The objective definition refers to time which has gone past what and time which has not gone past what?
— Luke

Past the human observer I suppose. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, past the human observer at the present, for that is always the temporal location of the human observer, when all observations are made.

You propose that we ought to define "the present" in terms of the human observer. Coincidentally, I also consider this to be how "the present" is conventionally defined. The present is the time when things are happening, when one is consciously experiencing, when one is acting or making an utterance.

What you call "past the human observer", I would call "past the present", because the present is when each person makes their observations. The present is defined in terms of conscious experience, or the time at which one is consciously experiencing, which is how you believe it ought to be defined.

The issue that you point to here, is part of the reason why I argue that the conventional definition is not good. There is a pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective by referencing "time" instead of the observer, but it is really not very successful. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see any "pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective". "The present" is subjective, as much as "here" is subjective. You seem to be have been disagreeing with this. My only disagreement is your thinking that many people believe the present is not subjective or that it's independent of human observers.

Unless the passage of time is conceived of independently from the human perspective, and "the present" is independent from that perspective, the subjectivity cannot be avoided. An independent, objective "present" is the way I proposed, as how "the present" ought to be defined. — Metaphysician Undercover

You said previously that the present ought to be defined in terms of conscious experience. Do you no longer belive this? Otherwise, how is this independent and objective?

Also, you just complained above that there was a "pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective" wrt the present, but now you want to avoid it?

That is exactly the problem with the conventional definition. "Past" and "future" are defined in relation to an implied human observer. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've been arguing for the past few pages that the present is conventionally defined in terms of the past and future. Now you state (and complain) that the past and future are conventionally defined in terms of the present. Make up your mind. You're all over the place.

Then, to define "present" we simply turn around and replace, or exchange the observer with "the present". From here, we can extend the past indefinitely, far beyond the observer. But this is an inaccurate and invalid exchange, because the two (observational perspective, and present) are not truly equivalent. — Metaphysician Undercover

They're not equivalent, that's right. One is a person and one is a time designation. The only so-called equivalence they have is that the observational perspective is temporally located at the present.

Therefore, what I argued is that we ought to start from the observational perspective, and produce a definition of "the present" which recognizes the difference between the observational perspective, and the true independent "present". — Metaphysician Undercover

What makes you think there is a "true independent present"? You've been saying for the last few pages that the present ought to be defined in terms of the human perspective; of conscious experience. Now you say that we ought to start from there to produce some other definition? Please.

I've had enough. You can't keep track of your own argument and I always get the sense that you're just taking the piss.

Yes, past the human observer at the present, for that is always the temporal location of the human observer, when all observations are made. — Luke

This is your mistake then, you equate the human temporal perspective with "the present". I explained in the last post, and a number of times earlier, how this is a mistake. The conscious experience does not give us an adequate representation of the present. Therefore these cannot be equated.

"The present" is subjective, as much as "here" is subjective. — Luke

That's a faulty assumption as well.

You said previously that the present ought to be defined in terms of conscious experience. Do you no longer belive this? Otherwise, how is this independent and objective?

Also, you just complained above that there was a "pretense of avoiding the subjective perspective" wrt the present, but now you want to avoid it? — Luke

I think you misunderstand. Defining "the present" in terms of conscious experience does not mean equating the two. It means defining "the present" precisely how it appears directly from our experience of it. But of course there is a difference between the being who is experiencing, and the thing experienced. So the conscious experience of being present is not the same thing as the present which is being experienced. And so, the definition must respect this difference.

Yes, the present ought to be defined in terms of conscious experience, because it is only by doing this that the incoherency within our understanding of time will be exposed. Then to rectify the incoherency we will need to seek the true independent nature of the present. So the first step is to provide an accurate representation of "the present" in terms of conscious experience. The second step is to apply logic to the premises derived, thereby demonstrating that the continuity which is assumed of conscious experience is not a true representation. Conscious experience misleads us. And the third step is to seek the real points in time which the logic demonstrates as necessary. In other words, a very clear and unambiguous representation of how "the present" appears from conscious experience must be provided in order that we can apply logic to determine the problems with this representation.

They're not equivalent, that's right. One is a person and one is a time designation. The only so-called equivalence they have is that the observational perspective is temporally located at the present. — Luke

Then why did you equate "past the human observer" with "past the present" at the beginning of this post? I separated the two for a reason. Then to deny my reasoning, you equated the two. You very explicitly said: "What you call 'past the human observer', I would call 'past the present'",

So you denied my proposition in order to discount the logic which follows from that premise, then later you turn around and say that you really believe the proposition is true. Now I'll have to turn around and go through the logic all over again, at which point you'll deny the truth of the proposition again, only to accept it later on when it becomes convenient for you to do so again.

What makes you think there is a "true independent present"? — Luke

The difference between past and future, which we discussed a few posts back, which we know about from our conscious experience of being present, indicates that there must be a true independent present.

This is your mistake then, you equate the human temporal perspective with "the present". I explained in the last post, and a number of times earlier, how this is a mistake. The conscious experience does not give us an adequate representation of the present. Therefore these cannot be equated. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you honestly think I was suggesting that a human perspective and "the present" are identical? We are discussing time, aren't we?

As I have made clear in my previous posts, the present is defined in terms of WHEN we are consciously experiencing. I'm obviously not saying that the present is conscious experience.

It means defining "the present" precisely how it appears directly from our experience of it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You can't see time; it doesn't appear at all.

So the conscious experience of being present is not the same thing as the present which is being experienced. — Metaphysician Undercover

You don't experience the present. The present is when you experience.

the first step is to provide an accurate representation of "the present" in terms of conscious experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

How? What do you mean by "an accurate representation"? What sort of "representation" do you mean? And how could its accuracy be improved?

Then why did you equate "past the human observer" with "past the present" at the beginning of this post? I separated the two for a reason. Then to deny my reasoning, you equated the two. You very explicitly said: "What you call 'past the human observer', I would call 'past the present'", — Metaphysician Undercover

I thought it was understood that we were talking about time, and that you would therefore understand that I was referring to equating the present time with the time of observation. But I guess I overestimated your basic comprehension of the issue.

What makes you think there is a "true independent present"?
— Luke

The difference between past and future, which we discussed a few posts back, which we know about from our conscious experience of being present, indicates that there must be a true independent present. — Metaphysician Undercover

I must have missed that. Can you point me to it? Or, just explain again how the difference between past and future indicates that there must be a true independent present.

Do you honestly think I was suggesting that a human perspective and "the present" are identical? We are discussing time, aren't we? — Luke

It's what your arguments implied, and then you confirmed it by saying that "the human observer" may be replaced by "the present". This is what you stated "What you call 'past the human observer', I would call 'past the present'. So you are saying that "the present" signifies nothing more than the human observer.

This is very significant because I've been arguing that we need to separate these two in conception. So we need to define "the present" in terms of the conscious experience, but recognize that the actual present is distinct and different from the conscious experience of being present. In this way we can come to see the faults in the way we represent "the present" according to the conscious experience.

You don't seem to be able to follow the argument because you've been insisting that the two are inseparable. And then you went so far as to suggest that "human observer" could be replaced with "present". You will never be able to understand how the human conception of "the present" is faulty if you do not allow for that difference.

