The Present and its Derivatives

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

(1) You have not demonstrated that the future exists; you have said that the future exists.

(2) What does it mean for an cosmonaut to travel into the future? Could he tell me who will win the lottery if he stayed in orbit long enough? Did the cosmonaut experience something which had not yet happened? Relativity deals with 'time travel' as a issue of perspective, not cartoon style time travel. If the experience of time is relative to one's perspective (velocity for example), there is no absolute Time through which one could travel. Rather, people just experience their own experiences (or could if travelling fast enough) at different rates. Bringing this back to earth; that experience is still present experience. No one could experience their own future; that is NONSENSE, once again. By NONSENSE, I mean that that statement has no meaning. It is like this; 'the dog is waved yellow'. That has a subject and a verb, but it dosen't mean anything.

(3) If you are to claim that A causes B, you have to know how A causes B. More importantly, there has to be the possibility of A causing B. Science asserts that every effect has a cause. Science only deals in physical things. Equations and quantitative analyses are innaplicable to the feeling of warmth, e.g. Science can only deal in molecules, atoms, photons, electrons, etc.

You assert that the cause of consciousness is the physical brain. I ask you to explain how this might occur even hypothetically, using empirical science. In other words, explain the causation with reference only to physical objects. O, you can't? That is because the last item on the would-be causal chain is not a physical thing. Science only accounts for physical things.

(4) If you think I have read too much Descartes, you have read too little. I'm not advocating cartesian dualism. I am opposing the purely physical/objective/empiric world-view with a purely subjective/individual/existential world-view.

I like how out of all this you couldnt even answer the simple questions I asked and yet you want me to answer all your questions? Especially questions that cannot be answered because no one knows like: how does consciousness arises from the brain? I dont know but you dont either! No one knows thats the point, but the evidence shows that a mind requires a brain. Wheres your evidence it doesnt? Oh that's right, there isnt any...

Seriously, Descartes is introduction to philosophy, especially to philosophy of mind and is laughable on most of his truth claims. You should search a little harder than just reading Meditations and choosing that as an answer. If you want me to continue this then you'll have to answer some of my questions so this "debate" isnt so lopsided.

Unfortunately, I prolly wont be around till tomorrow to reply but try and answer my questions, try and show some evidence, and try to avoid absolute certainty. Because if your whole argument is based around me not being able to disprove yours (because its impossible) then lets all just believe in the flying spaghetti monster and the celestial teapot while we're at it. You have to show something.... anything! or am I asking for too much?

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

I like how out of all this you couldnt even answer the simple questions I asked and yet you want me to answer all your questions? Especially questions that cannot be answered because no one knows like: how does consciousness arises from the brain? I dont know but you dont either! No one knows thats the point, but the evidence shows that a mind requires a brain. Wheres your evidence it doesnt? Oh that's right, there isnt any...

Seriously, Descartes is introduction to philosophy, especially to philosophy of mind and is laughable on most of his truth claims. You should search a little harder than just reading Meditations and choosing that as an answer. If you want me to continue this then you'll have to answer some of my questions so this "debate" isnt so lopsided.

Unfortunately, I prolly wont be around till tomorrow to reply but try and answer my questions, try and show some evidence, and try to avoid absolute certainty. Because if your whole argument is based around me not being able to disprove yours (because its impossible) then lets all just believe in the flying spaghetti monster and the celestial teapot while we're at it. You have to show something.... anything! or am I asking for too much?

If you think I have referenced Descartes at any time, you are mistaken. I do not like, do not own and have not read much of Descartes. That you believe my argument to be based on cartesian dualism only demonstrates your own lack of understanding. You're view, that matter creates consciousness is more akin to cartesian duality than my own, which holds that there is no such thing as matter, except as an idea within consciousness (as far as we know). Let me break it down for you.

