I am not talking about perception, I am talking about experience. That is to say, when you and I experience something we do not see a perception without content and without conceptualization. Rather, the experience is already given with a conceptualization (a la Kant), but I wonder if this is given in the present, or rather it is the present itself or the present of the consciousness to the extent that the conceptualization is given simultaneously with the experience.

So you agree that there is a present of experience where conceptualization occurs simultaneously with perception?

I used to interpret Kant's experience as "perception". Kant's CPR has problem of translation from the old German to contemporary German, and then to English, so some parts of CPR is unclear in linguistic level. Hence I put down CPR, and relied on the academic commentary books and articles on the topics.

So you agree that there is a present of experience where conceptualization occurs simultaneously with perception? — JuanZu

No, I still believe that experience and perception is different. Perception happens now at this moment. Experience happens in the form of reflection on the contents of the perception when the perception is over. Experience has explicit label of beginnings and ends.

For example, if I am packaging my visit to Japan 10 year ago into experience, then the arrival of Narita Airport via JAL flight would be the beginning of the experience, and then my stay in central Tokyo, visiting Nagoya and Osaka area for meeting with my friends in the cities, and then the moment of boarding my return flight would be the end of the experience.

The packaged experience would be in the form of reductive capture of the perceptual contents of the duration and events in the linguistic format this instance of experience.

There would be also the other types of experiences which are in the format of knowledge (knowing-how) being able to deal with the tasks at hand which require sets of skills for solving the problems and achieving tasks etc in the real world.

Perceptions wouldn't have that sort of labeling or reductions. What you see, feel and sense themselves now are all the contents of your perception.

For example, if I am packaging my visit to Japan 10 year ago into experience, then the arrival of Narita Airport via JAL flight would be the beginning of the experience, and then my stay in central Tokyo, visiting Nagoya and Osaka area for meeting with my friends in the cities, and then the moment of boarding my return flight would be the end of the experience. — Corvus

So... that's an ordering in terms of time, which you say doesn't exist...

Banno as a newborn 50+ year ago = Banno as a man after 50+ years from his birth ?
They don't look the same Banno to me. — Corvus

Now you have moved on to identity. I grew up, over time.

Your thesis is that what is not part of your immediate perception does not exist. This is in error.

Being perceived is not what it is for something to exist.

Being perceived is not what it is for something to exist — Banno

A breathe of fresh air. A history over time exists whether it is recorded through human perception or not. Paleontologists discover this truth frequently.

For those who suspect math underpins the character of nature, then the passage of time might well be understood in mathematical rather than philosophical discourse. What does the limit concept say about time? In the ever expanding galaxy of mathematical subjects does time arise?

I've flagged your post for mod attention. — Banno

You have the right to do such a thing. Thanks for telling me.

I think it and this ought be deleted as irrelevant to the thread. — Banno

Then delete it.

↪Arcane Sandwich
I don't. — Banno

If you don't despise me, then why won't you talk to me?

For those who suspect math underpins the character of nature, then the passage of time might well be understood in mathematical rather than philosophical discourse. — jgill

That's exactly one of the things that I've been saying ever since I joined this forum about 3 months ago. But people (like Banno for example) think that it's off topic in a Thread about the Ontology of Time. I ask him for his reasons, and he just won't talk to me about it!

I don't have the time to watch that video — Arcane Sandwich

With great singing:

Remanens capax mutationem > Carpe Diem.

A breathe of fresh air. A history over time exists whether it is recorded through human perception or not. Paleontologists discover this truth frequently. — jgill

Cheers. Comes back to the confusion between what is believed to be the case and what is the case. Sometimes our beliefs are different from what is true. Sometimes we are mistaken. Even Palaeontologists.

So... that's an ordering in terms of time, which you say doesn't exist... — Banno

Events or objects in the past exist in different state and properties to the ones at present.

Now you have moved on to identity. I grew up, over time. — Banno

When you keep insisting about the OP when it was created still exists, you were talking about identity of the OP, were you not? I was just trying to let you know that the OP exists now with different properties. The OP when created had time stamp of "1 minute ago". It had no replies.
Now the OP has time stamp "11 days ago", and has 523 replies. They are not the same OP.

Your thesis is that what is not part of your immediate perception does not exist. This is in error. — Banno

It is not an issue of "not exist". It is an issue of "different state of existence". Error is your not being able to tell the difference on nature of the existence.

Being perceived is not what it is for something to exist. — Banno

Why not? What is it that qualifies and proves for something to exist?

For those who suspect math underpins the character of nature, then the passage of time might well be understood in mathematical rather than philosophical discourse. — jgill

Math can describe the motions and movements of objects in numbers and functions. But they are not time itself, is it?

The process of aging is a temporal process--hence in time. One might say, now, that aging is a representation of causality which is atemporal; but the aging itself is certainly temporal.

Sure, but you don't have to know about aging to get old. Your body still gets old, whether you know about aging or timing, or totally unaware of it like the indigenous folks.
What does it tell you? Aging is just mental awareness, and it is doesn't have any relation or control of the physical body getting old.

If you were unconscious next 50 years, and suddenly you woke up. You didn't know anything about the passed time. But your body would still be 50 years older than now.

