Yes and no. I buy it, as long as we remember that this is a model, devised within, and contingent upon a scientific inductive model. Now, admittedly, our inductive approach is very effective and pragmatic, and in no way do I beleive that it should be abandoned. However, we would do well to remember that a key feature of the inductive approach is its revisability. Furthermore, our inductive scientific approach is not devoid of certain 'taken for granted' assumtions that we do not question, but use to build on. One of these, I believe, is our conception of time. Space is not a problem, its status is understood. Time however, is fundamentally different, and wholly subjective. This is enough, for me, to question its inclusion in the standard model.
Glaucon: A few responses: 1. One can (and I shall write my personal one soon) refute many of Zeno's paradoxes without dispensing with the notion of an infinite series of infinitely small points or that motion must require movement in such a manner. 2. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is related to measurement, first and foremost, and secondly it is only true on the quantum level. 3. If time and motion are not linked, how does motion work? Motion requires one to have previously occupied another space, does it not? If I trace the trajectory of a baseball from the pitcher to the catcher, I must make recourse to the fact that the baseball has travelled a distance before at every point, no? If this event was not in the past, then where was it? To what extent would you claim it subjective?
Glaucon, The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is related to measurement, first and foremost, and secondly it is only true on the quantum level. Don't you believe it! It is impossible to tell exactly how fast a politician's mouth is moving and determine exactly where he 'stands' at any specific moment! (Or, for the 'challenged', one cannot tell exactly how fast a butterfly is flying and at the same time determine exactly where it is located (in the mind!).) Even the Buddha knew of the Uncertainty Principle! *__- Time however, is fundamentally different, and wholly subjective. This is enough, for me, to question its inclusion in the standard model. I have seen 'time' reversed and eliminated from the standard equations, and the equations remained balanced each time. Time is literally being dropped from the math, thanx to Occam's famous razor. Interesting how physics is discovering the insubstantial 'illusory' subjective nature of 'time', finally... It shouldn't be long before they 'discover' the same of 'all' else. Perhaps it is the illusion of 'motion' that gave rise to the illusion of 'time'; like a movie reel, all 'moments' frozen in their motionlessness simultaneously. It is only a 'trick' of perception causing the 'illusion' of 'linearity', 'sequentiality', 'cause and effect', etc... Think 'simultaneity' of all phenomenological moments of any and all 'universes'. All existing in one Planck Moment! BANG! Then... nothing.....
Back to the original question: Consciousness is the presence of a perception. The perception can be of a sight, sound, thought, emotion, memory. The perception itself incorporates the perceiver, they are one & the same. We are the perception. When there is no perception, there is no existence.
You're missing my point. It is your observation, your 'tracking' of the event that creates time. You ask 'then where was it?'; this question is correct, but mis-applied. The correct answer cannot, logically, have anything to do with time. The 'where' you seek, is of course nothing but another geographical position in space. The event 'was' not in the past, this is correct. You placed it in a past. The event itself, objectively speaking, was, and still is ongoing. For something at all to be called an event, you the observer have to fix it in time. You have done this; it is not endemic to the physical activity that took place. Indeed, travel does imply movement. Movement is nothing but the transposition of matter. I see no requirement for a temporal schematic here (beyond the fact that we, as observers, cannot but apply one...) It is both entirely subjective, and completely non-subjective. Subjective because we all have our own 'perception' of time, unique to ourselves, and dependant upon our attention. This is in fact why, unlike with space, we have come to create agreed upon conventions for keeping track of time. It is our tracking (I refuse to use the term 'measurement', because there can be no measurement without the ability to observe, even indirectly) that is Time. Ultimately, it is completely non-subjective because there really is no such thing as time; take away the observer, things still go on, without the need for a conception of time.