You = matter and psyche --> DUALITY
Me = psyche --> NO DUALITY

If you cannot explain, even hypothetically, leaving out the complex chemistry and biology, how a material brain might cause a psychological experience, you have proven nothing at all. You have only made a baseless assumption. The 'brain' is something which is observed, albeit indirectly, just like any other 'thing.' In other words, it exists, as far as we know, only in consciousness. To say that empirical experiments demonstrate a relationship between conscious experience and the brain is to circumvent the point, which is that there is no way of knowing whether or not the set of sensations called 'brain' (sight through microscope, graph printed by computer, observation of patient whose brain is being probed, etc.) are the products of something beyond themselves in the external world. You assume that those sensations of brain, or of anything else, are the effects of causes in an independent external world. You have proven NOTHING. I, on the other hand, make no claims to knowing whether or not there is a real external world. I state that it is impossible to know.

What questions have you asked me that I havn't answered? What evidence is there that the brain does not create consciousness? That is an unaswerable question.

Feel free not to respond if you're going to ignore my remarks and continue erroneously claiming that I'm a silly, anachronistic cartesian, or that science has solved the mind-body problem. I guess I'm strange but I feel the need to make sense.

@paulhanke,

paulhanke wrote:

AH-HA! ... another anthropocentrist!!!

When dogs begin to construct their history and deliberate on why they should bury their bone at X instead of Y then I may have to lose my anthropocentrism on this topic.

@Theaetetus,

Once again I never said, correction, no one ever said they know how consciousness is formed. A nobel would be awarded to say the least. So stop playing god of the gaps.

However, the evidence on the other hand points to the brain which is what Im telling you. What dont you understand about that? You deny everything but your perceptions right? Then there is no brain because as you said its only perceptions exist. But, if there wasnt a connection between the mind and brain then why do drugs manipulate your perceptions/consciousness?

You didnt answer any of my questions I asked earlier so I guess Im still waiting for your responses.

@Kielicious,

I think Im just going to end this silliness right now...

You believe that the only thing that exists are your perceptions. First let us define perception: is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information. Perception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So right off the bat your wrong. Because perceptions are derived from sensory information (aka senses), so not only would your perceptions exist but the information being transferred from has to also, which is the senses. Following logic we also have to explain how the senses get their information, and by using the blade of occam their seems to be an external environment to which our senses sense! or get their information/stimuli/whatever you want to call it, from.

We also realize that our perceptions are limited to our senses. If our perceptions werent limited to our senses then we should be able to perceive echolocation, electric fields, ultraviolet light, or even different wavelengths of light out of our visual spectrum, but we cant. We cant because once again our perceptions are limited to our senses. We can invent machines to help us see outside our visual spectrum but that would require the assumption of an external world which you dont accept.

So, now that we have come to realize that perceptions require senses and senses require an external world we can see how your faulty line of reasoning and critical thinking has failed. Not only has it failed to persuade me but it hasnt even persuaded yourself! Example:

Kielicious wrote:

If your pecptions only exist, then where do they come from?

BrightNoon wrote:

Exactly. That cannot be known.

Furthermore, you havent even tried to answer my quite trivial list of questions that I asked you. Ill repost it again at the bottom of this reply. My underlying theme to these questions seems pretty obvious. The mind and brain are related or connected or whatever you want to call it. If they werent connected why does the brain effect your perceptions/consciousness? Im quite sure you agree that damage to your brain results in damage to your mind but if not then tell me why and I can show you evidence it does.

I will give you credit on one thing, and that is that no one knows how the mind arises from the brain. You are right we dont know but neither do you. However, I can show you evidence the brain and mind are related while you still havent shown me any. Saying since science doesnt have an answer right now is again showing your greediness, selfishness and solipsism, but not only that your using an argument from ignorance. Which is a fallacy. I just want to know the truth so Im open for new ideas, but you havent really said or shown anything. Try to answer my questions and if you have any I'll try to answer yours.

Kielicious wrote:

If the brain and consciousness arent related then why does damage to your brain cause damage to your consciousness?

If I hit you in the head and knock you unconscious how can that be if the mind and brain are seperate?

Why does stimulating certain parts of the brain effect your mind, your sensations, your percpetions?

Why do drugs effect your perceptions if its all biochemical interactions?

@BrightNoon,

Something tells me that arguments based on perceptions and consciousness should be kept in a more appropriate place (i.e. their own thread) considering this thread has to do with the past, present and future.

