Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: November 22nd, 2021, 2:22 pm
Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
Please note the following:
- Three subjective timelines exist: TLA, TLB, and TLC.(1)
- Statements 3, 10, and 11 make claims about TLA.
- Statement 10 makes a claim about TLA that is false from O_B's perspective.
- Statement 10 does not make a claim about TLB.
- Statement 11 does not make a claim about TLC.
***
New statements
Here are two new statements for us to consider:
12: O_B is unconscious for 20 years.
13: O_C is unconscious for 10 years.
***
Statement 12 makes a claim about TLB.
Statement 13 makes a claim about TLC.
Notes:
1. I discuss subjective timelines in my paper "Temporal Passage."
Adhanom Andemicael
- 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
That doesn't follow at all, though.Thomyum2 wrote: ↑December 27th, 2021, 4:10 pm So just to clarify, I'm not saying that the particles in the box are or are not in motion - I'm saying that if they are excluded from all possibility of observation, anything we can say about the particles - their state, motion, their relationship to each other or anything else about them - remains purely a mental image or model. They aren't 'really' doing anything at all, we are just imagining that they are - we're filling in the blanks based on our own experience.
It would only follow if whether they're really doing something somehow hinges on whether we can observe it.
But why would it hinge on that? How would the ontology there go?
- 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
I lost interest because you don't seem interested in having a conversation.ecnetsis wrote: ↑December 27th, 2021, 4:24 pm Here's a slightly edited version of my December 21st post. (In the version below, I do not use the word "assertion."):
Please note the following:
- Three subjective timelines exist: TLA, TLB, and TLC.(1)
- Statements 3, 10, and 11 make claims about TLA.
- Statement 10 makes a claim about TLA that is false from O_B's perspective.
- Statement 10 does not make a claim about TLB.
- Statement 11 does not make a claim about TLC.
***
New statements
Here are two new statements for us to consider:
12: O_B is unconscious for 20 years.
13: O_C is unconscious for 10 years.
***
Statement 12 makes a claim about TLB.
Statement 13 makes a claim about TLC.
Notes:
1. I discuss subjective timelines in my paper "Temporal Passage."
Adhanom Andemicael
- Thomyum2
- Posts: 366
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
Yes, it is an ontological question, and I don't have any easy answer for this. I don't think a good ontology has emerged yet to help us incorporate the scientific discoveries and theories of the 20th century into our concept of reality. If time and space are relative to the observer, as they seem to be, how can there be any independent or objective existence to these things that we consider basic elements of reality?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 27th, 2021, 6:02 pmThat doesn't follow at all, though.Thomyum2 wrote: ↑December 27th, 2021, 4:10 pm So just to clarify, I'm not saying that the particles in the box are or are not in motion - I'm saying that if they are excluded from all possibility of observation, anything we can say about the particles - their state, motion, their relationship to each other or anything else about them - remains purely a mental image or model. They aren't 'really' doing anything at all, we are just imagining that they are - we're filling in the blanks based on our own experience.
It would only follow if whether they're really doing something somehow hinges on whether we can observe it.
But why would it hinge on that? How would the ontology there go?
Your wording here is telling - what does it mean to say 'they're really doing something'? It presumes an ontology of something that was observed - that the object of an observation has the capacity to be separated from observation and still retain certain of those observed qualities or behaviors. In the context of daily life, it seems self-evident that this is the case because objects pass from one observer to another, and our ability to communicate our observations between observers gives us confirmation that there is a consistency in the objects when they move outside our individual range of perception - so we make a presumption that since something can exist apart from the individual perception, that it exists without any observer present. In truth though, we have no knowledge of the nature of something that is not unobserved - how is it meaningful to say that something it 'real' or 'really doing something' if it's excluded from any possibility of observation? The presence of the observer and the relationship of the observer to what is being observed is woven into the fabric of all experience, into everything that we call 'real'. So I guess I'm looking for an ontology that somehow incorporates this essential component of the observer into our understanding.
Let me just ask you to consider your example one more time - the sets of positions of the three particles separated by 'then'. 'Then' presumes one arrangement occurs before another. But the sequence of the observations itself indicates the participation of the observer - the second position is a 'change' because it is compared to a previous observation - compared to something in the record or memory of the observer. So without that observer's ability to reference a past observation to make that comparison, there's no way to say that 'change' is taking place there or that time is passing in that universe.
— Epictetus
- 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
That x is relative to y doesn't at all imply that the existence of x depends on y.Thomyum2 wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 3:21 pm Yes, it is an ontological question, and I don't have any easy answer for this. I don't think a good ontology has emerged yet to help us incorporate the scientific discoveries and theories of the 20th century into our concept of reality. If time and space are relative to the observer, as they seem to be, how can there be any independent or objective existence to these things that we consider basic elements of reality?
