The Brain's Time Illusion

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

John your perspective on time is due to having a split mind. When you think with duality mind. By that I mean you see good and bad, white and black, male and female. I will explain it with an example I hope is not offense to this sight.Let's say you are making mad passionate love to your wife or girl friend when you both come to the point of climax. At this moment are you making love as a man or women? The answer is neither. The reason is at the moment of climax you are both in the immediate present where duality of mind does not exist. No past, future, only here and now in the immediate present. THANK YOU

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!

NOW OF PHYSICS - time is real but it has only a mathematical existence....

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241279328_NOW_OF_PHYSICS?ev=prf_pubAttachment #1: NOW_OF_PHYSICS.pdf

What is consciousness? I was reading a website of people who talk about their experiences with astral projection. Beyond the intellectual snobbery of skeptics, there was something interesting to learn here. Some people could astral project routinely, while other people would have very tenuous and difficult to sustain astral projections. It was as if the body somehow felt like it needed the "consciousness" the way a fearful child needs the attention of a parent or a trusted adult. When the body needed consciousness to "pay attention", it would block, shut down and end the AP.

Time is what Kant called the act of spontaneity which generates the representation 'I think'. This act performs synthesis. I.e. time is mind processing information. Space is the medium where information is processed.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Fra

mework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_K

ants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic