Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: November 22nd, 2021, 2:22 pm
Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
- Three subjective timelines exist: TLA, TLB, and TLC.(1)
- Statements 3, 10, and 11 make assertions about TLA.
- Statement 10 makes a claim about TLA that is false from O_B's perspective.
- Statement 10 does not make an assertion about TLB.
- Statement 11 does not make an assertion 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 an assertion about TLB.
Statement 13 makes an assertion 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
Great. This went to $h|t quickly.
- Thomyum2
- Posts: 366
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
I have to agree with TS here, the idea of being able to quantify 'subjective time' in terms of seconds or years or any other measure is meaningless without the objective and shared reference frame. There's no way to meaningfully compare the duration of any two periods of time subjectively. To say that my subjective time passes for an hour, for example, only means that I feel as if an hour as passed. I'm just putting my subjective experience in objective terms that another person can share in order to communicate that experience as best I can.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 19th, 2021, 9:23 pmTerrapin Station wrote: ↑December 18th, 2021, 4:32 pm Just noticed this post:
Neither statement there makes much sense to me. How would subjective time be an "absolute quantity" that doesn't depend on the reference frame?Actually, no it doesn't. S14 assumes that a particular subjective time is all there is. If "zero seconds" in S14 is objective time, then S14 doesn't follow from S13 at all.S13: Between m1 and m2, O_A's subjective time (STA) passes for zero seconds.
S14: Between m1 and m2, O_A is unconscious for zero seconds.
Statement S13 is true in all frames of reference.
Statement S14 follows naturally from statement S13.
...
First off, you'd not experience "zero seconds." That makes no sense. The mere fact that something is changing or moving is time occurring. You can't experience anything if there is no change/motion.
Secondly, O_B and 0_C are measuring 10 versus 20 years how, exactly?
Third, if from O_B and O_C's perspective, O_A is "unconscious for zero seconds" that means that we're saying that from those perspectives, O_A isn't unconscious, right?
It reminds me of a wonderful ending segment from a Star Trek TNG episode from many years ago where Data decides to test the adage that 'a watched pot never boils' and tells Riker that, according to his internal chronometer, the pot boils in exactly the same amount of time whether he is watching it or not. To which Riker replies 'try turning off your internal chronometer'. I think it illustrates the problem perfectly.
But all that said, I think what the OP (who will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong, as it's a little hard to follow from the logical argument) is trying to get at isn't so much that segments of time can be translated or compared between the objective and subjective realms, but rather that 'passage' of time itself is a purely subjective notion. I think this is an idea that was similarly explored by Henri Bergson in his development of the concepts of two kinds of time - a 'mathematical time' which is measured, and a 'real time' which is experienced.
I think there's something to this idea - that the measurement of time - whether Einsteinian or Newtonian - describes a temporal 'distance' between observable events, and isn't something that ever 'passes' at all; whereas what we call the 'passage of time' isn't really an objective feature of the observable world, but is more appropriately thought of as feature of subjective experience. I'd suggest that this 'passage' of time is perhaps a result of the way our brains operate and that happens as a byproduct of the process of forming memories (This is an idea that physicist Carlo Rovelli has also explored in his recent book The Order of Time.) We could make an analogy to traveling over a physical distance where we observe the scenery 'change'. The scenery of course doesn't actually change, but rather appears to change, or 'pass' by us if you will, as a result of our own conscious activity.
— 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
It's not only that. I'd have no problem if we were saying that "Per Joe's subjective time, only ten minutes have passed, but to Bill's subjective time, a half-hour had past."Thomyum2 wrote: ↑December 21st, 2021, 3:13 pm I have to agree with TS here, the idea of being able to quantify 'subjective time' in terms of seconds or years or any other measure is meaningless without the objective and shared reference frame. There's no way to meaningfully compare the duration of any two periods of time subjectively. To say that my subjective time passes for an hour, for example, only means that I feel as if an hour as passed. I'm just putting my subjective experience in objective terms that another person can share in order to communicate that experience as best I can.
It makes much less (realistic/practical) sense to say that "Per Joe's subjective time, 10 years have passed, but to Bill's subjective time, 20 years have passed," because we don't have subjective senses of time that are years-long like that. We regularly "calibrate" our subjective senses of time with objective phenomena--observation of clocks and calendars, our daily/weekly routines, interacting with people around us as they age and do things like progress through school and so on.
Sure, we'll say, "Man, ten years have really seemed to fly by!" But we still realize it's been ten years because of those external calibrations.
That's different than someone being engaged in something for 20 minutes, say, where one person feels like it's only been ten minutes and another feels like it's been 30 minutes.