As I have made clear in my previous posts, the present is defined in terms of WHEN we are consciously experiencing. I'm obviously not saying that the present is conscious experience. — Luke

We have no conception of time in this conceptual structure we are creating from our agreed upon starting point, beginning with the premise of "the present" as defined in terms of conscious experience. That is what I indicated to you when you said that you could define "past and "future" with direct reference to "the present". I said that this would require a conception of time. Now you are attempting to employ a conception of time, without defining your terms. You now say, the present is "WHEN" the conscious experience occurs.

But what is "WHEN" referencing, other than the past implied by memories and the future implied by anticipation. I told you that such a definition, one like you seek, really ends up defining "the present" in terms of past and future. Now you're trying to avoid referencing past and future, by referencing time as "WHEN". But there is no way to ground this proposed conception of time, and "WHEN" other than in the past which is implied by memories, and the future implied by anticipations. So it's nothing but a trick of deception.

How? What do you mean by "an accurate representation"? What sort of "representation" do you mean? And how could its accuracy be improved? — Luke

There are many ways that the representation, or conception of "the present" could be improved. The most important thing I believe is to recognize the substantial difference between past and future. This substantial difference you yourself denied in your reference to compatibilism. So for example, if you had a more accurate representation of "the present", you would understand why compatibilism is unacceptable.

I thought it was understood that we were talking about time, and that you would therefore understand that I was referring to equating the present time with the time of observation. But I guess I overestimated your basic comprehension of the issue. — Luke

No, it was never understood that we were talking about "time". This is an attempt by you to smuggle in a hidden premise. You cannot take such things for granted when defining terms. We were talkin about "the present" and we made it as far as a discussion as to whether "the present" ought to be defined with reference to "past" and "future" or "past" and "future" ought to be defined in reference to "the present". We failed to agree on what the current convention is on this matter.

So, there is a misunderstanding between us as to how these terms, "present", "past", "future" are currently defined by convention. You say that the convention is to define past and future in reference to the present, and I told you that this would require a conception time. Now you are trying to smuggle in that hidden premise, as if it is somehow already within our definitions. That is a logical fallacy. Perhaps our disagreement is the manifestation of this hidden premise, as described bellow:

The third type of premise difficulty is the most insidious: the hidden premise. It is sometimes listed as a logical fallacy — the unstated major premise, but it is more accurate to consider it here. Obviously, if a disagreement is based upon a hidden premise, then the disagreement will be irresolvable. So when coming to an impasse in resolving differences, it is a good idea to go back and see if there are any implied premises that have not been addressed. — https://wrtg213x.community.uaf.edu/resources/recognizing-logical-fallacies/

I must have missed that. Can you point me to it? Or, just explain again how the difference between past and future indicates that there must be a true independent present. — Luke

This is where we had our most profound disagreement. You referred to past as what has been, and future as what will be. I said that this is incorrect, because "what will be" implies determinism and our conscious experience indicates that the future is indeterminate, consisting of possibilities. This substantial difference between determined past, and indeterminate future, implies that there must be a real, identifiable division between past and future, which we can know as "the present". You denied this substantial difference, and consequentially the foundation for a real identifiable, independent "present", with an appeal to compatibilism.

It's what your arguments implied, and then you confirmed it by saying that "the human observer" may be replaced by "the present". This is what you stated "What you call 'past the human observer', I would call 'past the present'. So you are saying that "the present" signifies nothing more than the human observer. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, this is what I said:

What you call "past the human observer", I would call "past the present", because the present is when each person makes their observations. The present is defined in terms of conscious experience, or the time at which one is consciously experiencing, which is how you believe it ought to be defined. — Luke

It's a big leap, and a very uncharitable reading, for you to interpret this paragraph as me saying that the present is identical to conscious experience.

So we need to define "the present" in terms of the conscious experience, but recognize that the actual present is distinct and different from the conscious experience of being present. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is this:"actual present"? What is it, and what reason do you have for believing there is any such thing?

As I have made clear in my previous posts, the present is defined in terms of WHEN we are consciously experiencing. I'm obviously not saying that the present is conscious experience.
— Luke

But what is "WHEN" referencing, other than the past implied by memories and the future implied by anticipation. — Metaphysician Undercover

"When" could mean:

when
conjunction
1
a
: at or during the time that : while
went fishing when he was a boy
b
: just at the moment that
stop writing when the bell rings
c
: at any or every time that
when he listens to music, he falls asleep

I was using the word in the sense of definition 'c'.

I don't understand how you could think that the word "when" used in my statement "the present is defined in terms of when we are consciously experiencing" is "referencing...the past implied by memories and the future implied by anticipation". I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. The word "when" is not "referencing" anything. I used it in the manner given at definition 'c' above.

I told you that such a definition, one like you seek, really ends up defining "the present" in terms of past and future. — Metaphysician Undercover

You did, but not very clearly. I never understood what you meant by it.

Now you're trying to avoid referencing past and future, by referencing time as "WHEN". But there is no way to ground this proposed conception of time, and "WHEN" other than in the past which is implied by memories, and the future implied by anticipations. So it's nothing but a trick of deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is just gibberish.

How? What do you mean by "an accurate representation"? What sort of "representation" do you mean? And how could its accuracy be improved?
— Luke

There are many ways that the representation, or conception of "the present" could be improved. The most important thing I believe is to recognize the substantial difference between past and future. This substantial difference you yourself denied in your reference to compatibilism. So for example, if you had a more accurate representation of "the present", you would understand why compatibilism is unacceptable. — Metaphysician Undercover

This barely answers my questions. By "representation", I take you to mean concept of "the present". But how could that concept be more accurate? More accurate in relation to what?

No, it was never understood that we were talking about "time". — Metaphysician Undercover

After all of our discussion about "past", "present" and "future", it never dawned on you that we were talking about time?

You cannot take such things for granted when defining terms. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't take it for granted that when defining "past", "present" and "future" we are talking about time? That's absurd.

So, there is a misunderstanding between us as to how these terms, "present", "past", "future" are currently defined by convention. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's no problem in talking about how "past", "present" and "future" are currently defined by convention, but assuming that these terms have anything to do with time is a bit of a stretch, is it?

I said that this is incorrect, because "what will be" implies determinism and our conscious experience indicates that the future is indeterminate, consisting of possibilities. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, and I replied that "what will be" does not necessarily imply determinism because "what will be" is also consistent with compatibilism. What you call "our conscious experience" does not indicate that the future is indeterminate; that is merely your belief. Your ability to anticipate several possible outcomes or future events does not necessarily have any bearing on the nature of reality. Or, at least, you've provided no argument for it.

This substantial difference between determined past, and indeterminate future, implies that there must be a real, identifiable division between past and future, which we can know as "the present". — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps; if your unargued assertion happens to be true.

You denied this substantial difference, and consequentially the foundation for a real identifiable, independent "present", with an appeal to compatibilism. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I merely provided a counterargument to your claim that "what will be" implies determinism. That is not necessarily so.

What is this:"actual present"? What is it, and what reason do you have for believing there is any such thing? — Luke

I answered this:

This is where we had our most profound disagreement. You referred to past as what has been, and future as what will be. I said that this is incorrect, because "what will be" implies determinism and our conscious experience indicates that the future is indeterminate, consisting of possibilities. This substantial difference between determined past, and indeterminate future, implies that there must be a real, identifiable division between past and future, which we can know as "the present". You denied this substantial difference, and consequentially the foundation for a real identifiable, independent "present", with an appeal to compatibilism. — Metaphysician Undercover

This barely answers my questions. By "representation", I take you to mean concept of "the present". But how could that concept be more accurate? More accurate in relation to what? — Luke

The above quote answers this too.

