Are you suggesting that time is discrete? If yes, then there is a gap between two points in time. Accepting that physicalism is a correct view then physical in one point of time cannot cause physical in another point of time later because of the gap. Therefore, the change is impossible. Change exists. Therefore time is continuous.

No. I was suggesting time is a concept. It is a way to describe changes, motions, movements, and durations and intervals too.

Because time is a concept, it cannot cause any physical objects or events to change.
It can only capture them in perception, and describe them.

The physical changes take place in a slice of moment, where the cause and effect co-exist in the window of the change. Lumping them altogether, and seeing them as process or continuity would be categorical illusion from the latent memory in the brain.

No. I was suggesting time is a concept. It is a way to describe changes, motions, movements, and durations and intervals too. — Corvus

How could deny change as a mere concept? It exists in the natural world. Are you an idealist?

Because time is a concept, it cannot cause any physical objects or events to change. It can only capture them in perception, and describe them. — Corvus

Time does not cause a change. It allows the change.

The physical changes take place in a slice of moment, where the cause and effect co-exist in the window of the change. — Corvus

No, physical changes take place in continuous time.

Lumping them altogether, and seeing them as process or continuity would be categorical illusion from the latent memory in the brain. — Corvus

You are mixing psychological time with subjective time. There is also objective time.

For my point there, any common sense use of the word will do. You cannot claim the time does not exist (or is not real) merely because people can fail to recognize it as such: that's a bad argument, and that is exactly what you are doing when you bring up indigenous people who fail to understand that they age.

Beyond that point of contention, I would say that what is real and what exist are different; because there are things which have being but are not a member of reality (e.g., the feeling of pain, the phenomenal color of orange, a thought, the a priori concept of quantity, etc.). As such, I denote what is a member of reality proper as real and what has being as what exists; and, therefore, everything that is real exists but not everything that exists is real.

How could deny change as a mere concept? It exists in the natural world. Are you an idealist? — MoK

Change was not denied here. The actual change itself cannot be captured by physics and math. That was an assumption. No denial.

Are you an idealist? — MoK

No, I am not an idealist. I think I told you before, but you seem to have forgotten already. I am a bundle of perception.

Time does not cause a change. It allows the change. — MoK

No. Again wrong. Time is a concept. Time doesn't allow anything. Change and motion can be described in time.

No, physical changes take place in continuous time. — MoK

That is an illusion from your latent memory. Change takes place in an instance physics and math cannot describe, capture or understand. The moment of change takes place in co-existing moment of unchanged state and change.

You are mixing psychological time with subjective time. There is also objective time. — MoK

What is the difference between psychological time and subjective time? Can you mix time? Time is not liquid or powder. You cannot mix time.

For my point there, any common sense use of the word will do. You cannot claim the time does not exist (or is not real) merely because people can fail to recognize it as such: that's a bad argument, and that is exactly what you are doing when you bring up indigenous people who fail to understand that they age. — Bob Ross

I never claimed time doesn't exist. Your perception seems not quite accurate here. The OP wrote it as a suggestion for discussions and consideration.

I think I have given you a good example to consider making analogic inference. For aging, you don't need time. For you to get aged, you or someone must notice the aging. It is a momentary perception of realising that you have aged. You don't need time to notice your aging, or aging of wine.

Beyond that point of contention, I would say that what is real and what exist are different; because there are things which have being but are not a member of reality (e.g., the feeling of pain, the phenomenal color of orange, a thought, the a priori concept of quantity, etc.). — Bob Ross

That doesn't prove time is real or time exists. You just keep saying the content of your perception as if they are time. Time is a concept.

You cannot say time is real. It would be like saying water is real. Water is hot or cold, not real or unreal. Likewise time is not real or unreal. You either know what time it is now, or yo don't.
You could say it took too long time, or time passed fast. But it is all your linguistic expression of your psychology. You are not saying anything about time itself.

Time is a concept. Concepts are not real or unreal. You either know a concept or you don't know it.

If you had no mind, would you be able to imagine a world?, or be able to imagine anything? — Corvus

Of course, not, but that is trivially true...so what? It says nothing about the ability of a mind to imagine anything.

I never claimed time doesn't exist.

This is a joke right?:

Time doesn't exist. Only space and objects exist.

That's the very first sentence of the OP.

Time is a concept.

Time may be real, a [self-reflective] concept, and exist a priori all at once. It is on your OP to demonstrate why it is only a [self-reflective] concept.

You cannot say time is real. It would be like saying water is real. Water is hot or cold, not real or unreal.

Water is definitely real: no one disputes that. To say it is not real, is to say that it does not exist in reality. You deny that water exists in reality???