@Kielicious,

[quote=Kielicious]You believe that the only thing that exists are your perceptions. First let us define perception: is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information. So right off the bat your wrong. Because perceptions are derived from sensory information (aka senses), so not only would your perceptions exist but the information being transferred from has to also, which is the senses.[/quote]

I have used sensations and perceptions interchangeably throughout this thread. For the purposes of this argument, sensation is synonymous with perception. The underlined statement of yours makes no sense then. It is like saying, "the force of gravity is derived from gravity."

[quote]Following logic we also have to explain how the senses get their information, and by using the blade of occam their seems to be an external environment to which our senses sense! or get their information/stimuli/whatever you want to call it, from.[/quote]

What is the sensation? What is the information? Is it the latter sensory information? Yes it is. The sensation is the information.

You have used this unnecessary figure of speech to claim that there must be something from which "senses get their information." There is no such action occurring. In fact, all that you, or I, or anyone knows about sensation is that it exists; I feel heat, I do not feel the tactile sense acquiring information from the environment. The only information is the sensation itself! In the statement underlined above, you have already made the assertion that the very same statement is supposed to prove! That is NOT logical.

[quote]So, now that we have come to realize that perceptions require senses and senses require an external world we can see how your faulty line of reasoning and critical thinking has failed. Not only has it failed to persuade me but it hasnt even persuaded yourself! Example:

[quote=kielicious]If your perceptions only exist, then where do they come from?[/quote]

[quote=brightnoon]Exactly. That cannot be known.[/quote][/quote]

I assert that one cannot know where perceptions (sensations) come from, because anything we know about, which we might say is the source of sensation, we only know about through sensation. You assert that they come from the brain, yet cannot explain how. I'm the one making unfounded assumptions? I apologize though; obviously, based on the above underlined statement of yours, you don't know what either of us is talking about.

[quote]Furthermore, you havent even tried to answer my quite trivial list of questions that I asked you. Ill repost it again at the bottom of this reply. My underlying theme to these questions seems pretty obvious. The mind and brain are related or connected or whatever you want to call it. If they werent connected why does the brain effect your perceptions/consciousness? Im quite sure you agree that damage to your brain results in damage to your mind but if not then tell me why and I can show you evidence it does.

I will give you credit on one thing, and that is that no one knows how the mind arises from the brain. You are right we dont know but neither do you. However, I can show you evidence the brain and mind are related while you still havent shown me any. Saying since science doesnt have an answer right now is again showing your greediness, selfishness and solipsism, but not only that your using an argument from ignorance. Which is a fallacy. I just want to know the truth so Im open for new ideas, but you havent really said or shown anything. Try to answer my questions and if you have any I'll try to answer yours.[/quote]

Your questions are trivial and they miss the entire point of what I am saying. Your questions, or the answers to them that you think are so obvious, are only relevant if we already assume your dualistic idea; that there is both brain (physical reality) and sensation (experienced reality), which is the very thing we are debating!

Finally, Theaetetus. Yes, this is off the topic, but I'm only responding to criticism. I can't proceed with the argument about time unless whoever is arguing with me is willing to humor me and accept the premises for that argument, WHICH I ADMIT ARE ASSUMPTIONS. (bolding for Kielicious)

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

I have used sensations and perceptions interchangeably throughout this thread. For the purposes of this argument, sensation is synonymous with perception. The underlined statement of yours makes no sense then. It is like saying, "the force of gravity is derived from gravity."

Yes it does actually. Perceptions and sensations are synonymous so you went nowhere fast. They are derived from the sense organs.

[quote=BrightNoon]What is the sensation?[/quote]

Since its synonymous with perception its your perception. Again I dont know how you dont understand.

No. Its no meaningless, your trying to make it meaningless by making it fit into your world view. Its a known consensus that perceptions is an understanding of sensory information.

[quote=BrightNoon]You have used this unnecessary figure of speech to claim that there must be something from which "senses get their information." There is no such action occurring. In fact, all that you, or I, or anyone knows about sensation is that it exists; I feel heat, I do not feel the tactile sense acquiring information from the environment. The only information is the sensation itself! In the statement underlined above, you have already made the assertion that the very same statement is supposed to prove! That is NOT logical.[/quote]

Once again its not an unnecessary figure of speech, its a known consensus. If you dont agree show some proof. You act like Im not open to your interpretation when in fact its you that isnt open. Im waiting for you to show me proof, but you havent. I on the other hand am showing you proof but you deny it because it conflicts with your world-view bubble.