After all of our discussion about "past", "present" and "future", it never dawned on you that we were talking about time? — Luke

I was very deliberately not talking about "time". That we were talking about time is your misinterpretation, your mistake. I told you from the beginning, dismiss your principles of measurement for the purpose of this discussion of "the present". We were talking about "the present" and it's relation to "the past" and "the future". The nearest I got to "time" was when I said that the present must consist of duration. At that time we could have discussed whether "time" is implied by "duration". I believe it is from the experience of duration that the concept of time is derived. So duration is implied by time, but not vise versa

I can't take it for granted that when defining "past", "present" and "future" we are talking about time? That's absurd. — Luke

We were talking about defining terms. Taking for granted, as part of a definition, that which is not explicitly part of the definition, is a logical fallacy, the hidden premise. As explained in the quoted article, it is most likely the root of our disagreement, you were holding a hidden premise. You thought time was implied by talk about "present" "past" and "future". But we were discussing the defining of these terms in reference to each other, not in reference to time. How "time" is related is a further matter.

You thought time was implied by talk about "present" "past" and "future". But we were discussing the defining of these terms in reference to each other, not in reference to time. How "time" is related is a further matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have no idea what these terms could possibly mean in relation to each other if we don't already assume that they are in reference to time. Perhaps you could explain what any of the terms "past", "present" or "future" mean if they are not in reference to time?

Use your capacity to think Luke. None of those terms imply time. "Time" implies the descriptive terms of past present and future, but not vise versa.

As we've been discussing, past, future, and present are defined in reference to each other, and there is no necessity of "time", only the experience we discussed, being present, memories, and anticipations are implied by these terms. "Time" refers to a concept created by a synthesis of these three. And, depending on how they are synthesized the concept varies. hence there are differing concepts of "time".

I suggest that the reason why our discussion has failed to progress is that you have a preconceived idea of "time", and this preconceived idea of "time" requires a specific relationship of past , future, and present. This is your "hidden premise".

"Time" implies the descriptive terms of past present and future, but not vise versa. — Metaphysician Undercover

How does "time" imply the descriptions of past, present and future?
Why do the descriptions of past, present and future not imply time?
What do the descriptions of past, present and future describe, if not time?

As we've been discussing, past, future, and present are defined in reference to each other, and there is no necessity of "time", only the experience we discussed, being present, memories, and anticipations are implied by these terms. — Metaphysician Undercover

We weren't discussing this. I had been using the words "past", "present" and "future" in accordance with their conventional usage, where they refer to periods of time. Until very recently, I was unaware that you were trying to create new meanings for these words from scratch in order to accommodate your metaphysical theory.

Regarding what you say here, what does the word "present" mean when you say "the experience we discussed, being present"? Does it mean the same as when you refer to "the present", as in "past, present and future"? It seems like only moments ago that you were accusing me of conflating the present with one's conscious experience, but it looks like that's exactly what you have done here.

If there is a difference between "the present" and the experience of "being present", then what is that difference?

Furthermore, you already acknowledged earlier that the past is not synonymous with memories and the future is not synonymous with anticipations. Here, you say that memories and anticipations "are implied by these terms". But if "past" and "future" are not synonymous with "memories" and "anticipations", and if "past" and "future" are not in reference to time, then how do you define "past" and "future"?

"Time" refers to a concept created by a synthesis of these three. And, depending on how they are synthesized the concept varies. hence there are differing concepts of "time". — Metaphysician Undercover

Nonsense.

I suggest that the reason why our discussion has failed to progress is that you have a preconceived idea of "time", and this preconceived idea of "time" requires a specific relationship of past , future, and present. This is your "hidden premise". — Metaphysician Undercover

According to this logic, you (and everybody else) must have the same hidden premise.

The meanings of the terms "past", "present" and "future" that I have argued for is consistent with their conventional definitions. Look at these and you will see that they are in reference to time. I'm not offering an idiosyncratic metaphysical theory; I'm demonstrating that your theory either relies on the conventional definitions of these terms or else becomes nonsensical.

Now, please explain what any of the terms "past", "present" or "future" mean if they are not in reference to time, as I asked you to in my previous post. Your inability to do so demonstrates that your theory is nonsense.

How does "time" imply the descriptions of past, present and future?
Why do the descriptions of past, present and future not imply time?
What do the descriptions of past, present and future describe, if not time? — Luke

We use "past", "future", "present" to describe and even define "time". Time cannot be described or defined without these references. But we can also use these without referencing time, as I've been demonstrating. We can discuss these concepts, and define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time. We can refer solely to human experiences, being present, memories and anticipations, and understand those terms without consulting the further abstraction which is the concept of time.

We weren't discussing this. I had been using the words "past", "present" and "future" in accordance with their conventional usage, where they refer to periods of time. Until very recently, I was unaware that you were trying to create new meanings for these words from scratch in order to accommodate your metaphysical theory. — Luke

You were questioning me, on my usage, and my definitions. I was talking about (1) defining "past and future" with reference to the present, and (2) defining "the present" with reference to past and future. Although there was earlier discussion of the present consisting of duration, when we moved on to discussing definitions of these terms, there was no indication that time would be a defining feature.

That you think the convention is that these terms refer to periods of time, is what I believe is your mistake. This is your hidden premise, which made us incapable of agreeing on what the convention is. I thought the convention is to define "present" in reference to past and future, but you thought the convention is to define "past and future" in reference to the present. It now appears like you hold this opinion because of your hidden premise, that all three of these refer to periods of time.

Until very recently, I was unaware that you were trying to create new meanings for these words from scratch in order to accommodate your metaphysical theory. — Luke

I think this is blatant BS. No matter how many times I tell you, that I am making distinctions between the way these words are actually defined in conventional usage, and the way that I think they ought to be defined, you still continue to deny that I am doing this. After I've told you this many times, and you continue to insist that you never knew that this is what i was doing, you must expect the accusation of BS to arise sometime.

Regarding what you say here, what does the word "present" mean when you say "the experience we discussed, being present"? Does it mean the same as when you refer to "the present", as in "past, present and future"? It seems like only moments ago that you were accusing me of conflating the present with one's conscious experience, but it looks like that's exactly what you have done here. — Luke

This is the issue we've been discussing. Does "present" mean the separation between past and future, (past being defined by reference to memories, and future being defined by reference to anticipations), or does "present" mean something derived from the conscious experience of being. I think the former is the convention, and the latter is the way it ought to be.

So now we're getting to the heart of the matter, your question of what does "present" mean, in the context of the conscious experience of being present. I would say that it means to be experiencing activity, things happening. And so this ought to be the defining feature of "the present", activity, things happening.

If there is a difference between "the present" and the experience of "being present", then what is that difference? — Luke

This is the difference I stated earlier, the difference between what is experiencing, and what is being experienced. So if the present is defined by activity, then "experiencing activity", is different from "activity" by that qualification. So "experiencing" is itself a special type of activity which occurs at the present, and that is how it is different from the more general "activity" which is what defines the present. In other words, "present" encompasses all activity, while "the experience of being present" refers to one specific type of activity.

Furthermore, you already acknowledged earlier that the past is not synonymous with memories and the future is not synonymous with anticipations. Here, you say that memories and anticipations "are implied by these terms". But if "past" and "future" are not synonymous with "memories" and "anticipations", and if "past" and "future" are not in reference to time, then how do you define "past" and "future"? — Luke

Do you not recognize a difference between the meaning of "implied by" and "synonymous with"? If "past" and "future" are defined with reference to memories and anticipations, this does not mean that these are synonymous.

