Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Thomyum2 »

Terrapin Station wrote: January 16th, 2022, 7:12 am
Thomyum2 wrote: January 15th, 2022, 3:46 pm So as I see it, perception/observation is what ontology is built upon, not the other way around. We are not born knowing what exists or does not exist – we discover what exists through multiple observations over time, and by comparing our observations with those of other conscious observers with whom we communicate. So over time and after multiple observations, we can formulate what elements of our observations endure – not just across time and space within our own experience, but also from one observer to another. Of those aspects or components that endure from one observation to another or one observer to the next, we say ‘exist’ – which is what I understand an ontology to be. I see ontology as a kind of compendium of observations - a mental model of the intrinsic nature of these existing objects which we formulate that is consistent to explain the set of observations we’ve had. So that’s why I ‘introduced’ observation here, not because I’m talking about something different – I see it as an essential and necessary building block of ontology. Let me know if I’m off base here.
I see the problem here, and it's actually interesting. Hopefully pointing this out will help straighten it out but I don't know.

You're not actually "doing ontology" above, you're "doing epistemology." You're looking at how we know what exists. That's not what ontology is. That's epistemology. If we're looking at or answering how we know something, we're doing epistemology. That's the subject matter of epistemology.

We can point out that we can't do ontology, as an activity that humans do, without there being knowledge issues there. And sure, that's the case.

Likewise, we can't do epistemology without simply assuming that various things exist, like us, our observations, other people, etc.--all of which you're doing above. Or, we could say, we can't begin to address knowledge--what knowledge is, how we know things, etc. without there being knowledge, knowing, etc. in the first place, so there has to be something that exists (something "ontological") prior to even beginning epistemology.

So epistemology and ontology are going to be entwined. But when we do ontology, we can't just do epistemology, or we're not actually doing ontology.

Likewise when we do epistemology. We can't just do ontology, otherwise we're not actually doing epistemology.

This is the case despite them being entwined (as activities that we can engage in).

One thing that's worth pointing out re the parenthetical there is that "ontology" is often used in a sense of NOT being the activity, not being a "study of" or "theory of" per se but so that the referent is simply the stuff that's being talked about. When we use the term in that sense, ontology and epistemology aren't necessarily entwined, or at least if we're going to argue that they are, we'd need an actual argument that plausibly supports that idea.
Thank you TS, I’ve found your response and the discussion that followed from it to be helpful and very thought-provoking. I agree it’s an interesting topic. It’s taking me some time to digest and think over all this, and I still haven’t quite formulated my thoughts very well, but didn’t want to wait too long again before responding, so I'll give it a try and see what happens.

I do see the distinction you’re making between epistemology and ontology, and that part makes sense. And perhaps I am using the terminology incorrectly or in a way that’s creating confusion. So maybe before moving forward I should go back to your statement that originally got me off track here and seek clarification. You had said above:
It's a change because it's ontologically DIFFERENT. If some state of affairs x, with respect to a, b and c, is different than some state of affairs y with respect to a, b and c, then there has been a change. It doesn't matter one bit if there's an observation of it or not.

So in the context of what you’ve said about ontology, what then does it mean to say that two states are ‘ontologically different’? I took this to mean that the two states are what I’d call ‘intrinsically different’ - some might say ‘objectively different’ (though that’s another term known to create confusion), and so what I’m understanding it to mean is that they’re different in their own nature, independent of whether or when or how they are observed. But if you look back to my example earlier, where I was saying there are the two ways that the three particles could be approaching each other – one in which observer is stationary but the three particles are moving toward each other, and one in which the particles are fixed in positions but the observer is moving away from them – it seems to me that, yes, in either of those two situations I just described, the first state is ‘ontologically different’ from the next. But if the observer is removed from equation, and there is no possibility of knowing (yes, switching to epistemology here, but bear with me) which of the two is the case. Are the three particles changing their relationship or are they remaining in the same relationship? This now becomes an unanswerable question without the key ingredient of knowing the observer's frame of reference. It's not that we don't know - this is a universe where we can't know. So the ‘state of affairs’ in an observerless universe becomes somewhat meaningless to me – it’s a notion that becomes a purely a mental construct, and I don’t see how there can be anything ‘ontological’ one way or another about such a universe.

