The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Felix » May 8th, 2019, 7:11 pm

Tamminen: "As I said, first: there is no such thing as a real event in my infinite past, that would be absurd, and second: even if there were, there cannot be a road from that event to where I am now, a temporal series of real events from real infinite past to my real present."

To understand what you're saying, I must first understand the terms you're using. When you say "real event" do you mean a physical event, an event in spaciotemporal reality?

And who is the "I" in that sentence, the mortal subject (self) called Tamminen?
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
ubojico
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: April 11th, 2019, 10:54 am

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by ubojico » May 8th, 2019, 7:38 pm

I disagree with the notion that having infinite past would mean I couldn't have gotten to now. On the contrary, me being consience now points to me being conscious forever, as I would have ceased being conscious by now if I started at some point.

Time exists only as our perception. Even falling asleep cancels time and we can sense what it is like not to be conscious. It is a sudden jump into consciousness again, wheter 2 hours or 12 hours passed. Doesn't matter it took billions of years for life to occur, I became conscious in an universe's instant and will continue to be so forever.

BigBango
Posts: 343
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by BigBango » May 8th, 2019, 8:05 pm

Felix certainly asks the right questions. Atta and Tamminem seem stuck in an aspect of GSC that I experienced in the 60's during acid trips. Sure, I experienced the world as it is one unchanging thing. Did that make me somehow philosophically superior? Not really. What it did was short circuit my nervous system which actually acts as a reductive filter of sensory perception. Aldous Huxley, who had a lot of experience with LSD, claimed that the nervous system actually reduces the amount of information available to us so that we could focus on just certain aspects of reality.

Our subjective consciousness, being constricted in this way, puts us in the position of a self that is a co-creator of the reality of the future. On some higher level, that Atta speaks of, the world is complete, past and future, but it is not without our individual role in its completion. There is no point to "philosophy" without an admission that we each have a say in how the world becomes what it is.

The only caveat I can see in what I have just said comes from Joseph Campbell and the roll of myths or Jung's collective identification of archetypes. We, as individuals, do not seem to be able to create for ourselves what ends up making us feel as if we are taking the right path in life. We seem to inherit these archetypes that we are born with. We seem to love adventure and deep connections to family and tribe. We do not choose those connections through philosophical thought, they are inborn.

My thesis looks to what are the origins of those archetypes. I don't think they come from quantum fluctuations of the "nothingness". I think they come from galaxies of civilizations that fled the impending big crunch, Big Bang of their galactic black hole centers of their universe.

Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Tamminen » May 9th, 2019, 3:02 am

Felix wrote:
May 8th, 2019, 7:11 pm
To understand what you're saying, I must first understand the terms you're using. When you say "real event" do you mean a physical event, an event in spaciotemporal reality?
I mean a real concrete experience in my real concrete past.
Felix wrote:
May 8th, 2019, 7:11 pm
And who is the "I" in that sentence, the mortal subject (self) called Tamminen?
No, the immortal subject, the one and only, with its past and future, who happens to be Tamminen now.
ubojico wrote:
May 8th, 2019, 7:38 pm
...me being consience now points to me being conscious forever
If we look at it closely, my being conscious forever is impossible in the past, but necessary in the future. This may seem strange at first sight, but is logically consistent. Our need to see symmetry everywhere leads us astray here.
ubojico wrote:
May 8th, 2019, 7:38 pm
I would have ceased being conscious by now if I started at some point
If I started at some point and have had, say, 548 662 687 354 experiences by now, during different individual lives, I am here after all those experiences. The figures just grow all the time. I cannot see any other way to avoid the paradox of infinite past. I think Kant had a similar case in his antinomies.
ubojico wrote:
May 8th, 2019, 7:38 pm
Time exists only as our perception.
Right. Subjective time consists of successive experiences. But my past is not the same as my perception of my past. My past consists of concrete experiences. And here comes the paradox of infinite past.
BigBango wrote:
May 8th, 2019, 8:05 pm
Atta and Tamminem seem stuck in an aspect of GSC that I experienced in the 60's during acid trips.
Perhaps you noticed that I do not share Atla's view on this.

Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Tamminen » May 9th, 2019, 3:19 am

ubojico wrote:
May 8th, 2019, 7:38 pm
...if I started at some point
The "point" is of course not any spatiotemporal point but the beginning of subjective time, the absolutely first experience, the start of being in general.

Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Tamminen » May 9th, 2019, 4:20 pm

ubojico wrote:
May 8th, 2019, 7:38 pm
Doesn't matter it took billions of years for life to occur, I became conscious in an universe's instant and will continue to be so forever.
This is exactly what I am saying, isn't it? I became conscious at some instant and this instant is the beginning of subjective time. Never mind the cosmological evolution before that. Physical time has its own problems.

Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Tamminen » May 10th, 2019, 3:46 pm

To clarify still more what is the difference between subjective past and future:

If I say that there has been a finite number of subjective events by now, this is rational because there has been the first event and a finite number of real events have really happened since that first event. A real beginning is rational. Now if someone asks what was before the first event, the answer is: nothing, because that was the beginning of time.

If I say that there has been an infinite number of subjective events by now, this is not rational because it means that an infinite number of real events have really happened since...what? There would be no real beginning, and that is not rational. It would make reality fundamentally irrational and absurd. Therefore I think subjective time has a beginning. But this is a metaphysical hypothesis of course.

As to future, to say that subjective future is endless we need not presuppose an infinite number of real future events, because all we need is to say that there is an event after each event so that there is no end of events. And if there were an end of events, there would be nothingness, which is self-contradictory. I think Felix, ubojico and I agree on this, I am not sure about Atla.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Felix » May 10th, 2019, 4:12 pm

Tamminen said: "Subjective time consists of successive experiences. But my past is not the same as my perception of my past."