According to this logic, you (and everybody else) must have the same hidden premise.

The meanings of the terms "past", "present" and "future" that I have argued for is consistent with their conventional definitions. Look at these and you will see that they are in reference to time. I'm not offering an idiosyncratic metaphysical theory; I'm demonstrating that your theory either relies on the conventional definitions of these terms or else becomes nonsensical.

Now, please explain what any of the terms "past", "present" or "future" mean if they are not in reference to time, as I asked you to in my previous post. Your inability to do so demonstrates that your theory is nonsense. — Luke

This is irrelevant. We agreed to start from a definition of "the present" whereby "the present" is defined with reference to the conscious experience of being present. We both agreed to that. There was no mention of "time" in that agreement. Therefore your mode of referring to "conventional definitions" and "time" is only misleading you, preventing you from looking directly at the conscious experience to provide the definition. Your presupposition, or prejudice, is that the convention is to define "the present" with reference to the conscious experience of being present. Therefore you believe that convention will provide this definition of "the present" for us which refers directly to the conscious experience of being present. But then you resort to the convention of referring to "time".

Now, I've been telling you over and over, that convention has a completely different definition of "the present", which is not at all consistent with the conscious experience of being present. So the truth of the matter is coming out. You desire to define "the present" with reference to the abstract concept, "time", rather than with reference to the conscious experience. But this is contrary to what we agreed on, as the way that "the present" ought to be defined.

We use "past", "future", "present" to describe and even define "time". Time cannot be described or defined without these references. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not true. According to John McTaggart's widely referenced classification, "past", "present" and "future" are used to order (or describe) events in time; they are the ordering relations of McTaggart's A-series. Alternatively, events in time can be ordered (or described) using the ordering relations of McTaggart's B-series: "earlier than", "simultaneous with", and "later than". See here.

We can discuss these concepts, and define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

This remains to be demonstrated. You still haven't provided a definition of any of these terms.

We can refer solely to human experiences, being present, memories and anticipations, and understand those terms without consulting the further abstraction which is the concept of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

You can refer to them, but where's your definition(s)?

This is your hidden premise, which made us incapable of agreeing on what the convention is. I thought the convention is to define "present" in reference to past and future, but you thought the convention is to define "past and future" in reference to the present. It now appears like you hold this opinion because of your hidden premise, that all three of these refer to periods of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then you must hold your opinion because of your hidden premise that all three of these don't refer to periods of time? I don't see how this is helping.

I think this is blatant BS. No matter how many times I tell you, that I am making distinctions between the way these words are actually defined in conventional usage, and the way that I think they ought to be defined, you still continue to deny that I am doing this. — Metaphysician Undercover

At one point you thought that the way these words ought to be defined was the same way that they are conventionally defined. I'll admit it took me a while to realise that you weren't simply getting the (conventional) definitions wrong and that you were actually proposing a metaphysical theory, but I don't think I should take full responsibility for that. You are using the everyday terms "past", "present" and "future", after all.

Also, if you are using these terms in a non-conventional way, then define them so as to differentiate them from their conventional meanings; explain how your definitions are not what these terms typically mean. But then you will have no right to tell me that I'm misusing these terms or that these terms are not conventionally used to refer to time.

Also, despite saying here that you are distinguishing between how they ought to be defined and their conventional definitions, you have also stated that you are providing their conventional definitions and that our disagreement is over who is providing the correct conventional definition (see below).

Does "present" mean the separation between past and future, (past being defined by reference to memories, and future being defined by reference to anticipations)... — Metaphysician Undercover

Saying that past and future are defined "by reference to" is not (the same as) you providing their definitions.

So now we're getting to the heart of the matter, your question of what does "present" mean, in the context of the conscious experience of being present. I would say that it means to be experiencing activity, things happening. And so this ought to be the defining feature of "the present", activity, things happening. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you saying that "present" means "to be experiencing activity, things happening"? Because I would consider the experience (or the experiencing) and "things happening" to be two distinct things or events. And I wouldn't consider either of them to be what "present" means. And you criticised me earlier for conflating "the present" with an experience (even though I clearly didn't), which is exactly what you've done here.

And so this ought to be the defining feature of "the present", activity, things happening. — Metaphysician Undercover

If "the present" is synonymous with "activity, things happening", then are the past and future both synonymous with "no activity, things not happening"? If so, is there any distinction between the past and future? If so, what is the distinction between them?

Also, you said earlier that the present is defined in terms of the past and the future. How have you defined "the present" in terms of the past and the future given this definition of "the present" as "activity, things happening"?

Do you not recognize a difference between the meaning of "implied by" and "synonymous with"? If "past" and "future" are defined with reference to memories and anticipations, this does not mean that these are synonymous. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then what are your definitions of "past" and "future"?

We agreed to start from a definition of "the present" whereby "the present" is defined with reference to the conscious experience of being present. We both agreed to that. — Metaphysician Undercover

My agreement was based on my defintion of "the present" as "the time at which we are consciously experiencing".

There was no mention of "time" in that agreement. — Metaphysician Undercover

My definitions have almost all included time (as far as I can recall). I might have referred to the present as "when things are happening", or something similar, but time is implicit in the "when".

Therefore your mode of referring to "conventional definitions" and "time" is only misleading you, preventing you from looking directly at the conscious experience to provide the definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that "the" definition of "the present" is your definition of "the present". What's your definition?

Your presupposition, or prejudice, is that the convention is to define "the present" with reference to the conscious experience of being present. Therefore you believe that convention will provide this definition of "the present" for us which refers directly to the conscious experience of being present. But then you resort to the convention of referring to "time". — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I've maintained throughout that the present is the time at which (or when) we are consciously experiencing. What's your definition?

Now, I've been telling you over and over, that convention has a completely different definition of "the present", which is not at all consistent with the conscious experience of being present. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's true. You've also been claiming that your definition of the present in terms of the past and future is the conventional definition. Which is it then: are you telling us how these terms ought to be defined in contrast to the conventional definition, or are you telling us what the conventional definition of these terms actually is?

Also, the conventional definition of "the present" is perfectly consistent with the time at which one is consciously experiencing.

You desire to define "the present" with reference to the abstract concept, "time", rather than with reference to the conscious experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Rubbish. My definition contains both.

Now, what are your defintions?

Not true. According to John McTaggart's widely referenced classification, "past", "present" and "future" are used to order (or describe) events in time; they are the ordering relations of McTaggart's A-series. Alternatively, events in time can be ordered (or described) using the ordering relations of McTaggart's B-series: "earlier than", "simultaneous with", and "later than". See here. — Luke

The use which you describe here is a way of describing time, just like I argued. This supports what I said, "past", "future", and "present" are used to order events and describe the flow of time. The B-series does not provide us with a conception of "time" in any conventional sense. It is a conception produced by McTaggart and offered as an alternative to the conventional conception of "time". That is similar to what I am doing here, except I am doing it with "the present", offering two distinct ways of conceiving of "the present".

You, however, seem to be having great difficulty recognizing what is "conventional". Since there are many conventions, as I said, we should perhaps use a different word. Maybe "traditional" would be a better word. Instead of talking about what is "conventional", I will use "traditional". The traditional way is the way that our modern usage is grounded, and permeates through the usage of classical physics. The usage of the B-series, since it was just proposed by McTaggart, is limited to modern speculative philosophy and metaphysics, the B-series conception of time is not the traditional conception of time, and so I would argue it is not conventional either.