X can be relative to y, and relative to z, and so on.
In truth, we have no reason whatsoever to assume that things don't exist unless they're observed. Is that possible? Sure. But possibility isn't sufficient for belief.In truth though, we have no knowledge of the nature of something that is not unobserved -
You want to add quantification of meaning as a topic?How is it meaningful to say that something it 'real' or 'really doing something' . . .
Just like the presence of a camera is woven into the fabric of all filming. Because it's filming. Filming requires a camera. That doesn't imply that only filming exists, that nothing exists if it's not filmed, etc.The presence of the observer and the relationship of the observer to what is being observed is woven into the fabric of all experience,
This should be very rudimentary stuff to figure out re where you're going off the tracks.
If you're talking about observations, then there's going to be an observer. Because you introduced "observation." That's just like, "The sequence of the filming itself indicates the participation of a camera." Well, yeah, no $h|^. That's what filming is. There's NO REASON WHATSOEVER to conclude that things can only move if something is observing them. Is that possible? Yes. But it's possible that things can move when nothing is observing them, too. So if possibility is sufficient for belief, then you believe that too.Let me just ask you to consider your example one more time - the sets of positions of the three particles separated by 'then'. 'Then' presumes one arrangement occurs before another. But the sequence of the observations itself indicates the participation of the observer
Nope. 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.- the second position is a 'change' because it is compared to a previous observation
- Thomyum2
- Posts: 366
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
Agreed, and I should have used the phrase ‘relative to the observer’ or ‘relative to the observer’s frame of reference’ rather than just ‘relative’, as that was my meaning. But perhaps we can come back to that later.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 8:45 pm That x is relative to y doesn't at all imply that the existence of x depends on y.
X can be relative to y, and relative to z, and so on.
I understand your analogy with filming, but here’s the issue I have with that – filming is a technology to reproduce or duplicate a human perception or experience – a film is not an experience in and of itself. (And here’s where I get tangled up in vocabulary a bit – I’m going to be using the terms ‘observation’, ‘perception’ and ‘experience’ to mean roughly the same thing, so if we need to separate these out, let me know.)Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 8:45 pmJust like the presence of a camera is woven into the fabric of all filming. Because it's filming. Filming requires a camera. That doesn't imply that only filming exists, that nothing exists if it's not filmed, etc.
This should be very rudimentary stuff to figure out re where you're going off the tracks.If you're talking about observations, then there's going to be an observer. Because you introduced "observation." That's just like, "The sequence of the filming itself indicates the participation of a camera." Well, yeah, no $h|^. That's what filming is. There's NO REASON WHATSOEVER to conclude that things can only move if something is observing them. Is that possible? Yes. But it's possible that things can move when nothing is observing them, too. So if possibility is sufficient for belief, then you believe that too.Let me just ask you to consider your example one more time - the sets of positions of the three particles separated by 'then'. 'Then' presumes one arrangement occurs before another. But the sequence of the observations itself indicates the participation of the observer
Nope. 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.- the second position is a 'change' because it is compared to a previous observation
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.
Consequently, I think that ontology needs to be evolving – as our individual and collective set of observations expands, our ontology should evolve with that to encompass the new information. With the new observations in science in roughly the last hundred years, it doesn’t seem to me that has happened. I feel our philosophy and thinking are still in a Newtonian ontology. We still think of time, space and matter as things that have intrinsic existence even as observation evidence is showing us that almost anything we can say about these is dependent upon a frame of reference of an observer.
I’m not arguing or concluding, to quote you above, either “that things can only move if something is observing them” or that “that things can move when nothing is observing them” – that’s not my aim at all, and neither of these options seem really satisfactory. I'm more engaged in a kind of wondering about how we can incorporate the new knowledge about the relativity of the observer into an ontology?
Does that make any sense or help to clarify what I was trying to get at here? If so, perhaps we can go back and look more at the examples I was giving earlier in the thread, as well as tie this into the understanding of time.
Thanks for your patience – sorry to run on and hope to continue the conversation.
— Epictetus
- 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
I see the problem here, and it's actually interesting. Hopefully pointing this out will help straighten it out but I don't know.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.
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.
A lot of people have a relativistic ontology (I'm one of them), and not necessarily, and/or not only, where something is relative to an observer.I'm more engaged in a kind of wondering about how we can incorporate the new knowledge about the relativity of the observer into an ontology?