- 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
- 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
Re the rest of your post, by the way, there's simply a difference between notions/ideas/concepts/etc.--which are obviously subjective, and what they're notions/ideas/concepts of or in response to, which is often (though not necessarily always) objective. It's bizarre to me that this seems so often and so easily confused.Thomyum2 wrote: ↑December 21st, 2021, 3:13 pmI have to agree with TS here, the idea of being able to quantify 'subjective time' in terms of seconds or years or any other measure is meaningless without the objective and shared reference frame. There's no way to meaningfully compare the duration of any two periods of time subjectively. To say that my subjective time passes for an hour, for example, only means that I feel as if an hour as passed. I'm just putting my subjective experience in objective terms that another person can share in order to communicate that experience as best I can.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 19th, 2021, 9:23 pmTerrapin Station wrote: ↑December 18th, 2021, 4:32 pm Just noticed this post:
Neither statement there makes much sense to me. How would subjective time be an "absolute quantity" that doesn't depend on the reference frame?Actually, no it doesn't. S14 assumes that a particular subjective time is all there is. If "zero seconds" in S14 is objective time, then S14 doesn't follow from S13 at all.S13: Between m1 and m2, O_A's subjective time (STA) passes for zero seconds.
S14: Between m1 and m2, O_A is unconscious for zero seconds.
Statement S13 is true in all frames of reference.
Statement S14 follows naturally from statement S13.
...
First off, you'd not experience "zero seconds." That makes no sense. The mere fact that something is changing or moving is time occurring. You can't experience anything if there is no change/motion.
Secondly, O_B and 0_C are measuring 10 versus 20 years how, exactly?
Third, if from O_B and O_C's perspective, O_A is "unconscious for zero seconds" that means that we're saying that from those perspectives, O_A isn't unconscious, right?
It reminds me of a wonderful ending segment from a Star Trek TNG episode from many years ago where Data decides to test the adage that 'a watched pot never boils' and tells Riker that, according to his internal chronometer, the pot boils in exactly the same amount of time whether he is watching it or not. To which Riker replies 'try turning off your internal chronometer'. I think it illustrates the problem perfectly.
But all that said, I think what the OP (who will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong, as it's a little hard to follow from the logical argument) is trying to get at isn't so much that segments of time can be translated or compared between the objective and subjective realms, but rather that 'passage' of time itself is a purely subjective notion. I think this is an idea that was similarly explored by Henri Bergson in his development of the concepts of two kinds of time - a 'mathematical time' which is measured, and a 'real time' which is experienced.
I think there's something to this idea - that the measurement of time - whether Einsteinian or Newtonian - describes a temporal 'distance' between observable events, and isn't something that ever 'passes' at all; whereas what we call the 'passage of time' isn't really an objective feature of the observable world, but is more appropriately thought of as feature of subjective experience. I'd suggest that this 'passage' of time is perhaps a result of the way our brains operate and that happens as a byproduct of the process of forming memories (This is an idea that physicist Carlo Rovelli has also explored in his recent book The Order of Time.) We could make an analogy to traveling over a physical distance where we observe the scenery 'change'. The scenery of course doesn't actually change, but rather appears to change, or 'pass' by us if you will, as a result of our own conscious activity.
Objectively, time is simply change, including motion. One can attempt to argue that there is no objective change or motion, a la Parmenides, or a la some idealist nonsense or other, but one would actually need to present the argument, and one would need to directly deal with objections to the argument instead of just ignoring them, just diverting, etc.
- Thomyum2
- Posts: 366
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
I think I see what you're saying, but for me it then begs the question: 'What is it that is changing?' The only thing that we can say is changing is that which is observed. So then is it the object under observation - the thing itself - that is changing, or is the subject that's perspective or position that is changing? It takes us right back to relativity where we look out the window of our train and think we are moving but then realize that it's the train next to us that the one actually moving. So where is the change taking place? In the object or the subject? So I think time can't be said to be purely an objective phenomenon - it requires both subject and an object. They're like two sides of the same coin.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2021, 10:29 am Re the rest of your post, by the way, there's simply a difference between notions/ideas/concepts/etc.--which are obviously subjective, and what they're notions/ideas/concepts of or in response to, which is often (though not necessarily always) objective. It's bizarre to me that this seems so often and so easily confused.
Objectively, time is simply change, including motion. One can attempt to argue that there is no objective change or motion, a la Parmenides, or a la some idealist nonsense or other, but one would actually need to present the argument, and one would need to directly deal with objections to the argument instead of just ignoring them, just diverting, etc.
— 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
Let's say that "@" represents the particles and "...." is just a representation of distance between them (which I'm using because if I try to use the space bar, the message board app will delete the spaces unfortunately)
So we have
@ .................@.............................@
as the spatial relation between the three particles
But then we have:
@...............@.....................@
and then:
@.............@.............@
then:
@..........@..........@
and so on.
The spatial relations are changing.
Those changes are objective, because we have three particles in our universe only, and no consciousness for subjectivity to even exist in our universe.
Time is identical to those changes above.