Concepts are not real or unreal

Concepts exist: they are not real.

You either know a concept or you don't know it.

Whether the concept exists is a separate question than if I know about the concept.

Of course, not, but that is trivially true...so what? — Janus

What do you mean by trivially true? Why is it trivially true?

It says nothing about the ability of a mind to imagine anything. — Janus

Isn't it obvious? Imagination is a mental operation which is one of the functions of mind. How else would you imagine something without mind?

Time doesn't exist. — Corvus

Yet

I never claimed time doesn't exist. — Corvus

And since (p&~p)⊃q

The point here is that, the OP created on the first day doesn't exist. It exists as OP with different properties — Corvus

...the OP both exists and yet does not exist.

:confused:

I never claimed time doesn't exist.

This is a joke right?: — Bob Ross

Why do you think it is funny that you cannot tell the difference between a conclusion and assumption (suggestion)? The conclusion has not been agreed yet in this thread. We are still in the middle of the debate on the conclusion.

The OP is not for conclusion. The OP started with the premises and assumption and suggestions.

Water is definitely real: no one disputes that. To say it is not real, is to say that it does not exist in reality. You deny that water exists in reality??? — Bob Ross

Something is real, if there are also fakes of the thing. Have you seen fake water? Have you seen or heard of fake time?

And since (p&~p)⊃q

:confused: — Banno

Could you explain the symbolic statement in plain English? Is that statement true or false?

What do you mean by trivially true? Why is it trivially true? — Corvus

It's trivially true because it's obvious that only minds imagine. It's not even worth stating it's so obvious.

It says nothing about the ability of a mind to imagine anything.
— Janus
Isn't it obvious? Imagination is a mental operation which is one of the functions of mind. How else would you imagine something without mind? — Corvus

Are you being obtuse on purpose? The point is not that you need a mind in order to imagine, the point is that that bleedingly obvious fact says nothing about what particular things are possible for the mind to imagine. It says nothing about whether the mind can imagine a world without minds.

Anyway, I know my mind can imagine a world without minds, and if yours cannot imagine a world without minds then I can only pity you.

Anyway, I know my mind can imagine a world without minds,. — Janus

The point here was about logic, but you seem to talking about your own imagination. Anyhow this is not even main topic in this thread. Please refrain from posting off-topic trivialities.

and if yours cannot imagine a world without minds then I can only pity you. — Janus

Should it not be self-pity on your part? :lol:

The point here was about logic, — Corvus

Indeed it is. There is a distinction between “it is possible for there to be a world without minds”, account, and your “without minds, there are possible worlds”.


You may well be right that this last is false. But it is not what is being suggested.

You may well be right that this last is false. But it is not what is being suggested. — Banno

My point was you cannot imagine anything without your mind, let alone a world. It was not about a possible world. But obviously it seemed clear that my point was not understood by Janus. He only emphasized his own point only, and ridiculed other's point.

Not a philosophical appeal or relevant point, it seem to be the case. As he put it himself in his own post, he was after some trivial truth, whatever that meant. It sounded like, that he was after trivial truth to ridicule other parties, not the truth itself or good philosophical argument.

I think point very pertinent.

I think ↪Janus point very pertinent. — Banno

It has long been noticed you have well established group of folks supporting each other when one gets criticism due to their ill manners. Hence no surprise. :wink:

the actual argument here is about the scope of the operator, not about personality.

yes, but your comment seems to be coming from taking side of Janus position blindly. You seem to be totally ignoring it is Janus who started personal nature of comments in his post saying he would pity if you cannot imagine a world without mind.

Do you honestly think or believe that sort of comment is philosophical or relevant? Why do you say you pity the other party, when you cannot understand the other party's point? Should you not just walk away and do something more constructive things in life instead posting personal attack type of comment in the postings?

I think you have good philosophical knowledge in some areas, but you seem to lack some basic etiquettes for public discussions. If I may point them out,

1. Don't take sides on your pal's positions blindly when they are clearly wrong, or ever, even if they were right. Public discussion is not about taking sides or being a spokes person for the others. You should speak for your own, no one else. If you keep doing it, your integrity in public perception will go downwards.

2. Try avoid posting personal attacks or ridiculing type posts to anyone. If you did it, they will do it to you back. No one wants to see that. But if you started it, you will get the blame for doing so.

3. Don't use any foul language. It just make you look and sound an uneducated barbaric chap, who has no capability doing philosophy or any academic discussions, even if it is not the case.

4. If you don't agree with the other party, then just walk away, or say you don't agree. Don't ridicule the party's point using low level language or personal attacks. If you agree with someone, then you can either walk way, or say you agree, and that is all you need to do.

