The Brain's Time Illusion

James

"What is the empirical evidence for it?"

The physical input which sentient organisms receive (receive being in the line of travel of and thereby interacting with, not the subsequent processing thereof) has two identifiable features:

-it is independent of the mechanism effecting the receipt (what it 'actually' is can never be known, but there is 'something' and as we (all sentient organisms) are in an existentially closed system, that can be identified, but only from within)

-it alters (comparison of such inputs reveals difference)

This means the physical existence we can know of is existential sequence, which has a number of innate features. Remember, we can only ever be 'aware of', we never 'have' it in any sense, because we cannot externalise ourselves from it. So whether this particular form of existence is the only one, or whether there are alternatives, is irrelevant, because we cannot know them.

We can, as a consequence of that subsequent processing, invoke many beliefs which are not substantiated by experienceability. The latter, which is the basis of proof, includes hypothesis, ie it is not a case of only being reliant on what is actually received. Indeed,one of the reasons which justify hypothesis is that the physical process involved is not physically perfect. The point being that the deployment of hypothesis must be to overcome these physical issues, but not to enable beliefs.

Paul

Paul,

Your opinion consists of your version of metaphysics. I asked for the empirical evidence for your slideshow universe. Your opinion is not empirical evidence. Your opinion is not physics.

James Putnam

James

We (and indeed all entities) receive physical input, and when these inputs are compared there are differences, which means there is alteration. How is that not "empirical evidence"? Indeed, it is the only physical evidence of physical existence, and the only basis of knowledge (hypothesis being effected within this context). The problem being extrapolating what was physically received from the individually articulated perception of that (which is not a physical issue), eliminating any physical issues in the processes which caused the physical input received, and then, based on an understanding of the physics invoved, identifying what caused the physical input received.

You are sitting on something, watching a monitor, touching a keyboard, etc, etc, etc. You are not creating the existence of thee entities (which includes you). If anybody else came into the room you would be able to agree on their existence, without some form of telepathic communication first. Indeed, if a dog came into the room it would sit on the chair, ie demonstrate awareness of its existence. And you (and the dog, etc) are aware of their existence, because you receive physically existent representations of them, known as light, noise, vibration, etc.

What is the problem?

Paul

Paul,

The problem is that your evasive message does not give evidence for your slideshow universe. I didn't ask for you to demonstrate the obvious existence of change. Nor did I ask you to give evidence that dogs can see. What is the empirical evidence for your slideshow universe?

James Putnam

Here is Paul's description, from his message to Eckard, of that which I refer to as his slideshow universe:

"...And that the apparent continuousness of physical existence is actually a sequence of discrete physically existent states, because that is the only way that physical existence can occur. The rate of turnover of these in any given sequence being what is being timed. ..."

What is the empirical evidence for this?

James Putnam

James

I am not sure what I am being "evasive" about.

As said in my first response, there are two key features we can discern of whatever this physical existence is, physical input therefrom being what we receive.

1 It is independent of the mechanism that enables that receipt

2 It alters, because comparison of the physical inputs received reveals difference

So existence as knowable to us is existential sequence. Whatever the substance is which comprises that can only occur (ie exist) in one physically existent state at a time. Existence must involve definitiveness and no form of change.

Paul

Paul,

This is just your version of metaphysics. It is not physics:

"As said in my first response, there are two key features we can discern of whatever this physical existence is, physical input therefrom being what we receive.

1 It is independent of the mechanism that enables that receipt

2 It alters, because comparison of the physical inputs received reveals difference

So existence as knowable to us is existential sequence. Whatever the substance is which comprises that can only occur (ie exist) in one physically existent state at a time. Existence must involve definitiveness and no form of change."

This strange metaphysical reasoning has no empirical support because there can be none for it. The '...physical input therefrom...', having been given the name 'electromagnetic-radiation', is the empirical evidence and it consists only of innumerable changes of velocities of particles.

James Putnam

James

"It is not physics". "This strange metaphysical reasoning has no empirical support because there can be none for it."

Really? So, according to you, there is not: 1) something (does not matter what it is, etc) 2) alteration in that something (does not matter how, what, etc).