Another way I could say this that might help is that subject and the object are the two components of any observation – there can be no observation without both of these components. We can take away one subject and replace it with another subject, keeping the same object, and say that the object has existence independent of any one given subject. But to postulate that an object could have existence independent of any and all subjects – this is what I’m struggling with as it seems to create something of a paradox. Such an object, by definition, is a mental construct because if it is never observed, its existence is never confirmable, so that makes it in essence an object of belief or imagination. Yet, if it’s an object of belief, then it can’t be an object that has existence independent of any subject - it 'exists' only as a belief by a believing subject. Do you see what I'm trying to get at, or does this make any sense at all?

A couple of times in this thread you used the term ‘believe’ which leads me to think that perhaps any ontology has to assume a mutual understanding or shared set of premises about what constitutes existence first as a starting point for discussion? Or is ontology itself an axiomatic endeavor? Is it about discussing or creating beliefs that are effective starting points for the philosophy that proceeds from it rather than about reaching conclusions? I’m interested to hear your thoughts.

And believe it or not, this does relate to my thoughts about time on this thread. :)
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Thomyum2 wrote: January 26th, 2022, 5:50 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: January 16th, 2022, 7:12 am
Thomyum2 wrote: January 15th, 2022, 3:46 pm So as I see it, perception/observation is what ontology is built upon, not the other way around. We are not born knowing what exists or does not exist – we discover what exists through multiple observations over time, and by comparing our observations with those of other conscious observers with whom we communicate. So over time and after multiple observations, we can formulate what elements of our observations endure – not just across time and space within our own experience, but also from one observer to another. Of those aspects or components that endure from one observation to another or one observer to the next, we say ‘exist’ – which is what I understand an ontology to be. I see ontology as a kind of compendium of observations - a mental model of the intrinsic nature of these existing objects which we formulate that is consistent to explain the set of observations we’ve had. So that’s why I ‘introduced’ observation here, not because I’m talking about something different – I see it as an essential and necessary building block of ontology. Let me know if I’m off base here.
I see the problem here, and it's actually interesting. Hopefully pointing this out will help straighten it out but I don't know.

You're not actually "doing ontology" above, you're "doing epistemology." You're looking at how we know what exists. That's not what ontology is. That's epistemology. If we're looking at or answering how we know something, we're doing epistemology. That's the subject matter of epistemology.

We can point out that we can't do ontology, as an activity that humans do, without there being knowledge issues there. And sure, that's the case.

Likewise, we can't do epistemology without simply assuming that various things exist, like us, our observations, other people, etc.--all of which you're doing above. Or, we could say, we can't begin to address knowledge--what knowledge is, how we know things, etc. without there being knowledge, knowing, etc. in the first place, so there has to be something that exists (something "ontological") prior to even beginning epistemology.

So epistemology and ontology are going to be entwined. But when we do ontology, we can't just do epistemology, or we're not actually doing ontology.

Likewise when we do epistemology. We can't just do ontology, otherwise we're not actually doing epistemology.

This is the case despite them being entwined (as activities that we can engage in).

One thing that's worth pointing out re the parenthetical there is that "ontology" is often used in a sense of NOT being the activity, not being a "study of" or "theory of" per se but so that the referent is simply the stuff that's being talked about. When we use the term in that sense, ontology and epistemology aren't necessarily entwined, or at least if we're going to argue that they are, we'd need an actual argument that plausibly supports that idea.
Thank you TS, I’ve found your response and the discussion that followed from it to be helpful and very thought-provoking. I agree it’s an interesting topic. It’s taking me some time to digest and think over all this, and I still haven’t quite formulated my thoughts very well, but didn’t want to wait too long again before responding, so I'll give it a try and see what happens.