5. If you want criticise the points or threads, then stick to purely on the logical arguments based on reasoning for doing so. Don't use any emotional claims or assertions. When you do that, your position becomes unworthy for further discussions.

6. Don't be a supporter of fallacy of authority or majority. Whenever possible, bring your own ideas for the points in discussions. Don't ridicule minority points or creative points. You can just tell they are wrong, or you disagree, but don't forget to add the reason why they are wrong instead of emotionally attacking or ridiculing the posters.

OK, I hope you would understand these points, and keep them in mind. I am only saying this because you came here and kept on making points which seem not fair and, also not the case. I was not agreeing with that at all, but I also had these points in mind from the past unpleasant experience with yous. I hope we can avoid the negative situation, and try just talk about philosophy, and learn from each other via edudaimonian discussions, if we could. Thanks.

Change was not denied here. — Corvus

So, do you agree that change is real? If change is real then what is the subject to change?

The actual change itself cannot be captured by physics and math. — Corvus

Correct. We however experience change. It is through the experience that we act accordingly. For example, do you step into the street when you see a car moving very fast in the street and it will hit you if you step into the street?

No, I am not an idealist. I think I told you before, but you seem to have forgotten already. I am a bundle of perception. — Corvus

How could you have any perception? Are you denying that you have a brain and your perception is due to physical processes in your brain?

No. Again wrong. Time is a concept. Time doesn't allow anything. Change and motion can be described in time. — Corvus

So you are confirming what I said and at the same time saying what I said is wrong!

That is an illusion from your latent memory. — Corvus

So do you step into the street when you see a car moving very fast and it will hit you if you step into the street?

Change takes place in an instance physics and math cannot describe, capture or understand. The moment of change takes place in co-existing moment of unchanged state and change. — Corvus

I already discuss that. What you are referring to is a simultaneous process. There cannot be any change in a simultaneous process.

What is the difference between psychological time and subjective time? — Corvus

Subjective time allows physical change whereas psychological time regulates our subjective experiences.

Can you mix time? Time is not liquid or powder. You cannot mix time. — Corvus

Sorry, I mean you are confusing the subjective time with psychological time.

So, do you agree that change is real? If change is real then what is the subject to change? — MoK

This point has been addressed to @Bob Ross also. Is it correct to say change is real? Are there fake changes?

I was not denying the fact there are changes. But My point was that change happens in the moment where there is co-existence of change and not change.

Before actual change happened, it was no change. When the change happens, it is no longer change or no change. It is a new state of the object or event.

I must do some daily living chores here for today, so will be getting back later for the rest of you points. G'day~

:roll:

:roll: :wink:

How could you have any perception? Are you denying that you have a brain and your perception is due to physical processes in your brain? — MoK

I think I told you before.  This is exactly where I agree with Hume.  When I try to see my own self, all I can see is perception.  My own perception of what I see.  I look at me and there is only perception of my body.  When I look around, there is only perception of the world around me.

Of course I don't deny I have a brain.  But I have never seen the brain in my life.  Folks say we have a brain, and the books say we have a brain, so I believe from my inductive reasoning, that I have a high possibility of having a brain.

And from that inductive reasoning, I also can infer that you also have your own brain.  What the brains do, is only my conjecture and knowledge from the books.  I have no direct sensation, experience or knowledge of the brain.   All I have is perceptions which are vivid and forceful in my mind and consciousness.  That is all I can be certain of myself. 

So you are confirming what I said and at the same time saying what I said is wrong! — MoK

All I know is that time is a perception appearing in my mind, and change is also perception captured and appearing in mind. How they appear or why they appear physically or mentally is not philosophical topic or interest, I believe.

Later~

So do you step into the street when you see a car moving very fast and it will hit you if you step into the street? — MoK

No, you won't do that.  You also have reason to tell you not to do it.  Reason is not just for telling you what to do, or what or why the world is the way it is.  It is also for telling you not to do things when it is a possible danger.   

You have sense perception, but you also have reasoning ability for discerning things, telling you what is the case, what to do and what not to do.  You are not a CCTV camera just capturing the world. Are you?

I already discuss that. What you are referring to is a simultaneous process. There cannot be any change in a simultaneous process. — MoK

That was what I have been explaining to you too until my face went blue. Physics and math cannot capture, describe or understand it, hence they would say that. Logic can. So what does it tell you? The world works under the principle of logic. Makes sense?

Subjective time allows physical change whereas psychological time regulates our subjective experiences. — MoK

So do you mean we have three different types of time, which are subjective, psychological and objective? Which one is the real time. Now we can ask about the real time. You have claimed that there are three different times. They can't all be real. If one is real, then the rest of the two must be fake? Correct?