, eternal - otherwise it wouldn't be absolute.
To add a quality to the absolute (e.g. that it is moving or flowing) is not more than an idea. Once we enter the non-dual, which is where the absolute resides, all descriptions, added qualities and properties lose their meaning.

Here is not there. Therefore duality.

Which is fine the way we work and live, but in reality there are no locations. In the absolute there is only the here/now (which is everywhere/always).

You use "you" improperly. You use it to make statements about me that are not true. That should be understandable.

While I don't agree with your statement about absolute time, you seem to now think absolute time does indeed exist.

If there is only the here and now, consciousness lives in a blank reality.

[Dontaskme]

If there is only the here and now, consciousness lives in a blank reality.

Consciousness is a blank reality.

.

[A_Seagull]

How do you know that you don't?

I do know that I don't (plan ahead) simply because there is no separate I/self to do that.
Doesn't mean that planning ahead doesn't happen
Planning ahead is just thought stating that "I will do this or that" - doesn't mean its really going to happen...

I was actually referring to being instinctive.
"How do you know that whatever they do is not purely instinctual?"
"How do you know that you don't?"
I was meaning How do you know that what you do is not instinctive? Sorry for the ambiguity.

Why is it important to you to create a distance between human thinking and that of other animals?