I do see the distinction you’re making between epistemology and ontology, and that part makes sense. And perhaps I am using the terminology incorrectly or in a way that’s creating confusion. So maybe before moving forward I should go back to your statement that originally got me off track here and seek clarification. You had said above:
It's a change because it's ontologically DIFFERENT. If some state of affairs x, with respect to a, b and c, is different than some state of affairs y with respect to a, b and c, then there has been a change. It doesn't matter one bit if there's an observation of it or not.

So in the context of what you’ve said about ontology, what then does it mean to say that two states are ‘ontologically different’? I took this to mean that the two states are what I’d call ‘intrinsically different’ - some might say ‘objectively different’ (though that’s another term known to create confusion), and so what I’m understanding it to mean is that they’re different in their own nature, independent of whether or when or how they are observed. But if you look back to my example earlier, where I was saying there are the two ways that the three particles could be approaching each other – one in which observer is stationary but the three particles are moving toward each other, and one in which the particles are fixed in positions but the observer is moving away from them – it seems to me that, yes, in either of those two situations I just described, the first state is ‘ontologically different’ from the next. But if the observer is removed from equation, and there is no possibility of knowing (yes, switching to epistemology here, but bear with me) which of the two is the case. Are the three particles changing their relationship or are they remaining in the same relationship? This now becomes an unanswerable question without the key ingredient of knowing the observer's frame of reference. It's not that we don't know - this is a universe where we can't know. So the ‘state of affairs’ in an observerless universe becomes somewhat meaningless to me – it’s a notion that becomes a purely a mental construct, and I don’t see how there can be anything ‘ontological’ one way or another about such a universe.

Another way I could say this that might help is that subject and the object are the two components of any observation – there can be no observation without both of these components. We can take away one subject and replace it with another subject, keeping the same object, and say that the object has existence independent of any one given subject. But to postulate that an object could have existence independent of any and all subjects – this is what I’m struggling with as it seems to create something of a paradox. Such an object, by definition, is a mental construct because if it is never observed, its existence is never confirmable, so that makes it in essence an object of belief or imagination. Yet, if it’s an object of belief, then it can’t be an object that has existence independent of any subject - it 'exists' only as a belief by a believing subject. Do you see what I'm trying to get at, or does this make any sense at all?

A couple of times in this thread you used the term ‘believe’ which leads me to think that perhaps any ontology has to assume a mutual understanding or shared set of premises about what constitutes existence first as a starting point for discussion? Or is ontology itself an axiomatic endeavor? Is it about discussing or creating beliefs that are effective starting points for the philosophy that proceeds from it rather than about reaching conclusions? I’m interested to hear your thoughts.

And believe it or not, this does relate to my thoughts about time on this thread. :)
I understand what you're saying, but for some reason, you can't stop thinking about it from an epistemological angle. If things exist independently of people, it doesn't matter whether that's "confirmable" or not. Whether we confirm it is about US, about epistemology, about what we know. But things existing independently of us, if that's the case, if it's possible, etc. has nothing whatsoever to do with us or what we know. It would be the case whether any things that can know or confirm anything exist or not.
ecnetsis
Posts: 16
Joined: November 22nd, 2021, 2:22 pm

Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by ecnetsis »

Re: Consciousness




Part I:


Let us consider the following statements:

A. No situation exists.
B. Statement A is true.
C. A situation exists in which statement B is true.
D. A situation exists.(1)
E. Consciousness exists.
F. Statement A can never be true.


***

I claim that statement F is true.

***

Proof:

If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true.(2) If C is true, D is true. If D is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false! (Contradiction!)

Clearly, A can never be true.(3)

Since A can never be true, it follows that F is true.

***

If A is never true, A is always false. A is never true. Therefore, A is always false.

If A is always false, D is always true. A is always false. Therefore, D is always true.

We conclude the following: A situation always exists.(4)


***



Part II:


Suppose a situation S persists for zero seconds. Then S exists for "no length of time."(5) If S exists for "no length of time," S never exists. Therefore, if S persists for zero seconds, S never exists.