All I was pointing out above was that x being relative to y doesn't imply that x is somehow existentially dependent on y.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
Materialism is good within its limits. But idealism, subjective experiences, are all there is until those become absolute i.e. the total, and more,of all that is.
- 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
The issue is that the subject matter of ontology isn't our knowing, though. The subject matter isn't what we know. It's what there is, how it is, etc.Belindi wrote: ↑January 16th, 2022, 7:26 am Epistemology and ontology are entwined because experience is the common cause of both how we know and what we know.
Materialism is good within its limits. But idealism, subjective experiences, are all there is until those become absolute i.e. the total, and more,of all that is.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 16th, 2022, 7:28 amThe issue is that the subject matter of ontology isn't our knowing, though. The subject matter isn't what we know. It's what there is, how it is, etc.Belindi wrote: ↑January 16th, 2022, 7:26 am Epistemology and ontology are entwined because experience is the common cause of both how we know and what we know.
Materialism is good within its limits. But idealism, subjective experiences, are all there is until those become absolute i.e. the total, and more,of all that is.
Do you mean that I am saying an ontology is a heuristic whereas you are saying an ontology is a claim?
- 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
??? No.Belindi wrote: ↑January 16th, 2022, 7:40 amTerrapin Station wrote: ↑January 16th, 2022, 7:28 amThe issue is that the subject matter of ontology isn't our knowing, though. The subject matter isn't what we know. It's what there is, how it is, etc.Belindi wrote: ↑January 16th, 2022, 7:26 am Epistemology and ontology are entwined because experience is the common cause of both how we know and what we know.
Materialism is good within its limits. But idealism, subjective experiences, are all there is until those become absolute i.e. the total, and more,of all that is.
Do you mean that I am saying an ontology is a heuristic whereas you are saying an ontology is a claim?
Ontology isn't "how we know" or "what we know."
Ontology is what is, what exists (and "how it exists").
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
We already decided that a theory of existence, and how we come to believe in that theory of existence, are intertwined . I claimed these are intertwined within subjective experiences.
Since subjective experiences are accessible only to the subject of the experiences , the modern conscience which is not vain of its own paltry knowledge, would regard its chosen theory of existence only heuristically.
- 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
Do we have examples of folks doing ontology non-heuristically? I'm not sure.Belindi wrote: ↑January 16th, 2022, 8:20 am I understand by 'ontology' the same a you understand by 'ontology', just as you say above.
We already decided that a theory of existence, and how we come to believe in that theory of existence, are intertwined . I claimed these are intertwined within subjective experiences.
Since subjective experiences are accessible only to the subject of the experiences , the modern conscience which is not vain of its own paltry knowledge, would regard its chosen theory of existence only heuristically.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
I find this type of framing helpful to clarify it in my own mind
All a person can directly/certainly know is the content of their own conscious experience. There is no way to test whether the content of one's own conscious experience exists as anything but that experience.
If I assume the content of my conscious experience represents my interaction with a real world 'out there' which I am located within, or part of with trees and gravity and other people, then together we can create a shared model of that world. Inter-subjectively by comparing notes with each other about the content of our experience, finding commonalities, rejecting glitches, learning and theorising over patterns, as you say. Creating an ontological model of the world we share.
Our current model itself tells us we are limited and flawed observers and thinkers, evolved for utility rather than observing and understanding the actual nature of the world. But we can create better and more coherent models with increasing explanatory power.
If we think about time in the above context, it might turn out our physicalist model which includes relativity supports the notion that time and/or space is a mental construct which allows us to better deal with our interactions with the actual world, similar to how we mentally construct colour, sound or solidity.
This would make the world unrecognisable and unimaginable to our daily experience. And looks anomalous to me, because if our experience changes, then something in the world changes, so why only conscious experience? And what causes my conscious experience to change? And if only our experience changes, rather than the world it represents, why do my tomato plants grow when I'm not looking at them?
Such questions require some explanatory theory about the actual ontological nature of the world and our relationship to it. And it would be hard to imagine a way to test such a theory.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
One sort of candidate is a religious person who know without question that there is a supernatural realm of being. Another is the sort of religious person who knows without question that the supernatural deity intervenes in history.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 16th, 2022, 8:44 amDo we have examples of folks doing ontology non-heuristically? I'm not sure.Belindi wrote: ↑January 16th, 2022, 8:20 am I understand by 'ontology' the same a you understand by 'ontology', just as you say above.
We already decided that a theory of existence, and how we come to believe in that theory of existence, are intertwined . I claimed these are intertwined within subjective experiences.
Since subjective experiences are accessible only to the subject of the experiences , the modern conscience which is not vain of its own paltry knowledge, would regard its chosen theory of existence only heuristically.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023