Not only are you not showing any evidence but you cant even answer my easy list of questions. Why cant you? Your pushing the truth so far away that a simple question starts you running away. Perceptions come from our senses and our senses help us interact with the external environment. If this wasnt possible why are your perceptions limited to your senses? You cant perceive outside of your visual spectrum. Why? Because our sense of sight is limited to our receptive fields. You cant smell better than a dog because their olfactory system is more advanced and has a higher receptive field than ours. You cant perceive elctroreception because 1) you dont have the sense and the receptive field to do that and 2) the reason why we dont have the sense to do that is mainly because air is not a good conductor for electricity.

[quote=BrightNoon]You assert that they come from the brain, yet cannot explain how. I'm the one making unfounded assumptions?[/quote]

Agument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, I told you to not do that and yet you continue. Youre trying to play god of the gaps. STOP.

Wrong again. The sensory information is understood by the brain, it doesnt come from the brain. Sensory information comes from the senses.

[quote=BrightNoon]Your questions are trivial and they miss the entire point of what I am saying.[/quote]

No they arent. You said only our perceptions exist; the external world doesnt exist. AKA solipsism. And they address your point because it shows the need of other things (mainly your body, organs, and the external environment) to exist. So its showing that your wrong.

@Kielicious,

Let's focus on one small part of our debate and break it down into little, smack-you-in-the-face obvious pieces.

In one post you said:

Quote:

...perceptions are derived from sensory information (aka senses)

In the next post you said:

Quote:

Perceptions and sensations are synonymous...

If sensation and perception are synonymous, and we both agree they are, then what does your first statement mean? Let's change "perceptions are derived from senses" to "sensations are derived from sensations." That would be perfectly reasonable if those words are synonyms, right? Now, let's look at that sentence. What does that mean? Sensations are derived from sensations...that means absolutely nothing. If I say gravity causes gravity, does that mean anything, does that say anything? No.

How might we rephrase that statment so that it means something. How about, "there are sensations." That's true isn't it?

Here is the million dollar question; why do we have to assume that something causes those sensations, when all we know for sure is that 'there are sensations?'

Let me make another brief point that you just keep ignoring. I keep telling you I am not claiming that there is no external world. I am saying that, I don't know if there is, neither do you, and there is no way to know with certainty.

You bring up the fact that activities in the brain have been viewed to correspond to certain experiences, sensations or states or mind. You think that is proof that an external world exists. It is not. Why? Because, in bringing up a relationship betwen the physical brain and the mind, already you have assumed that there is a physical brain that exists outside the mind! Can't you see how that logic is self-validating?

In other words, your argument in favor of a real external world begins with "In the real externbal world..." That is like iof you were the defendent at trial and your argument was, 'Well, since I'm innocent, I am innocent.' That proves nothing.

Now remember, look at the bold a few paragraphs up, I am not claiming that there is no external world. Thus I have no burden of proof. I am just saying that I do not know and that it cannot be proven to exist. Until someone proves it, that is correct.

Now, if you find some flaw in the argument I have just made here, present a logical, clear counter-argument, which does not begin with "it's a known consensus that..." Just because you say that something is a 'known consensus' does not make it so. Also, there have been many 'known consenses' that were wrong. For example, a majority of intellectuals thought the world was flat eight hundred years ago; in fact it is not.

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

If sensation and perception are synonymous, and we both agree they are, then what does your first statement mean? Let's change "perceptions are derived from senses" to "sensations are derived from sensations."

WRONG. why would you say sensations are derived from sensations? Because I never did. Where is the logic behind this statement? Your trying to fix it to your viewpoint when your wayyy off.

Senses are different than sensory infromation. Just like perceptions are different than senses. Im not sure why you dont understand this is elementary stuff. You must have a problem with reading comprehension. So saying perceptions are synonymous with sensations doesnt make it any less clear. SENSES ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH SENSATIONS. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERNT THINGS.

BrightNoon wrote:

Let me make another brief point that you just keep ignoring. I keep telling you I am not claiming that there is no external world. I am saying that, I don't know if there is, neither do you, and there is no way to know with certainty.

The reasoning and evidence does. WHeres yours saying it doesnt? You lose again.

BrightNoon wrote:

You bring up the fact that activities in the brain have been viewed to correspond to certain experiences, sensations or states or mind. You think that is proof that an external world exists. It is not. Why? Because, in bringing up a relationship betwen the physical brain and the mind, already you have assumed that there is a physical brain that exists outside the mind! Can't you see how that logic is self-validating?

Wow. Just amazing. The evidence shows the brain and mind are connected. If you dont think they are show some EVIDENCE!

BrightNoon wrote:

Until someone proves it..

Youre asking for absolute certainty which isnt possible but guess what..... there's EVIDENCE!

BrightNoon wrote:

Now, if you find some flaw in the argument I have just made here, present a logical, clear counter-argument, which does not begin with "it's a known consensus that..." Just because you say that something is a 'known consensus' does not make it so. Also, there have been many 'known consenses' that were wrong. For example, a majority of intellectuals thought the world was flat eight hundred years ago; in fact it is not.

Im not appealing to popularity Im showing EVIDENCE!

The theme here is EVIDENCE! MY view is supported while your view is not. See how you arent very convincing?

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

@Kielicious,

Quote:

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

Quote:

wrong wrong wrong! ...Im not sure why you dont understand this is elementary stuff...You must have a problem with reading comprehension.

Enough said. Good luck in life.
:nonooo:

@BrightNoon,

Befor you go please show me the logic behind this statement....

BrightNoon wrote:

If sensation and perception are synonymous, and we both agree they are, then what does your first statement mean? Let's change "perceptions are derived from senses" to "sensations are derived from sensations."

@BrightNoon,

Just a quick thought, from reading the OP, I'll contribute more later on completely separate thread, but... analogically speaking, reality works as a syntax of infinity, inevitably. And then we go about saying there is this 'present', as if it is separated from the past and the future completely. Well objectively ofcourse! But subjectively the present is the past which is the future in the sense they all are mutual on one another. I mean, taken subjectively (reality) in which you have the syntax of infinity, how is there room for the present? The present, which we say precedes the future and is after the past implies there be a middle. Well where is the room for a middle? Back to speaking analogically, in order for a "presentness" to be coined as this subsistence which one pathetically attempts to say doesn't exist, or otherwise, only the present exists; there has to be lets term a set of numbers the universe can be, and lets make the universe an odd set of numbers...

Well with an odd set of numbers there is that middle. From 1-3, 2 is the middle. And this implies a closed system in which the syntax of infinity cannot apply to a presentness, therefore reality cannot portray a present, if the present is to be a part of the system itself... you know, a part of the sequence of a set of values 1-3. (2 is part of the sequence sort-to-speak).

But we perceive, and this requires a fixation of time, or a 'presentness' for lack of a better word. And in our reality, there are only two options left. One I see as idealistic, and the other is materialistic which for that reason I prefer but I still hate, because I hate the concept.

So the first, is that, maybe the present is not a part of the sequence, but emergent from it. That you have a sequence 1-3, but none of those values imply the present; rather, the present is emergent on the whole realization of the sequence itself. (realization may not be the right word). There is a dilemma with this though. It implies an idealistic feature (IMO) that something can be created from nothing, or rather, that nothing can be created from something. So this sillyness is automatically tossed aside.

The other idea is that which fits with reality. You have a sequence of an even amount of numbers (implying infinity, that's all that is important) and there is no middle, but a part of the sequence is considered the present. Except the sequence is not a sequence, not an algorithm; it just is.. for simplicity purposes. That is to say, there is no order or intention, or cause in an absolute manner. It is all relative.

So where does the present fit? It could be a superposition, who knows. You wanted metaphysics. Awareness will probably someday be explained via a phenomenon that occurs in the brain. An autopoeitic, self realizing system is just a discourse on some idealistic frenzy which reasons very well, but is illogical.

I got a question. How the heck, do you have this syntactically infinite system, that really isn't, that seems to as it resolves further and further up the macro perception, able to realize itself, and continue to do so in a fractal manner, so that you have disorder then order then disorder then order and so on.... And since this fractal spatiality relies on the syntax, why would the mind do this, this redundance, this infinity. In what way can this parallel absolute objectivity?

@Holiday20310401,

Maybe qualia are like a fire. You keep providing it energy (analogous perhaps?) and it keeps burning. You have the kindling, and you can get it started (eager young mind/well... brain I suppose). And you have the wood, the material workings of the brain.

No idealism needed. Problem solved.

@Holiday20310401,

[quote=Holiday20310401]analogically speaking, reality works as a syntax of infinity, inevitably. And then we go about saying there is this 'present', as if it is separated from the past and the future completely. Well objectively of course! But subjectively the present is the past which is the future in the sense they all are mutual on one another.[/quote]

(1) What do you mean by 'a syntax of infinity?' Syntax to me means structure. What is a structure of infinity?
(2) Are you saying that the present appears separated from the past and future only objectively? If so, I agree, but of course I do not believe in the reality of the objectivity. Objectivity is a structure within subjectivity; i.e. an idea, like any other, within experience, which is always 'present experience.'
(3) Subjectively the present is the same as the past/future, because the past and future are only ever experienced in the present. We agree on this yes? If you imagine a future, the imagining is occurring now, in the present. If you remember a past, the remembering is occurring now, in the present. If you say that you did experienced the past, because you experienced the 'past event' we just mentioned, that is misleading. When you experienced that event, it was not 'in the past', you experienced it in the present.

[quote]I mean, taken subjectively (reality) in which you have the syntax of infinity, how is there room for the present? The present, which we say precedes the future and is after the past implies there be a middle. Well where is the room for a middle?[/quote]

(1) Again, what do you mean the syntax of infinity?
(2) How is there not room? What do you mean? Why do you say there is not room?

[quote]Back to speaking analogically, in order for a "presentness" to be coined as this subsistence which one pathetically attempts to say doesn't exist, or otherwise, only the present exists; there has to be lets term a set of numbers the universe can be, and lets make the universe an odd set of numbers. Well with an odd set of numbers there is that middle. From 1-3, 2 is the middle. And this implies a closed system in which the syntax of infinity cannot apply to a presentness, therefore reality cannot portray a present, if the present is to be a part of the system itself... you know, a part of the sequence of a set of values 1-3. (2 is part of the sequence sort-to-speak).

But we perceive, and this requires a fixation of time, or a 'presentness' for lack of a better word. And in our reality, there are only two options left. One I see as idealistic, and the other is materialistic which for that reason I prefer but I still hate, because I hate the concept.

So the first, is that, maybe the present is not a part of the sequence, but emergent from it. That you have a sequence 1-3, but none of those values imply the present; rather, the present is emergent on the whole realization of the sequence itself. (realization may not be the right word). There is a dilemma with this though. It implies an idealistic feature (IMO) that something can be created from nothing, or rather, that nothing can be created from something. So this sillyness is automatically tossed aside.

The other idea is that which fits with reality. You have a sequence of an even amount of numbers (implying infinity, that's all that is important) and there is no middle, but a part of the sequence is considered the present. Except the sequence is not a sequence, not an algorithm; it just is.. for simplicity purposes. That is to say, there is no order or intention, or cause in an absolute manner. It is all relative.[/quote]

Please explain. I don't know what this is supposed to be.

[quote]I got a question. How the heck, do you have this syntactically infinite system, that really isn't, that seems to as it resolves further and further up the macro perception, able to realize itself, and continue to do so in a fractal manner, so that you have disorder then order then disorder then order and so on.... And since this fractal spatiality relies on the syntax, why would the mind do this, this redundance, this infinity. In what way can this parallel absolute objectivity?[/quote]

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. What is a 'fractal spatiality that relies on syntax?'

Thanks for the response, needed some fresh air in here. Something was stinking...:whistling:

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;42958 wrote:

Just a quick thought, from reading the OP, I'll contribute more later on completely separate thread, but... analogically speaking, reality works as a syntax of infinity, inevitably. And then we go about saying there is this 'present', as if it is separated from the past and the future completely. Well objectively ofcourse! But subjectively the present is the past which is the future in the sense they all are mutual on one another. I mean, taken subjectively (reality) in which you have the syntax of infinity, how is there room for the present? The present, which we say precedes the future and is after the past implies there be a middle. Well where is the room for a middle? Back to speaking analogically, in order for a "presentness" to be coined as this subsistence which one pathetically attempts to say doesn't exist, or otherwise, only the present exists; there has to be lets term a set of numbers the universe can be, and lets make the universe an odd set of numbers...