Suppose a situation exists. Then the situation must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds. If a situation persists for a duration greater than zero seconds, a phenomenon of temporal passage must occur.(6) If a phenomenon of temporal passage occurs, consciousness must exist.(7) Therefore, if a situation exists, consciousness must exist.


***

If statement D is true, E is true. D is true. Therefore, E is true.

***

If statement D is always true, E is always true. D is always true. Therefore, E is always true.(8)

***

We conclude the following: Consciousness always exists.(9)


***



Notes:

1. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.
2. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.)
3. It can never be the case that statement A is true.
4. A situation must always exist. (It can never be the case that "no situation exists.")
5. Zero seconds is "no length of time."
6. The word "persist" implies a passage of time. (Persistence is a dynamic process.)
7. The phenomenon of temporal passage (i.e., the phenomenon of time flow) is consciousness-dependent. (I discuss the relationship between time flow and consciousness in my paper "Temporal Passage.")
8. If a situation exists, consciousness exists.
9. Consciousness must always exist. (It can never be the case that "consciousness does not exist.")





Adhanom Andemicael
ecnetsis
Posts: 16
Joined: November 22nd, 2021, 2:22 pm

Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by ecnetsis »

Re: Situations and Consciousness





Let us define two situations:

S1: A situation in which consciousness exists.(1)
S2: A situation in which consciousness does not exist.(2)

***

Now let us consider the following two statements:

A. If consciousness exists, S1 exists.
B. If consciousness does not exist, S2 exists.(3)

***

I claim that these two statements are true.(4)



Notes:

1. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.
2. In my articles, I refer to situation S2 as "unconsciousness."
3. S2 (i.e., "unconsciousness") can persist for at most zero seconds.
4. I discuss consciousness in my paper "Temporal Passage."






Adhanom Andemicael
siva
Posts: 14
Joined: May 9th, 2022, 11:26 pm

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by siva »

Terrapin Station wrote: January 27th, 2022, 8:45 am
Thomyum2 wrote: January 26th, 2022, 5:50 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: January 16th, 2022, 7:12 am
Thomyum2 wrote: January 15th, 2022, 3:46 pm So as I see it, perception/observation is what ontology is built upon, not the other way around. We are not born knowing what exists or does not exist – we discover what exists through multiple observations over time, and by comparing our observations with those of other conscious observers with whom we communicate. So over time and after multiple observations, we can formulate what elements of our observations endure – not just across time and space within our own experience, but also from one observer to another. Of those aspects or components that endure from one observation to another or one observer to the next, we say ‘exist’ – which is what I understand an ontology to be. I see ontology as a kind of compendium of observations - a mental model of the intrinsic nature of these existing objects which we formulate that is consistent to explain the set of observations we’ve had. So that’s why I ‘introduced’ observation here, not because I’m talking about something different – I see it as an essential and necessary building block of ontology. Let me know if I’m off base here.
I see the problem here, and it's actually interesting. Hopefully pointing this out will help straighten it out but I don't know.

You're not actually "doing ontology" above, you're "doing epistemology." You're looking at how we know what exists. That's not what ontology is. That's epistemology. If we're looking at or answering how we know something, we're doing epistemology. That's the subject matter of epistemology.

We can point out that we can't do ontology, as an activity that humans do, without there being knowledge issues there. And sure, that's the case.

Likewise, we can't do epistemology without simply assuming that various things exist, like us, our observations, other people, etc.--all of which you're doing above. Or, we could say, we can't begin to address knowledge--what knowledge is, how we know things, etc. without there being knowledge, knowing, etc. in the first place, so there has to be something that exists (something "ontological") prior to even beginning epistemology.

So epistemology and ontology are going to be entwined. But when we do ontology, we can't just do epistemology, or we're not actually doing ontology.

Likewise when we do epistemology. We can't just do ontology, otherwise we're not actually doing epistemology.

This is the case despite them being entwined (as activities that we can engage in).