You therefore need to a) provide "empirical evidence" for this not being so, b) provide "empirical evidence" for an alternative.

Whether your technical point about "changes of velocities" is correct or not is irrelevant, the point I had already made, and repeated in response to your repeated question was about physical existence as sequence.

Paul

Paul,

Me: Your sequence of 'no change states' can have no empirical evidence.

"Really? So, according to you, there is not: 1) something (does not matter what it is, etc) 2) alteration in that something (does not matter how, what, etc)."

Me: This is just plain silly.

"1 It is independent of the mechanism that enables that receipt

2 It alters, because comparison of the physical inputs received reveals difference

So existence as knowable to us is existential sequence. Whatever the substance is which comprises that can only occur (ie exist) in one physically existent state at a time. Existence must involve definitiveness and no form of change."

Me: Your conclusion does not follow from your two points.

"You therefore need to a) provide "empirical evidence" for this not being so, b) provide "empirical evidence" for an alternative."

Me: The alternative is called reality. It is an everchanging universe and its empirical evidence is photons that inform us about the change of velocities of particles.

Your history is wrong also: Special Relativity was introduced in 1905. It included both length contraction and time dilation and it still applies today in addition to General Relativity effects. Force is not the cause. Your interpretations of your quotes are wrong.

Please go teach others your error-filled 'corrections'. I will return to posting on-topic messages.

James Putnam

James

So according to you:

1 Physical existence does not involve something which is altering. That, according to you, is not "empirical evidence" indicating its generic form. Neither do you substantiate any valid alternative form.

2 SR is 1905. Despite the fact that the man who wrote it specified to the contrary. He stated that SR involved fixed bodies, uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion only, and rays of light travelling in straight lines at a constant speed. Whereas, as you point out, 1905 involved something else. This is why when introducing the two postulates in 1905 he states that they are "only apparently irreconcilable". He knew he had a problem in 1905. The 'reconciliation' is explained in section 7 1916, with the theoretical circumstance of SR, where there is no gravitational force.

Paul

Tim,

Are we a node, or a network? Is your brain a bunch of neurons, or the connections between them? It's not just friends and lovers. You make connections with everyone you meet. Attraction, repulsion, complimentary, cancelling, etc. You affect your world as your world affects you. We are neurons in the larger mind. Like fingers on a hand.

John

What the brain does, or indeed any other function associated with the subsequent processing of what was physically received, is irrelevant to physics. The physical circumstance is extrinsic and independent of brains, eyes, etc, etc. To put it simply, if the entirety of sentient organisms was extermintated, physical existence would still continue, there would just be no entity to be aware of it.

Paul

Paul,

Tim was discussing consciousness.

To which I've had a number of similar experiences to which he referred, in that it did very much seemed as if two bodies were one mind.

I do not want to be stubborn, but after reading all your productive posts where I searched for the quintessence of consciousness, I did not find it.

Each critic was touched, but we did not get further, just try another way of thinking and interpretation ogf consciousness... pls read "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION", here I deduct that our consciousness is acting in the "future" of our causal life line to make observations "reality".

The basis is scientific but the results are metaphysical, just because of the fact the what cannot be "proven" is always meta...

Wilhelmus

John

And what is consciousness then? Anything associated wiuth the subsequent processing of the physical input received is irrelevant to physics. Physical existence is not a function of how sentient organisms perceive it.

Paul

Paul,

you asked what is consciousness? Interesting question. 'Consciousness' is one of those words that means different things to different people. Therefore the word ought to be used, in a scientific context, with an accompanying definition to avoid misunderstanding of intended meaning.

There is a fun survey being conducted on the "information is beautiful" website Consciousness survey It gives 12 different options.

Georgina

Much as it is an area of interest, like many aspects of the brain, it was a rhetorical question. I made the point "What the brain does, or indeed any other function associated with the subsequent processing of what was physically received, is irrelevant to physics". John responded that the point being discused was about "consciousness".

Paul

Paul,

Thank you!

Thanks again for reading my essay!