The rest of your post demonstrates that we did not really agree on how to produce a definition of "the present", when I thought we did. I was assuming something like the following.

I've already answered this. The present is what is happening or occurring;... — Luke

Now I see you do not accept this, and what you really meant was that the present is the time when things are happening or occurring. This means that you think we cannot define or understand "the present" without putting that term into the context of a conception of time.

That is exactly what I am arguing is the mistaken approach. I believe that we need to understand and define "the present" first, with reference directly to conscious experience, independent from any potentially misleading concept of "time". Then we might produce a concept of "time" accordingly. See, the concept of "time" ought to be derived from the concept of "present", rather than vise versa.

So if you cannot dispel this idea, that "the present" must be defined in reference to "the time when...", instead of being defined with direct reference to the conscious experience of being present, then we will not be able to agree on anything here, nor could we make any progress in this discussion.

We use "past", "future", "present" to describe and even define "time". Time cannot be described or defined without these references...
— Metaphysician Undercover

Not true. According to John McTaggart's widely referenced classification, "past", "present" and "future" are used to order (or describe) events in time; they are the ordering relations of McTaggart's A-series. Alternatively, events in time can be ordered (or described) using the ordering relations of McTaggart's B-series: "earlier than", "simultaneous with", and "later than". See here.
— Luke

The use which you describe here is a way of describing time, just like I argued. This supports what I said, "past", "future", and "present" are used to order events and describe the flow of time. The B-series does not provide us with a conception of "time" in any conventional sense...

You, however, seem to be having great difficulty recognizing what is "conventional". Since there are many conventions, as I said, we should perhaps use a different word. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've missed my point here. I was countering your assertion that "Time cannot be described or defined without these references" to McTaggart's A-series relations of "past", "present" and "future". The B-series relations are an alternative to the A-series relations. Therefore, time can be described using the B-series instead of the A-series, which refutes your assertion that time cannot be described without reference to the A-series.

The usage of the B-series, since it was just proposed by McTaggart, is limited to modern speculative philosophy and metaphysics, the B-series conception of time is not the traditional conception of time, and so I would argue it is not conventional either. — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't make any mention of convention in my reply above and never intended to suggest that the B-series was conventional or traditional. That was not the purpose of my comments here. The purpose was to refute your assertion that time cannot be described or defined without reference to the A-series.

I've already answered this. The present is what is happening or occurring;...
— Luke

Now I see you do not accept this, and what you really meant was that the present is the time when things are happening or occurring. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's right, and when you consider the full context (and the full quote), then it is clear that I was referring to the time when things are happening or occurring. I said:

The present is what is happening or occurring; the past is what did happen or occurred; and the future is what will happen or occur. — Luke

My use of tense in "what did happen" (past) and in "what will happen" (future) in contrast to "what is happening" (present) clearly indicates that time is involved here. Furthermore, this is even more clear in the immediately previous quote of mine in this chain of responses, where I said (emphasis added):

I agree that the present is defined relative to experience or being, but I disagree that it is not conventionally defined this way. The present is conventionally defined in relation to (or as the time of) being, existing or happening, and the past and future are conventionally defined relative to this, with the past as what has been, has existed or has happened, and the future with what will be, will exist or will happen. — Luke

It is also worth noting that just prior to these exchanges, you made comments such as:

The past is defined as what has gone by in time...The future is defined as what will come in time... — Metaphysician Undercover

However, now you are claiming that:

We can discuss these concepts, and define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's an easy way to settle this dispute which is to provide your definitions of these terms without any reference to a concept of time. I've asked you for these definitions several times now. Are you ever going to provide them?

So if you cannot dispel this idea, that "the present" must be defined in reference to "the time when...", instead of being defined with direct reference to the conscious experience of being present, then we will not be able to agree on anything here, nor could we make any progress in this discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've also claimed that the present is defined in terms of both the past and the future and that the present is an overlap between the past and the future. So, which definition takes precedence: that the present is defined in terms of both the past and the future, or that the present is defined "with direct reference to the conscious experience of being present"?

Regardless, let's see if you can provide some definitions of these terms without reference to time.

You've missed my point here. I was countering your assertion that "Time cannot be described or defined without these references" to McTaggart's A-series relations of "past", "present" and "future". The B-series relations are an alternative to the A-series relations. Therefore, time can be described using the B-series instead of the A-series, which refutes your assertion that time cannot be described without reference to the A-series. — Luke

That point is irrelevant. Of course one can define "time" however one wants, but if it's not recognizable as time, then the proposition would be unacceptable, and the definition would be pointless and irrelevant. So really all you've demonstrated is that you misunderstood what I meant.

You might say that this is all that I am doing, seeking to define terms like "present", "past", and "future" in new ways which render them as unrecognizable. But that's why I am taking the time to explain why the things which we know, that bear those names, ought to be understood in this way.

The purpose was to refute your assertion that time cannot be described or defined without reference to the A-series. — Luke

You could have done that simply by stating that one can define a word in any way one desires. It would have the same effect, you would just demonstrate that you misunderstood me.

There's an easy way to settle this dispute which is to provide your definitions of these terms without any reference to a concept of time. I've asked you for these definitions several times now. Are you ever going to provide them? — Luke

I've given you the starting point, the way I would define "the present" with direct reference to the conscious experience of being. I defined it as "activity, things happening". I thought you might agree with this because you had already said "the present is what is happening, occurring". But now I see that you think we need to qualify this with "the time" at which things are happening.

I really do not think that such a qualification would be useful, because "time" is a very misunderstood term, and referring directly to a term which bears a high level of uncertainty would produce a very unstable foundation for any following definitions. That is why I've been seeking to avoid the use of "time" in these definitions.

Unless we can agree on the starting definition, which would be the reference point for the following definitions, there is really no point in proceeding. You would simply say that I am using my free will to define terms however I please, and I am rendering these terms as unrecognizable. There is no point to that. Propositions are proposals, and proposals are useless unless accepted. So unless we can agree on the initial step, the principal proposition, there is no point to me pointing toward the higher steps. You need to accept the truth of the principal premise on its own merits, not by looking at what it might lead to.

My use of tense in "what did happen" (past) and in "what will happen" (future) in contrast to "what is happening" (present) clearly indicates that time is involved here. — Luke

You are demonstrating equivocation here. You switch from B-series "time" to A-series "time" when you make this equivalence, and that is equivocation. That's the usefulness of McTaggart's distinction, we cannot exchange these designators "what did happen", and "what will happen" with "past" and "future", and say that they both, equally imply "time", without an equivocation in the term "time". It requires two very distinct and incompatible conceptions of "time" to make this equivalence.

Therefore rather than indicating that time is involved, you are indicating that what you say is incoherent, relying on an equivocal notion of "time".

Furthermore, as I pointed out it is fundamentally unacceptable to exchange "future" with "what will happen". And, I believe that this difference is at the root of McTaggart's perception of the need to distinguish between A-series and B-series.

This ambiguity in "time" is the reason why we ought to avoid using "time" in our principal proposition. This will allow us to build up a conceptual structure based on the conscious experience of being present. Then we can produce a conception of time which is consistent, and unambiguous, rather than the equivocal use which you promote.