One thing that's worth pointing out re the parenthetical there is that "ontology" is often used in a sense of NOT being the activity, not being a "study of" or "theory of" per se but so that the referent is simply the stuff that's being talked about. When we use the term in that sense, ontology and epistemology aren't necessarily entwined, or at least if we're going to argue that they are, we'd need an actual argument that plausibly supports that idea.
Thank you TS, I’ve found your response and the discussion that followed from it to be helpful and very thought-provoking. I agree it’s an interesting topic. It’s taking me some time to digest and think over all this, and I still haven’t quite formulated my thoughts very well, but didn’t want to wait too long again before responding, so I'll give it a try and see what happens.

I do see the distinction you’re making between epistemology and ontology, and that part makes sense. And perhaps I am using the terminology incorrectly or in a way that’s creating confusion. So maybe before moving forward I should go back to your statement that originally got me off track here and seek clarification. You had said above:
It's a change because it's ontologically DIFFERENT. If some state of affairs x, with respect to a, b and c, is different than some state of affairs y with respect to a, b and c, then there has been a change. It doesn't matter one bit if there's an observation of it or not.

So in the context of what you’ve said about ontology, what then does it mean to say that two states are ‘ontologically different’? I took this to mean that the two states are what I’d call ‘intrinsically different’ - some might say ‘objectively different’ (though that’s another term known to create confusion), and so what I’m understanding it to mean is that they’re different in their own nature, independent of whether or when or how they are observed. But if you look back to my example earlier, where I was saying there are the two ways that the three particles could be approaching each other – one in which observer is stationary but the three particles are moving toward each other, and one in which the particles are fixed in positions but the observer is moving away from them – it seems to me that, yes, in either of those two situations I just described, the first state is ‘ontologically different’ from the next. But if the observer is removed from equation, and there is no possibility of knowing (yes, switching to epistemology here, but bear with me) which of the two is the case. Are the three particles changing their relationship or are they remaining in the same relationship? This now becomes an unanswerable question without the key ingredient of knowing the observer's frame of reference. It's not that we don't know - this is a universe where we can't know. So the ‘state of affairs’ in an observerless universe becomes somewhat meaningless to me – it’s a notion that becomes a purely a mental construct, and I don’t see how there can be anything ‘ontological’ one way or another about such a universe.

Another way I could say this that might help is that subject and the object are the two components of any observation – there can be no observation without both of these components. We can take away one subject and replace it with another subject, keeping the same object, and say that the object has existence independent of any one given subject. But to postulate that an object could have existence independent of any and all subjects – this is what I’m struggling with as it seems to create something of a paradox. Such an object, by definition, is a mental construct because if it is never observed, its existence is never confirmable, so that makes it in essence an object of belief or imagination. Yet, if it’s an object of belief, then it can’t be an object that has existence independent of any subject - it 'exists' only as a belief by a believing subject. Do you see what I'm trying to get at, or does this make any sense at all?

A couple of times in this thread you used the term ‘believe’ which leads me to think that perhaps any ontology has to assume a mutual understanding or shared set of premises about what constitutes existence first as a starting point for discussion? Or is ontology itself an axiomatic endeavor? Is it about discussing or creating beliefs that are effective starting points for the philosophy that proceeds from it rather than about reaching conclusions? I’m interested to hear your thoughts.

And believe it or not, this does relate to my thoughts about time on this thread. :)
I understand what you're saying, but for some reason, you can't stop thinking about it from an epistemological angle. If things exist independently of people, it doesn't matter whether that's "confirmable" or not. Whether we confirm it is about US, about epistemology, about what we know. But things existing independently of us, if that's the case, if it's possible, etc. has nothing whatsoever to do with us or what we know. It would be the case whether any things that can know or confirm anything exist or not.
Thanks for the wonderful discussion TS and Thomyum. really enjoyed reading your exchanges.

"If things exist independently of people, it doesn't matter whether that's "confirmable" or not"

What makes people different from things? aren't our bodies and mind also observable objects?

I would argue that we are not our bodies or minds, but something independent that is aware of/observes the body, mind and world. This observer is not located in space/time.

I am inclined towards an ontology that "only the observer exists".. we can call this observer as consciousness/awareness and the multiple names and forms that are observed are appearances in this consciousness..
ecnetsis
Posts: 16
Joined: November 22nd, 2021, 2:22 pm

Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by ecnetsis »

"Nothing" Cannot Exist




Let us consider the statement:

"Nothing exists."

***

There seems to be something inherently contradictory in this statement.

***

In order for a situation to exist, the situation has to persist.(1),(2) The word "persist" implies a "passage of time." If a situation persists, time necessarily passes (i.e., time necessarily exists).

***

A scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot persist.(3),(4)

***

In order for a situation to exist, the situation has to persist. A scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot persist. Therefore, a scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot exist.(5)

***

"Nothing" cannot exist. Therefore, "something" must always exist.(6)




Notes:

1. Suppose a situation exists. Then the situation must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds.
2. If a situation persists for zero seconds, the situation never exists.
3. The premise "'nothing' persists" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that "nothing" does not exist. [See note no. 4.])
4. If "nothing" persists, time exists. If time exists, "something" exists. If "something" exists, "nothing" does not exist. Therefore, if "nothing" persists, "nothing" does not exist.
5. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.
6. "Something" must always exist. But what could this "something" be? An eternal "mind" of some sort?





Adhanom Andemicael
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Belindi »

ecnetsis wrote: January 13th, 2023, 4:12 pm "Nothing" Cannot Exist




Let us consider the statement:

"Nothing exists."

***

There seems to be something inherently contradictory in this statement.

***

In order for a situation to exist, the situation has to persist.(1),(2) The word "persist" implies a "passage of time." If a situation persists, time necessarily passes (i.e., time necessarily exists).

***

A scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot persist.(3),(4)

***

In order for a situation to exist, the situation has to persist. A scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot persist. Therefore, a scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot exist.(5)

***

"Nothing" cannot exist. Therefore, "something" must always exist.(6)




Notes:

1. Suppose a situation exists. Then the situation must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds.
2. If a situation persists for zero seconds, the situation never exists.
3. The premise "'nothing' persists" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that "nothing" does not exist. [See note no. 4.])
4. If "nothing" persists, time exists. If time exists, "something" exists. If "something" exists, "nothing" does not exist. Therefore, if "nothing" persists, "nothing" does not exist.
5. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.
6. "Something" must always exist. But what could this "something" be? An eternal "mind" of some sort?





Adhanom Andemicael
The meaning of a word is its use. No thing exists until it's perceived.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Gertie »

ecnetsis
In order for a situation to exist, the situation has to persist.(1),(2) The word "persist" implies a "passage of time." If a situation persists, time necessarily passes (i.e., time necessarily exists).
***
A scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot persist.(3),(4)
I take time to be a marker of change, let me know if you think it's something else.

In a state of nothing, nothing changes (unless something somehow starts to exist), so time as a marker of change doesn't exist.The notion of nothing 'persisting over time' is therefore no more applicable to nothing existing, as the notion of things changing in a situation where nothing exists. It's importing features of things which do exist into nothing, a false move, so the claim ''A scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot persist.'' is a false move.

That leaves us with the question can something come to exist out of nothing. That doesn't seem to make sense as we understand how causation works in our existing universe. But there are two assumptions there - firstly that our notion of causality is accurate and complete, and secondly that it applies to conditions where our universe doesn't exist, which we can't know.
ecnetsis
Posts: 16
Joined: November 22nd, 2021, 2:22 pm

Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by ecnetsis »

Gertie wrote: January 15th, 2023, 8:34 pm
I take time to be a marker of change, let me know if you think it's something else.

"Time flow" can occur without change taking place.







Here's another version of my January 13th post:






"Nothing" Cannot Exist




Let us consider the following statement:

S1: Nothing exists.

***

Statement S1 seems to contradict itself.

***

In order for a situation to exist, the situation has to persist.1,2 A scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot persist.3,4 Therefore, a scenario in which "nothing exists" cannot exist.5

***

"Nothing" cannot exist. Therefore, "something" must always exist.6




Notes:

1. Suppose a situation S persists for zero seconds. Then S never exists.

If S is to exist, it must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds.

2. If a situation persists, a phenomenon of temporal passage (i.e., a phenomenon of time flow) occurs.

3. The premise "'nothing' persists" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that "nothing" does not exist. [See note no. 4.])

4. If "nothing" persists, time flow occurs. If time flow occurs, time exists. If time exists, "something" exists. If "something" exists, "nothing" does not exist. Therefore, if "nothing" persists, "nothing" does not exist.

5. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.

6. We know that "something" always exists. But what could this "something" be? (An eternal "mind" of some sort?)








Adhanom Andemicael
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Gertie »

Gertie wrote: ↑January 16th, 2023, 1:34 am

I take time to be a marker of change, let me know if you think it's something else.

"Time flow" can occur without change taking place.
In the situation where nothing ever exists, or everything that exists is by its nature static, that's a meaningless claim. (In these examples time would only pass from an outside perspective, but if we're talking about nothing existing, there is no outside perspective).

The reason it's meaningless is, imo, because time is a marker of change.

In which case to say a state of nothing persists is meaningless, a type of category error.

And confusion arises from treating 'nothing' as a category of things which exist and persist, rather than addressing the sutuation where no such category of 'existing things' exists.
ecnetsis
Posts: 16
Joined: November 22nd, 2021, 2:22 pm

Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by ecnetsis »

Gertie wrote: January 21st, 2023, 1:34 pm
... confusion arises from treating 'nothing' as a category of things which exist and persist, rather than addressing the [situation] where no such category of 'existing things' exists.

Are you claiming that "nothing" is a "situation"?

***

If "nothing" is a "situation," we can ask the question "How long does 'nothing' persist?"1




Notes:

1. The question "How long does a situation persist?" is a meaningful question.






Adhanom Andemicael
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by Gertie »

ecnetsis wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 12:04 am
Gertie wrote: January 21st, 2023, 1:34 pm
... confusion arises from treating 'nothing' as a category of things which exist and persist, rather than addressing the [situation] where no such category of 'existing things' exists.

Are you claiming that "nothing" is a "situation"?

***

If "nothing" is a "situation," we can ask the question "How long does 'nothing' persist?"1




Notes:

1. The question "How long does a situation persist?" is a meaningful question.






Adhanom Andemicael
Nothing is the absence of any situation entailing existence. Persistence over time is an attribute of existing things.

Sorry but it looks to me like you're creating an ontology based on wordplay which elides nothing into a category of existing things by thinking of it as an actual state of affairs or situation. We call nothing a 'situation' because that's how we describe types of states of affairs, but as I said nothing isn't a cartegory of existing, with properties of existing things like time marking change. it's the complete absence of anything existing.

To put it most simply, when we say it's the case/situation/state of affairs/whatev that nothing exists, that includes time.

It strikes us as odd/illogical to think of 'something coming from nothing' based on how we observe our existing universe working, but we can't know that carries over to a situation where nothing exists. Nor can we observe, measure (time or anything else), test or predict in such a case of nothing existing
ecnetsis
Posts: 16
Joined: November 22nd, 2021, 2:22 pm

Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by ecnetsis »

Gertie wrote: January 21st, 2023, 1:34 pm
In the situation where nothing ever exists ...

You seem to be suggesting that "nothing" is a "situation."

***

If "nothing" is a "situation," we can ask the question "How long does 'nothing' persist?"1,2



Notes:

1. Suppose S is a situation. The question "How long does S persist?" is a meaningful question.
2. The situation we call "nothing" can persist for at most zero seconds.






Adhanom Andemicael
ecnetsis
Posts: 16
Joined: November 22nd, 2021, 2:22 pm

Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by ecnetsis »

Gertie wrote: January 24th, 2023, 6:49 pm Nothing is the absence of any situation entailing existence. Persistence over time is an attribute of existing things.

Sorry but it looks to me like you're creating an ontology based on wordplay which elides nothing into a category of existing things by thinking of it as an actual state of affairs or situation. We call nothing a 'situation' because that's how we describe types of states of affairs, but as I said nothing isn't a cartegory of existing, with properties of existing things like time marking change. it's the complete absence of anything existing.