- Thomyum2
- Posts: 366
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
Understood, yes, but what you have given here is a universe which we can imagine because it resembles actual observations we've experienced in the real world. But it's just a mental picture of a universe, it's not a real universe. If you put three particles in a box, close the lid and aren't ever allowed to look, the only change that can happen is what we might imagine. A clock that you can't look at won't ever be able to tell you the time.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2021, 4:14 pm So say that we have a universe where only three particles exist.
Let's say that "@" represents the particles and "...." is just a representation of distance between them (which I'm using because if I try to use the space bar, the message board app will delete the spaces unfortunately)
So we have
@ .................@.............................@
as the spatial relation between the three particles
But then we have:
@...............@.....................@
and then:
@.............@.............@
then:
@..........@..........@
and so on.
The spatial relations are changing.
Those changes are objective, because we have three particles in our universe only, and no consciousness for subjectivity to even exist in our universe.
Time is identical to those changes above.
What you've described is a sequence of four observations and yes, time is identical to the change from each observation and the next. But without an observer - a subject - an observation can't be made. Time is a component of the observations, not just of the objects observed. Time may be objective, but only in the context of the act of making an observation, which requires a subject as well.
— Epictetus
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
- Thomyum2
- Posts: 366
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
I likely wouldn't if there was ever a chance that anyone could look in that box. But if no one can ever observe those particles again, then any one belief about them is equally valid as another.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 24th, 2021, 10:13 pm Let's try this:Why in the world would you believe something like that?
'Change' is a difference between observations - there is a change when we observe something multiple times and something that was observed is different in some way from one observation to the next. It's the 'then' in your example above, the separation between the observations, that is the time. But if we only have a single observation, or no observer, there can be no change. The act of observation is required to have time.
— 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's not answering the question. You're choosing a particular belief here. Why? You're not saying that it's just as likely that the particles in the box really are in motion. You're saying they're not. Why would you believe that if all beliefs are "equally valid"?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
I agree " But if we only have a single observation, or no observer, there can be no change. "Thomyum2 wrote: ↑December 26th, 2021, 9:11 pmI likely wouldn't if there was ever a chance that anyone could look in that box. But if no one can ever observe those particles again, then any one belief about them is equally valid as another.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 24th, 2021, 10:13 pm Let's try this:Why in the world would you believe something like that?
'Change' is a difference between observations - there is a change when we observe something multiple times and something that was observed is different in some way from one observation to the next. It's the 'then' in your example above, the separation between the observations, that is the time. But if we only have a single observation, or no observer, there can be no change. The act of observation is required to have time.
Three 'particles' in a box may change, and each know that they change, if each 'particle ' is capable of experiencing each other particle , in lieu of any other environmental possibility. Environment is the obverse of subjective experience. What amounts to environment, for an idealist, is amorphous possibility.
- 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
Why would we be adopting idealism though?Belindi wrote: ↑December 27th, 2021, 7:07 amI agree " But if we only have a single observation, or no observer, there can be no change. "Thomyum2 wrote: ↑December 26th, 2021, 9:11 pmI likely wouldn't if there was ever a chance that anyone could look in that box. But if no one can ever observe those particles again, then any one belief about them is equally valid as another.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 24th, 2021, 10:13 pm Let's try this:Why in the world would you believe something like that?
'Change' is a difference between observations - there is a change when we observe something multiple times and something that was observed is different in some way from one observation to the next. It's the 'then' in your example above, the separation between the observations, that is the time. But if we only have a single observation, or no observer, there can be no change. The act of observation is required to have time.
Three 'particles' in a box may change, and each know that they change, if each 'particle ' is capable of experiencing each other particle , in lieu of any other environmental possibility. Environment is the obverse of subjective experience. What amounts to environment, for an idealist, is amorphous possibility.
- Thomyum2
- Posts: 366
- Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James
Re: Time, Consciousness, and Unconsciousness
I'm not sure I understand how my beliefs are relevant to the thread topic. And to be honest, I'm not even sure I believe one way or the other in this case, I'm just trying to explore a line of thought and get perspectives on it.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 26th, 2021, 10:30 pmThat's not answering the question. You're choosing a particular belief here. Why? You're not saying that it's just as likely that the particles in the box really are in motion. You're saying they're not. Why would you believe that if all beliefs are "equally valid"?
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.
So in the context of the thread, I'm asking how is it possible to understand the idea that time passes in the absence of an active observer? It seems to me that time comes about as the product of the act of observation and isn't something that exists intrinsically. For example, if you look at your 3-particle example above again: the positions of those particles could be understood to be moving - i.e. getting closer to each other - to a stationary observer. But those same observations could be produced by three stationary particles if the observer was moving away from them. So the particles objectively are neither moving nor stationary outside of the context of observation or without knowing the relationship to an observer. That's why I'm suggesting that change or time is a component of observations, not of observed objects. It requires both the subjective and objective components. If you take the observer out of the equation, it eliminates the frame of reference, and then how can time remain or continue to pass in that universe that has no observer?
— Epictetus
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