I agree we should get back to it, but your attempt here won't help fess. You're correct in maintaining that perception 'incorporates' the perceiver, but it is incorrect to equate consciousness with the activity. We can, and often are completely unaware of our perceiving activity: sleeping is one occasion, similarly, we can selectively focus our attention on an object, and when we do this, we are still perceiveing other things, barely aware of them. Furthermore, it is a simple fact that existence can obtain without perception. People in comas do, as do people suffering from catatonia. Beyond that, a rock exists, yet I am sure it doesn't perceive.
glaucon: How may I observe that which you are claiming does not exist? If time is not there, how can one speak of one event coming after another? And once again, how do you take into consideration movement without making recourse to time? If you eliminate time from an equation, you have two events which are either unrelated, or - and this is an absurdity on a macroscopic scale - occurring at the same time, in two different places, with the same thing. Also, what do you think of the Twin's Paradox? There actual physical changes accompany the effect of speed on time. You do not consider the "foot" or "metre" as agreed upon conventions? Things go on, but within the framework of time, no? One event comes before another, one event comes after another, no? Though it might not be observed, the processes do not change.
What gets me is that the impact from the past is experience, which is what is what is currently happening. It's always right now you know, but right now, I feel my whole life. I don't really "require" the recollection of history, I simply observe it - right now. I realize that the places my mind ventures is deeply entwined in that history which persists in the present. Not that I'm "living in the past" so much as that my mind is shaped by an ever-progressing now. The past only has a measurable effect to something that can measure it and place that measurement into a context. Know what I mean? I'm just saying there's no "measurable effect" if someone isn't there to measure it. Wait I don't think I see your point. Maybe this addresses it: There is no past without an observer to remember or infer it. Not really. I'm just guessing at it anyway, but I think of it as localized reverse entropy, sort of (and I realize entropy doesn't preclude order). I guess all I can really say about it is that it seems to me like there is an abstract component that makes stuff be alive under the right conditions. I think of it as a "life force" for lack of a better term, and simply descibe it as "whatever it is that drives evolution or makes stuff be alive rather than inanimate". It seems to me to fit with the whole scheme of BS I have going. I just figure that somehow in the interaction of space-time and "abstract space", somethign about abstract space creates or at least allows the life function. I was just suggesting that perhaps the notion of space-time suggests that they are time and motion are synonomous. Recalibrating: time and motion. hmm.. I don't see paradox there, I see a dependent relationship of concepts. You see, my conception of time is kind of funky. I look at "time" as the subset of a degree of freedom as seen from our particular dimensional limitations. I hypthesize it as "the hub" of all degrees of freedom, but we exist in a specific number of degrees of freedom and as such, are bound by this condition to see time in a very specific manner. Consider for instance the concept of "motion" from a perspective of us, looking into a compactificated dimension. "motion" concealed within a point? Grr. I don't think I'm explaining this well. Just think about the story "flatland" and you make start to get me if you're not there already. Mix that in with string theory and the notion of branes and well, that's where I'm coming from. I consider us perhaps a 4 or 5D pattern of energy flowing in perhaps 11 or how many ever degrees of freedom, most of which we can't access directly due to the consequences of the branes to which we're confined. Groovy. You're welcome of course. I'm always a little excited when someone indulges my crazy bullshit.
Of course. Of course. Agreed. But it's not subjective only to subjects. It seems fundamental in some capacity. I provided my crazy analysis above to PJ. Ockham loves you and hates me. I get it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hehe. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What do you mean by "a perception". Some would say a video camera "perceives" the change in state of a motion sensor attached to it electrically. Would you? Agreed, but that's sort of misleading. There is no subjective existence, which of course is the only way existence can be "experienced" to confirm that indeed there is an existence (as far as we can confirm from existing anyway). That does not mean however, that there isn't nameless stuff interacting in completely meaningless ways.
wesmorris: In what way do you feel it/observe it always? Do you mean by embodying oneself and thus existing as that which has been shaped by the past? Or do you mean litterally you have a constant level of rememberance of the past? Surely you do not mean in a physical sense, yes? You are not claiming, for instance, that an unseen rock, tumbling down a mountain, will not still strike a tree and knock off a branch, no? The past may no longer exist, but surely the past -did- exist at one point, no? If you ever flesh this out more, do tell me. The problem with asserting this notion of time and motion being linked in the notion of space-time, is that they don't seem to mesh as easily as space and time. Now, what do you mean by "degree of freedom" here? Our capacity to actually be free or to move?
I still feel this Time tangent isn't really necessary to our overall discussion, nevertheless, let me just say this to get it out of the way: Unlike our conception of space, time is completely contingent upon its observer/experiencer. In any case, none of this line of argument will really affect anything, as we cannot not think in a temporal manner. Exactly! (Although I would also say that similarly, there is no future either.)
Glaucon: If I recall correctly, space may be warped in Einstein's theories just as easily, and just as often, as time.
"We cannot not think in a temporal manner." Perhaps we can *think* in a nontemporal way, but we definitely cannot *talk* in a nontemporal way. Our thinking, unfortunately, attaches itself to language at an early age. Language is a way for consciousness to organize the objects of its thought, but language is also radically insufficient for getting at being (thus the need for poetry, surrealism, etc.) I think it's also interesting that we tend to associate consciousness with linguistic ability and tend to judge the contents of anothers consciousness via language. Language is one of the breaches in the 'totality' of consciousness, which organizes everything around itself; language reveals the being of the other.
JoeTheMan: Might you furnish us with an example of thinking in a nontemporal manner? Language is also the key way we can communicate with another.
not sure if anyone has already mentioned this, and i dont want to read all the posts in the thread. consciousness is the analog I the observer. the breakdown of the bicemeral, and the awakening of the conscious, aware of time and consequences. thats the topic of the book i just read anyhow. (Julian Jaynes "the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicemeral mind") it's a good read after the first two chapters.
Where is consciousness? The, "A Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism" is relevent to the does brain create consciousness or does consciousness create brain question. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48082&page=1 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48082&page=2&pp=20 Just as Descartes found "I am" to be a undoubtable, I find the idea, "that cocepts are made of matter" to be unbelievable. But everybody is different. I find "I am" to be doubtable although I can't doubt that existence/consciousnes/sensation exist. I don't know if any of you all exist out side of my consciousness but you all do exist within my consciousness. Every thing that I know or guess about you all was experienced only in my mind. I don't know where or what my mind is. But if concepts can exist separately from matter then other things also could exist separately from matter. I don't know why some people seem so determined to rule out the existence of anything not made of wave and particles that in turn exist solely in time, space, gravity, electrical charge, and as yet undefined "density". To me this quick ruling out of the non-physical seems like it must be based in either a desire for simplicity, or a faith based adherence to the dogma of a religious like belief system that is infatuated with science and stylized to resemble science but is not science. Then again, maybe some people can no more believe in the non-physical than I can believe in concepts made of matter and Descartes believe that he might not exist. My version of you all exists in my mind. Good and evil also exists as a concept in my mind. Can anybody come up with a workable theory by which the concept of good and evil can be made of waves and particles? If the concept of good and evil exists separately from the body then why can't consciousness exist separately from the body? Our nerves do not transmit impulses at the speed of light. People with synesthesia could hear colors, smell sounds, see tastes. An autistic math genius, Daniel Paul Tammet, when asked to do computations like dividing 13 by 97 to 32 decimal places, he would instantly sees a colored shape as the answer. Amputees can feel pain in feet they no longer have because the legs were amputated. If I see the word blue on a blackboard, then I might be stimulated to visualize some shade of blue. This does not mean that my consciousness is made of the blackboard, or made of my eyes, or my brain, or my memories of colors, or made of the things my consciousness experiences. If we people turn light into something else and send it down our optic nerve, are we then to believe that somewhere in the brain we reconvert the signals from our optic nerves back into light and then our consciousness (which is made of the waves and particles of our brain) witnesses the ight? This idea that we recreate actual light in our brains and then our particles experience the light, seems to me like an obviously wrong and absurd idea. But if this idea is wrong, and our consciousness does not experience actual physical light then what is it that we are calling light and colors and where do we experience this mind thing (colors) that we use to symbolize and represent the actual physical light that strikes our eyes. How can people be so certain that the brain makes the consciousness when our evidence merely suggests that our consciousness is connected to the brain just as our eyes are connected to the blackboard when they are focused on the blackboard?