To put it most simply, when we say it's the case/situation/state of affairs/whatev that nothing exists, that includes time.

It strikes us as odd/illogical to think of 'something coming from nothing' based on how we observe our existing universe working, but we can't know that carries over to a situation where nothing exists. Nor can we observe, measure (time or anything else), test or predict in such a case of nothing existing

By definition: "Nothing" is a "situation."1

However, it is a situation that cannot exist.

***

Let us consider the following statement:

"Nothing" does not persist "over time."2

***

This statement is true. (I did not claim that this statement is false.)


***

You wrote: "To put it most simply, when we say it's the case/situation/state of affairs/whatev that nothing exists, that includes time."

I agree.

If nothing exists, time does not exist.3



Notes:

1. The "absence of all things" is a "situation." (It is a "state of affairs.")
2. The situation we call "nothing" can persist for at most zero seconds.
3. In order for time to exist, persistence has to occur for a duration greater than zero seconds.






Adhanom Andemicael
ecnetsis
Posts: 16
Joined: November 22nd, 2021, 2:22 pm

Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness

Post by ecnetsis »

"Something" Always Exists ("Nothing" Never Exists)




Part I:


Let us consider the following statements:

A. No "thing" exists.
B. Statement A is true.
C. A situation exists in which statement B is true.
D. A situation exists.(1)
E. A "thing" exists.
F. Consciousness exists.
G. Statement A can never be true.

***

I claim that statement G is true.

***

Proof:

If A is true, B is true. If B is true, C is true.(2) If C is true, D is true. If D is true, E is true.(3) If E is true, A is false. Therefore, if A is true, A is false! (Contradiction!)

Clearly, A can never be true.(4)

Since A can never be true, it follows that G is true.

***

If A is never true, A is always false. A is never true. Therefore, A is always false.

If A is always false, E is always true. A is always false. Therefore, E is always true.

We conclude the following: A "thing" always exists.(5)







Part II:


Suppose a "thing" T persists for zero seconds. Then T exists for "no length of time."(6) If T exists for "no length of time," T never exists. Therefore, if T persists for zero seconds, T never exists.

Suppose a "thing" exists. Then the "thing" must persist for a duration greater than zero seconds. If a "thing" persists for a duration greater than zero seconds, a phenomenon of temporal passage must occur.(7) If a phenomenon of temporal passage occurs, consciousness must exist.(8) Therefore, if a "thing" exists, consciousness must exist.

***

If statement E is true, F is true. E is true. Therefore, F is true.

***

If statement E is always true, F is always true. E is always true. Therefore, F is always true.(9)

***

We conclude the following: Consciousness always exists.(10)





Notes:


1. The terms "situation," "scenario," and "state of affairs" are synonymous.

2. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.)

3. A "situation" is a "thing."

If a "situation" exists, a "thing" exists.

4. It can never be the case that statement A is true.

5. A "thing" must always exist. (It can never be the case that "no 'thing' exists.")

6. Zero seconds is "no length of time."

7. The word "persist" implies a passage of time. (Persistence is a dynamic process.)

8. The phenomenon of temporal passage (i.e., the phenomenon of time flow) is consciousness-dependent. (I discuss the relationship between time flow and consciousness in my paper "Temporal Passage.")

9. If a "thing" exists, consciousness exists.

10. Consciousness must always exist. (It can never be the case that "consciousness does not exist.")




***




Clarification:


The premise "A is true" leads to a contradiction. (It leads to the conclusion that "A is false.")

The premise "E is true" does not lead to a contradiction. (It does not lead to the conclusion that "E is false.")

***

Let us consider the following statement:

S1: If B is true, C is true.(1)

***

The premise in statement S1 is "B is true." (Please note that "A is false" is not a premise in S1.)



Notes:

1. Suppose statement B is true. Then a situation exists. (The situation that exists is that statement B is true.)







Adhanom Andemicael
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021