There's an easy way to settle this dispute which is to provide your definitions of these terms without any reference to a concept of time. I've asked you for these definitions several times now. Are you ever going to provide them?
— Luke

I've given you the starting point, the way I would define "the present" with direct reference to the conscious experience of being. I defined it as "activity, things happening". I thought you might agree with this because you had already said "the present is what is happening, occurring". But now I see that you think we need to qualify this with "the time" at which things are happening.

Unless we can agree on the starting definition, which would be the reference point for the following definitions, there is really no point in proceeding. — Metaphysician Undercover

I haven't asked you for a starting point; I've asked you for the definitions. To demonstrate that we can "define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time" - as you claim - then give us your definitions; show us.

I'm not interested in agreeing to a "starting definition" and arriving at the "final definition" together. I don't agree that these terms can be defined without any reference to time. If you can, then prove it. Otherwise, this is just a cop out.

I've offered many propositions as to how to proceed in making these definitions. I've gotten no agreement from you concerning this procedure. To offer a definition which would undoubtably be rejected because you've shown very clearly that you disagree with the direction I am taking, would only be foolish. Therefore I have no definitions to offer.

If you think this is a cop out then so be it. I think it's simply a recognition that productive discourse is impossible without some agreement, which we have none of. In other words, if we cannot work together to produce the required definitions (which we clearly cannot do), then any proposed definitions would be useless, because I cannot force you to accept what you've demonstrated you will willfully reject.

I've offered many propositions as to how to proceed in making these definitions. I've gotten no agreement from you concerning this procedure. To offer a definition which would undoubtably be rejected because you've shown very clearly that you disagree with the direction I am taking, would only be foolish. Therefore I have no definitions to offer. — Metaphysician Undercover

You asserted that we can "define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time". I've asked you several times to produce such definitions. Until you produce them, there is nothing to reject. Unless you produce them, there is no support for your assertion.

Don't blame me for your failure to support your argument.

You asserted that we can "define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time". I've asked you several times to produce such definitions. Until you produce them, there is nothing to reject. Unless you produce them, there is no support for your assertion. — Luke

I've explained very clearly how "we" can define and understand these terms without reference to time. Obviously though, you will never be able to understand these terms without reference to time. Therefore I was wrong, and "we" cannot understand and define these terms without reference to time.

Don't blame me for your failure to support your argument. — Luke

I firmly believe that the blame is to be directed at you,. You have a very strong propensity toward willful misunderstanding. Denial and misrepresentation, which results in misunderstanding, without any real attempt to understand, is your modus operandi.

I've explained very clearly how "we" can define and understand these terms without reference to time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't believe so. If that were true then you could simply define them. However, you have produced zero definitions of the terms "past", "present" or "future" that do not reference time. All you have offered is a "starting definition" that is only of "present", and which is not even a complete sentence. You have offered zero definitions (or even "starting definitions") of "past" or "future" that do not reference time.

Obviously though, you will never be able to understand these terms without reference to time. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's right, because the meanings of these terms are in reference to time. You have asserted otherwise but have failed to demonstrate it.

Don't blame me for your failure to support your argument.
— Luke

I firmly believe that the blame is to be directed at you,. You have a very strong propensity toward willful misunderstanding. Denial and misrepresentation, which results in misunderstanding, without any real attempt to understand, is your modus operandi. — Metaphysician Undercover

What have I misunderstood, denied or misrepresented? You asserted:

We can discuss these concepts, and define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

All I have asked is for you to provide some examples of such definitions. You have failed to provide any examples and then blamed me for not helping you find some.

Since you disagree with me, are you going to help me to support my argument? I don't see why you won't given that you expect me to help to support your argument.

Instead of acknowledging and taking responsibility for your own failure to produce any examples to support your assertion, you criticise me for not helping you to produce those examples, or for simply not agreeing with your unsupported assertion without question. What a willingness to misunderstand!

All I have asked is for you to provide some examples of such definitions. You have failed to provide any examples and then blamed me for not helping you find some. — Luke

Luke, do you not even try to read my posts?

So now we're getting to the heart of the matter, your question of what does "present" mean, in the context of the conscious experience of being present. I would say that it means to be experiencing activity, things happening. And so this ought to be the defining feature of "the present", activity, things happening. — Metaphysician Undercover

So if you cannot dispel this idea, that "the present" must be defined in reference to "the time when...", instead of being defined with direct reference to the conscious experience of being present, then we will not be able to agree on anything here, nor could we make any progress in this discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've given you the starting point, the way I would define "the present" with direct reference to the conscious experience of being. I defined it as "activity, things happening". I thought you might agree with this because you had already said "the present is what is happening, occurring". But now I see that you think we need to qualify this with "the time" at which things are happening. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, you have my stated definition of "the present", and as I also stated earlier, definitions of "past" and "future" ought to be produced in reference to "the present".

However, we clearly have no point of agreement concerning "the present", so I cannot make reference to a word which "we" do not have a consistent understanding of. Therefore any attempts to define "future" and "past" would be wasted effort. I'm sorry to say that unless you can accept "the present" as defined, the attempt at discourse has proven fruitless.

All you have offered is a "starting definition" that is only of "present", and which is not even a complete sentence. You have offered zero definitions (or even "starting definitions") of "past" or "future" that do not reference time. — Luke

To give the “defining feature” of the present, or what the present should be defined “in reference to”, is not to give a definition. Also, you have made no attempt to define the past or the future without reference to time.

You are missing the point Luke. Obviously defining the terms without reference to time is not a problem, because a person can define terms any way one likes, even contradictory, or whatever. The issue is getting agreement on the definitions, consensus that the definitions are acceptable. If I could stipulate the definitions as dogma, and force your mind to understand and follow them in an unwavering manner, even if they were contradictory, then the problem would be solved. Right? That particular problem might be solved, but a much bigger problem would be created.

Now, you've demonstrated to me that it would be impossible for me to define the terms the way that I like, i.e. without reference to time, and solely referencing human experience, in a way which is acceptable to you. After many days of discussion, you have shown me that such definitions would be fundamentally contrary to your beliefs, and you are not willing to relinquish these beliefs, even for the sake of discussion. The discussion always turns to you equivocating your meanings of the terms with mine, in your attempt to say that mine are self-contradicting, or have some similar problem of incoherency. Therefore you have shown that it is impossible for you to dismiss your understanding of what these terms mean, to proceed solely from my premises, for the sake of discussion. Consequently, discussion cannot proceed.

Here's an example. I will propose the following definitions. I will define "present" as what is happening, activity which is occurring. Then, past gets defined as what has happened, activity which has occurred, and future is defined as what is possible to happen, activity which is possible. You will say "what has happened", in relation to "what is happening" implies temporal separation, and cannot be understood without reference to "time". Therefore you will insist that this does not define the terms without referencing time. But this would be your misunderstanding, your failure to dismiss your preconceived need to refer to time.

I will insist there is no need to refer to time, because I am keeping the definitions within the context of human experience, so we refer to memory, not time, to ground the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened". Then you will say 'but "memory" is not synonymous with "past"'. And this would only demonstrate your misunderstanding of how definitions work. Defining terms are not necessarily synonymous with the terms defined. In most cases the more specific is defined through reference to the more general ("human being" is defined with reference to "animal"). And you will continue to make ridiculous objections to my definitions, based on your preconceived meanings to those terms, without relinquishing those prejudices to start from new premises.