Well with an odd set of numbers there is that middle. From 1-3, 2 is the middle. And this implies a closed system in which the syntax of infinity cannot apply to a presentness, therefore reality cannot portray a present, if the present is to be a part of the system itself... you know, a part of the sequence of a set of values 1-3. (2 is part of the sequence sort-to-speak).

But we perceive, and this requires a fixation of time, or a 'presentness' for lack of a better word. And in our reality, there are only two options left. One I see as idealistic, and the other is materialistic which for that reason I prefer but I still hate, because I hate the concept.

So the first, is that, maybe the present is not a part of the sequence, but emergent from it. That you have a sequence 1-3, but none of those values imply the present; rather, the present is emergent on the whole realization of the sequence itself. (realization may not be the right word). There is a dilemma with this though. It implies an idealistic feature (IMO) that something can be created from nothing, or rather, that nothing can be created from something. So this sillyness is automatically tossed aside.

The other idea is that which fits with reality. You have a sequence of an even amount of numbers (implying infinity, that's all that is important) and there is no middle, but a part of the sequence is considered the present. Except the sequence is not a sequence, not an algorithm; it just is.. for simplicity purposes. That is to say, there is no order or intention, or cause in an absolute manner. It is all relative.

So where does the present fit? It could be a superposition, who knows. You wanted metaphysics. Awareness will probably someday be explained via a phenomenon that occurs in the brain. An autopoeitic, self realizing system is just a discourse on some idealistic frenzy which reasons very well, but is illogical.

I got a question. How the heck, do you have this syntactically infinite system, that really isn't, that seems to as it resolves further and further up the macro perception, able to realize itself, and continue to do so in a fractal manner, so that you have disorder then order then disorder then order and so on.... And since this fractal spatiality relies on the syntax, why would the mind do this, this redundance, this infinity. In what way can this parallel absolute objectivity?

I think I understand what you are saying- That because there is a 2 it implies a 1 and a 3? The fact that there is a present implies a past and a future?

And you are wondering how this fits into the ultimate reality, being infinite, as opposed to OUR existance in the of the sequence of past present future?"How can past present future exist within the matrix of infinity?"
...is that what you are saying/asking?

Personally, I think in relation in to infinity, that "earth" is an infinity. Any biosphere that produces a humanoid that is geneticly built to be a component of culture is capable of attaining "eternal life" so to speak, not phisacly but by way of collective conscious. Cultural hominid is evolutions peak and goal. It has the characteristic of undying awareness because culture becomes the evolutionary phenotype. Rather then spend a billion years evolving from the equator to something capable of living in the arctic, we kill a seal and devise a system of living that that perpetuates our species in a hostile environment that otherwise does not. Culture and technology are the most efficient means of evolving to meet certain conditions being that it can be done within ones one life time, and by doing such, infinity creates an awareness that is infinite and infinitely growing because it is not subject to becomming something else through genetic transmutation and thus it remains in position. It actually takes a past and a future to create something material that produces something infinite.

This is all really based on my personal beliefs and really another topic; but to respond to what you said yet stay on topic, I would say that in the syntax of infinity, there can be a past and a present with a likley future yet undefined future. From the present the future is inevidable yet what it could be is anything. Once the future is, it is the present, so the future only exist as an inevidable potential in the syntax of infinity, and once it is actualized it immidiately becomes the present, if you travel to the future you will be in the present once you get there and having got there from the past you will actually have created that future from the myriad of what it could have potentially been.

How can I say the future is inevidable? Because everything that is, is going there- we are all doing things that put there and thus eternally create it, the past always builds the present and the present is becoming the past which is the builder of that present etc.

Also there are subatomic phenomenon where in the activity is on borrowed energy from the immidiate future where it pays it back. that future implies a past like you said earllier on.

Philosophy Forum

The Present and its Derivatives

Quick Links

My Account

able2know