Aging is a representation? Correct. Representation only, not the real entity of any kind.

The process of aging is a temporal process--hence in time. — Bob Ross

Correct.

Sure, but you don't have to know about aging to get old. Your body still gets old, whether you know about aging or timing, or totally unaware of it like the indigenous folks. — Corvus

Accepting that aging is a change then it follows that aging requires time since any change requires time.

What does it tell you? Aging is just mental awareness, and it is doesn't have any relation or control of the physical body getting old. — Corvus

Aging is a process by itself but can also be considered as a mental representation of a process. We need to make a distinction between these two.

Accepting that aging is a change then it follows that aging requires time since any change requires time. — MoK

Aging is a concept. It is for describing a body or food has been changing via time. Because it is a concept, it doesn't affect the actual physical process of change itself. It doesn't require direct intervention of time. It is a perception and realisation or description of your state of change via mental reflection on you or your food or drinks.

Aging is a process by itself but can also be considered as a mental representation of a process. We need to make a distinction between these two. — MoK

Aging is not process. If something is a process, then it can go back to the original state. Can you age backwards to your newly born state or even to an egg?

Aging is a concept. It is for describing a body or food has been changing via time. Because it is a concept, it doesn't affect the actual physical process of change itself. It doesn't require direct intervention of time. — Corvus

It is a change. The information of DNA is not preserved completely during the process of cell division. This is the cause of aging.

Aging is not process. If something is a process, then it can go back to the original state. Can you age backwards to your newly born state? — Corvus

No, that is very unlikely because of the second law of thermodynamics. Does a glass change when you break it? Sure yes. Do you expect parts of the broken glass to come together and form the glass? It is possible but that is very unlikely.

It is a change. The information of DNA is not preserved completely during the process of cell division. This is the cause of aging. — MoK

Aging is a perception of change, not the change itself. The wine aged well, they say. You cannot tell it was aged well until you taste the wine.

No, that is very unlikely because of the second law of thermodynamics. Does a glass change when you break it? Sure yes. Do you expect parts of the broken glass to come together and form the glass? It is possible but that is very unlikely. — MoK

Broken glass is not a process. It is the result of the breakage. You are trying to revert the physical consequence to the original physical state. You can't.

You could perhaps try to glue them back if desperate. But it wouldn't be quite original state would it? Same applies to you MoK trying to age back to the state of egg. The law of physics wouldn't allow you to do that.

But aging is a concept. You realise or notice you have aged by looking at the mirror with the increased amount of wrinkles on your face, or empty patches of your head due to lost hair, or missing teeth no longer able to chew the chocolate you used to enjoy, or feel your body is groggy and not energetic without any valid reasons like when it used to be. There is no time involved for that perceptual Aha moment.

Aging is a perception of change, not the change itself. The wine aged well, they say. You cannot tell it was aged well until you taste the wine. — Corvus

Are you denying the loss of information during the process of cell division?

Broken glass is not a process. — Corvus

I didn't say that the broken glass is a process. I said breaking a glass is a process.

Are you denying the loss of information during the process of cell division? — MoK

That is a type of change in physical and biological level. It is not a perception of your Aha moment.

I didn't say that the broken glass is a process. I said breaking a glass is a process. — MoK

Breaking glass is a motion. A mass traveled into the glass in speed which increased the focused energy onto the mass. When the mass came into contact with the glass with the force, the force broke the glass. The breaking action should be looked as a motion with energy. Not a process.

breaking a glass is a process. — MoK

The glass was not broken until the moment it was broken. The moment of breaking and not breaking is in the state of sorities paradox. How could a paradox be a process?

That is a type of change in physical and biological level. — Corvus

If you accept that as a change then time is required for it to happen.

Breaking glass is a motion. A mass traveled into the glass in speed which increased the focused energy onto the mass. The breaking action should be looked as a motion with energy. Not a process. — Corvus

Let's focus on two states of glass, before breaking and after breaking, let's call them S1 and S2 respectively. It is easy to break a glass by which I mean that the glass goes from the state of S1 to S2. Is it possible that parts of glass come together and form the glass, by which I mean a change from S2 to S1? It is possible but very unlikely.

Let's focus on two states of glass, before breaking and after breaking, let's call them S1 and S2 respectively. It is easy to break a glass by which I mean that the glass goes from the state of S1 to S2. Is it possible that parts of glass come together and form the glass, by which I mean a change from S2 to S1? It is possible but very unlikely. — MoK

Have you come across the concept of sorities paradox?

The glass was not broken until the moment it was broken. The moment of breaking and not breaking is in the state of sorities paradox. How could a paradox be a process? — Corvus

This a gradual process and that requires time for it to happen. There is nothing paradoxical about it.

This a gradual process and that requires time for it to happen. There is nothing paradoxical about it. — MoK

The exact moment of the glass breaking coexists with not breaking. How is it a process?

We are talking about logic here now, not physics. Until the moment the glass broke, the glass was unbroken. Therefore glass breaking is not a process. Glass breaking is a momentary motion.

It is also a paradox. The moment glass broke, the glass was unbroken.
The moment glass was unborken, the glass was broken.
Therefore the glass was broken and unbroken at the moment of broken and unbroken.