Obviously defining the terms without reference to time is not a problem, because a person can define terms any way one likes, even contradictory, or whatever. — Metaphysician Undercover

Until this post, you had not defined any of the terms without reference to time; you had only provided the “defining feature” of the present or what the present should be defined “in reference to”.

Now, you've demonstrated to me that it would be impossible for me to define the terms the way that I like, i.e. without reference to time, and solely referencing human experience, in a way which is acceptable to you. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have repeatedly asked you to provide a definition of "past", "present" or "future" without reference to time. Until this post, you had not offered any definitions. I could neither accept nor reject (or find acceptable or rejectable) something that you never offered.

Now, you've demonstrated to me that it would be impossible for me to define the terms the way that I like, i.e. without reference to time, and solely referencing human experience, in a way which is acceptable to you. After many days of discussion, you have shown me that such definitions would be fundamentally contrary to your beliefs, and you are not willing to relinquish these beliefs, even for the sake of discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's quite unfair. You never provided any "such definitions".

Here's an example. I will propose the following definitions. I will define "present" as what is happening, activity which is occurring. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thank you. Finally, a definition.

Then, past gets defined as what has happened, activity which has occurred, and future is defined as what is possible to happen, activity which is possible. — Metaphysician Undercover

What meaning do you give to the past tense phrase "has happened"? What meaning do you give to the future tense phrase "to happen"?

You will say "what has happened", in relation to "what is happening" implies temporal separation, and cannot be understood without reference to "time". — Metaphysician Undercover

That's right.

I will insist there is no need to refer to time, because I am keeping the definitions within the context of human experience, so we refer to memory, not time, to ground the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened". — Metaphysician Undercover

What is the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened"? Memory may "ground the difference", but what is the difference?

What meaning do you give to the past tense phrase "has happened"? What meaning do you give to the future tense phrase "to happen"? — Luke

As I said, meaning is given to these terms from the human experience of memory and anticipation. What has happened, "past", consists of things which might be remembered. What is possible to happen, "future" consists of things which might be anticipated.

What is the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened"? Memory may "ground the difference", but what is the difference? — Luke

As I said earlier, I believe that "the present", as what is happening, consists of a unity of what has happened (past), and "what is possible to happen" (future). The difference between "what has happened" and "what is happening", therefore, would be that "what is happening" consists not only of "what has happened" but it also contains some "what is possible to happen", as well.

As I said, meaning is given to these terms from the human experience of memory and anticipation. What has happened, "past", consists of things which might be remembered. What is possible to happen, "future" consists of things which might be anticipated. — Metaphysician Undercover

I asked what the phrases "has happened" and "to happen" mean. It is unclear whether you are providing the meanings of these phrases - what you think they mean - or whether you are telling me "what gives meaning to" these phrases. I don't think these are the same.

To be clear, are you saying that what "has happened" means what "might be remembered", and that what is "to happen" means "what might be anticipated"? Does this imply that if something is not remembered then it has not happened and if something is not anticipated then it will not happen? That is, is what has happened or what might happen limited to only what can be remembered or anticipated? In other words, is it impossible that there are events that have happened that we don't remember and events that might happen that we don't anticipate?

As I said earlier, I believe that "the present", as what is happening, consists of a unity of what has happened (past), and "what is possible to happen" (future). The difference between "what has happened" and "what is happening", therefore, would be that "what is happening" consists not only of "what has happened" but it also contains some "what is possible to happen", as well. — Metaphysician Undercover

This does not explain the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened".

To say that "what is happening" (present) consists of some of "what has happened" (past) and some of "what is possible to happen" (future) does not explain the difference between "what is happening" (present) and "what has happened" (past).

This only says that the present consists of some past and some future. I asked for the difference between the present and the past.

I asked what the phrases "has happened" and "to happen" mean. It is unclear whether you are providing the meanings of these phrases - what you think they mean - or whether you are telling me "what gives meaning to" these phrases. I don't think these are the same. — Luke

You asked me for 'my definitions', so this is exclusively what these words mean within the context of 'my definitions'.

o be clear, are you saying that what "has happened" means what "might be remembered", and that what is "to happen" means "what might be anticipated"? — Luke

You are taking "to happen" out of context. The definition is "what is possible to happen".

To be clear, are you saying that what "has happened" means what "might be remembered", and that what is "to happen" means "what might be anticipated"? Does this imply that if something is not remembered then it has not happened and if something is not anticipated then it will not happen? That is, is what has happened or what might happen limited to only what can be remembered or anticipated? In other words, is it impossible that there are events that have happened that we don't remember and events that might happen that we don't anticipate? — Luke

No, this is not a solipsist definition. Just because I do not remember it doesn't mean it has not happened. Someone else might remember it. So "memory" and "anticipation" describe these categories, but the use of "might" indicates that these qualifiers are not necessary conditions. They indicate the type of property being referred to. For example, "sound" could be defined as a wave pattern which "might be heard". Then the tree falling in the forest makes a "sound", even though no one hears it, under this definition.

This does not explain the difference between "what is happening" and "what has happened".

To say that "what is happening" (present) consists of some of "what has happened" (past) and some of "what is possible to happen" (future) does not explain the difference between "what is happening" (present) and "what has happened" (past).

This only says that the present consists of some past and some future. I asked for the difference between the present and the past. — Luke

Yes it does tell you the difference between past and present. The present is not solely past, as past is, it consists also of some future. I am informing you of the type of difference I am talking about. Why can't you accept this? If you asked me what is the difference between water and a solution, I would say that the solution consists of both water and something else dissolved within it. It informs you of the type of difference I am talking about. Why can't you accept this?

What meaning do you give to the past tense phrase "has happened"? What meaning do you give to the future tense phrase "to happen"?
— Luke

As I said, meaning is given to these terms from the human experience of memory and anticipation. What has happened, "past", consists of things which might be remembered. What is possible to happen, "future" consists of things which might be anticipated.
— Metaphysician Undercover

I asked what the phrases "has happened" and "to happen" mean. It is unclear whether you are providing the meanings of these phrases - what you think they mean - or whether you are telling me "what gives meaning to" these phrases. I don't think these are the same.
— Luke

You asked me for 'my definitions', so this is exclusively what these words mean within the context of 'my definitions'. — Metaphysician Undercover

You spoke about what gives these terms their meaning, and what the past and future "consist of", rather than what the terms "has happened" and "to happen" mean.

o be clear, are you saying that what "has happened" means what "might be remembered", and that what is "to happen" means "what might be anticipated"? — Luke

You are taking "to happen" out of context. The definition is "what is possible to happen". — Metaphysician Undercover

My question was: what does "to happen" mean within that definition.

If I accept your definition of the present as "what is happening", then how do "what is possible to happen" and "what has happened" differ from "what is happening" in a way that is not in relation to time?

Memory and anticipation are mental events. Do you also consider "what is happening" to be a mental event?

is it impossible that there are events that have happened that we don't remember and events that might happen that we don't anticipate?
— Luke

No, this is not a solipsist definition. Just because I do not remember it doesn't mean it has not happened. Someone else might remember it. So "memory" and "anticipation" describe these categories, but the use of "might" indicates that these qualifiers are not necessary conditions. — Metaphysician Undercover

I asked about what we (humans) remember or anticipate, not just one person. But if your answer is still "no" to this question, then I don't see how you could say that memory grounds the difference between what is happening and what has happened. If memory grounds the difference, then the only events that have happened are limited to what humans remember. Likewise (presumably), the only events that might possibly happen are limited to what humans anticipate. I'm fairly certain there are events that have happened that no humans can remember and events that might possibly happen that no humans could anticipate.

Yes it does tell you the difference between past and present. The present is not solely past, as past is, it consists also of some future. I am informing you of the type of difference I am talking about. Why can't you accept this? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because you cannot simply assume I know what you mean by these terms that you claim have no relation to time. That would be question begging. I know the difference in meaning between the terms "past", "present" and "future" in relation to time, and I know difference in meaning between the terms "what has happened", "what is happening", and "what will happen" in relation to time. But if you're telling me that none of these terms is defined in relation to time, then you have some work to do to explain their meanings and the differences between them that are not in relation to time.

You say that the past "consists of things which might be remembered", and you define the present as "what is happening, activity which is occurring". It is unclear to me just how these differ, if at all, when they have no relation to time.

If you asked me what is the difference between water and a solution, I would say that the solution consists of both water and something else dissolved within it. It informs you of the type of difference I am talking about. Why can't you accept this? — Metaphysician Undercover

Saying that a solution is partly water tells me what they have in common; that a solution is water plus something else. This does not explain what a solution is or what water is or how these two differ from each other, other than very superficially saying that they are different.

If I accept your definition of the present as "what is happening", then how do "what is possible to happen" and "what has happened" differ from "what is happening" in a way that is not in relation to time? — Luke

I told you, "what has happened" refers to memory, and "what is possible to happen" refers to anticipation. "What is happening" refers to a combination of both There is not need for "time" here.

Memory and anticipation are mental events. Do you also consider "what is happening" to be a mental event? — Luke

Yes, of course. The primary condition of the definition of "present" was to make reference solely to conscious experience. To fulfil this condition "what is happening" must be be understood in the context of what you call a "mental event".

If memory grounds the difference, then the only events that have happened are limited to what humans remember. — Luke

This is not true, as I explained. We can define "past" in reference to what "might be remembered". This is to name the criteria of a type, as I said already. It is how we move toward objectivity. As in the example of "sound", which I mentioned. When the tree falls it makes a "sound" even if no one hears it, if we define "sound" as "what might be heard". By defining in this way, we make "sound" the name of a type, and allow that there are things of that type which have not necessarily been perceived, judged, and categorized as being that type. Likewise, "might be remembered" characterizes a type, and we can allow for things of that type which have not actually been remembered.

Of course the radical skeptic can deny the reality of anything independent, and insist that to be is to be perceived. If you like to take that position of radical skepticism, that is your choice.

Likewise (presumably), the only events that might possibly happen are limited to what humans anticipate. — Luke

Again "what might be anticipated" describes a type, and we can allow for the reality of things of that type which are not actually anticipated.

But if you're telling me that none of these terms is defined in relation to time, then you have some work to do to explain their meanings and the differences between them that are not in relation to time. — Luke

I don't think that this "work" I have to do ought to be very difficult. We all have memories and anticipations, so just try thinking of past and future in terms of memories and anticipations rather than in terms of time. It's very easy, if you dismiss your prejudice, that "past" and "future" can only be defined in reference to time. If my work is difficult, you and your prejudice are to blame for that.

It is unclear to me just how these differ, if at all, when they have no relation to time. — Luke

I told you very clearly how they differ. I even gave the analogy of how "water" differs from "solution". One is pure, the other is a mixture of that thing which is pure in that case, along with something else. That is how they differ. It is only difficult for you to understand, because your preconceived prejudice makes you expect a different type of difference between past and present.

Memory and anticipation are mental events. Do you also consider "what is happening" to be a mental event?
— Luke

Yes, of course. The primary condition of the definition of "present" was to make reference solely to conscious experience. To fulfil this condition "what is happening" must be be understood in the context of what you call a "mental event". — Metaphysician Undercover

If the "primary condition" of your definition of "present" is to make reference "solely to conscious experience", then how can "present" refer to anything outside of conscious experience?

If memory grounds the difference, then the only events that have happened are limited to what humans remember.
— Luke

This is not true, as I explained. We can define "past" in reference to what "might be remembered". This is to name the criteria of a type, as I said already. It is how we move toward objectivity. — Metaphysician Undercover

If the present is not limited to conscious experience, and if the past is not limited to what is actually remembered and if the future is not limited to what is actually anticipated, then there must be something outside of conscious experience or these mental events that determines and helps to define what you mean by "past", "present" and "future". What is it?

As in the example of "sound", which I mentioned. When the tree falls it makes a "sound" even if no one hears it, if we define "sound" as "what might be heard". By defining in this way, we make "sound" the name of a type, and allow that there are things of that type which have not necessarily been perceived, judged, and categorized as being that type. — Metaphysician Undercover

If your definition of "sound" allows "that there are things of that type which have not necessarily been perceived, judged, and categorized as being that type", then your definition of "sound" allows for "what might not be heard". Your definition of "sound" is basically "what might be heard or what might not be heard". I don't see how the definition of "what might not be heard" makes reference solely to conscious experience. It indicates that "sound" refers to something external to conscious experience. If (a) sound is something that might not be heard, then it must exist independently of anyone's conscious experience.

It logically follows that the same must apply to "what might be remembered" and to "what might be anticipated". As you note yourself:

Likewise, "might be remembered" characterizes a type, and we can allow for things of that type which have not actually been remembered...

Again "what might be anticipated" describes a type, and we can allow for the reality of things of that type which are not actually anticipated. — Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore, I don't see how you can maintain that your definitions of "past", "present" and "future" make reference solely to conscious experience, while you also speak about "the reality of things of that type" which do not make reference solely to conscious experience (i.e. which are not remembered or not anticipated).

Of course the radical skeptic can deny the reality of anything independent, and insist that to be is to be perceived. If you like to take that position of radical skepticism, that is your choice. — Metaphysician Undercover

My choice is beside the point. I have already stated my view that these terms are conventionally defined with reference to time, It is your view and your unconventional definitions of these terms that is presently under discussion. Your view - that these terms are defined solely in terms of conscious experience - clearly implies the radical skeptic position which must lead you to "deny the reality of anything independent". Otherwise, I fail to understand how these terms can be defined solely in terms of conscious experience.

Some musings.

I write in the present moment. The past is thoughts and memories. The future is memories. The present is real. It’s tangible. It’s here and now. It’s reality. The past doesn’t exist at the moment. Neither does the future. Only the present is here and now. Only the present is real.

It has always been so. I have always been in the present. The present is where I am now and where I’ve been my entire life. The present never ends. I am always in the present, even if my mind is elsewhere.

I do not exist in the past or the future. I exist now, in the present. If God is real, I can only experience God in the present. Excessive thought and concern about past and future takes me away from where I really am, takes me out of reality, takes me away from God.

The humble, ubiquitous present. So often ignored and undervalued. Yet it’s the only thing I have. It’s reality itself. — Art48

Nice issue. Husserl makes a case that the present isn't pointlike. The 'living present' is a kind of stretched apriori structure.

He used our experience of melody. I am the fading memory the note before, the sound of the note now, and the expectation of the note to come.

We can also use conceptual melody. As you read this sentence, you remember and anticipate at the same time. You are stretched between what you've gathered and an evolving projected completion that structures that gathering throughout the movement.

This apriori structure 'is' the space or matrix of experience in a certain sense, the transcendental ego which is also just the being of the world from a perspective. (?)