An idealist would say they are the same (perception = concrete experience).

I asked: "who is the "I" in that sentence, the mortal subject (self) called Tamminen?"

Tamminen replied: "No, the immortal subject, the one and only, with its past and future, who happens to be Tamminen now."

Yes, Tamminen, what I'll call the temporal hologram of the Immortal Subject, had a beginning, but that does not mean that the Immortal Subject did. And this supposes that Tamminen has some sort of individual subtle body or soul that transcends physical death - and birth. And if he transcends birth and death, what need has he of a concrete starting point?

Big Bango said: "My thesis looks to what are the origins of those archetypes."

Jung's collective unconscious is also a superconscious, mythical archetypes are a symbolic means to express, or attempt to express, inexpressible concepts.

Big Bango: "I think they come from galaxies of civilizations that fled the impending big crunch, Big Bang of their galactic black hole centers of their universe."

It is incongruous to make the survival of consciousness dependant on technology conceived by consciousness.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

BigBango
Posts: 343
Joined: March 15th, 2018, 6:15 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by BigBango » May 10th, 2019, 11:20 pm

I apologize to Tamminen. I did not mean to put you in the same pot as ubojico. I, of course, agree with you on many points. I have not really studied ubojico.
Felix wrote:
May 10th, 2019, 4:12 pm
Tamminen said: "Subjective time consists of successive experiences. But my past is not the same as my perception of my past."

An idealist would say they are the same (perception = concrete experience).
Tamminen is wrong here. One does not perceive his past. One remembers his past perceptions. Remembering ones perceptions is not the same as perceiving reality.
Felix wrote:
May 10th, 2019, 4:12 pm
Yes, Tamminen, what I'll call the temporal hologram of the Immortal Subject, had a beginning, but that does not mean that the Immortal Subject did. And this supposes that Tamminen has some sort of individual subtle body or soul that transcends physical death - and birth. And if he transcends birth and death, what need has he of a concrete starting point?
Felix, There are two different forms of death. Being sucked into the singularity of a black hole is one kind of death we may never know its outcome. Tamminen does have a lower level fractal body and mind that survives other forms of death. I would assume that the "subject" has always existed and its subjective experience simply traces it's adventures in this world, your hologram. It must develop a certain technological prowess, through its socialization, to be able to avoid catastrophes like our impending collision with the Andromeda galaxy. It must take control over the possibility of our permanent termination due to whatever cosmic forces it encounters and this is part of the adventure of life. It is just so lame to accept as inevitable whatever cosmic forces throw at us.
Felix wrote:
May 10th, 2019, 4:12 pm

It is incongruous to make the survival of consciousness dependant on technology conceived by consciousness.
I think we must learn to accept the things we need to do to avoid black hole consumption!

Atla
Posts: 1257
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Atla » May 11th, 2019, 12:01 am

Felix wrote:
May 8th, 2019, 2:25 pm
Atla: "There is no coming into existence, or first event in the chain, when time is a loop. That's the point."

As Tamminen explained, time is linear by it's very nature. Nonlinear time is an oxymoron, like saying "timeless time." Conceiving of it as an eternal loop would not change that, but give you something like Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence.

"when they can't even step outside linear thinking"

If I do that, what is it you think I would realize, that everything that can possibly happen has, so to speak, already happened? Is that the point of your argument?
Yes, linear one-level thinking leads to the oxymoron you speak of. Eternal recurrence is also linear thinking.

I'd say I'm concieving time on several ways or levels: "subjective time" (refuted), Newtonian absolute time (refuted), Einsteinian spacetime, quantum timelessness, timelessness due to possible circularity, eternal present.

The last 3 are more fundamental, so of course time is basically "timeless". Past present and future (of subjective time / Newtonian time / Einsteinian spacetime) all exists simultaneoulsy in the eternal present, so in a sense everything has already happened.

Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Tamminen » May 11th, 2019, 2:56 am

Felix wrote:
May 10th, 2019, 4:12 pm
An idealist would say they are the same (perception = concrete experience).
I have had real, concrete experiences in my past. Now I remember some of them or think about them. They have been what they have been, independent of my remembering them. An idealist's reality may consist of perceptions, but those perceptions themselves, as events of perceiving, are real quite independent of anyone's remembering or perceiving them.
Felix wrote:
May 10th, 2019, 4:12 pm
Yes, Tamminen, what I'll call the temporal hologram of the Immortal Subject, had a beginning, but that does not mean that the Immortal Subject did. And this supposes that Tamminen has some sort of individual subtle body or soul that transcends physical death - and birth. And if he transcends birth and death, what need has he of a concrete starting point?
I have a more concrete and naturalistic view on this. I try to avoid mysticism.
Felix wrote:
May 10th, 2019, 4:12 pm
It is incongruous to make the survival of consciousness dependant on technology conceived by consciousness.
Right.
BigBango wrote:
May 10th, 2019, 11:20 pm
One does not perceive his past. One remembers his past perceptions. Remembering ones perceptions is not the same as perceiving reality.
I do not see how this contradicts what I am saying.
Atla wrote:
May 11th, 2019, 12:01 am
...so in a sense everything has already happened
This is a very appealing mystical experience, but needs some logical analysis.

Just to clarify the concept of nothingness I have used: I said that before the first subjective event there was nothing. This is consistent because it does not contradict my eternal existence. I do not have to be there before my first experience. But nothingness in my future of course contradicts my eternal existence, because I have to be in the future. In this sense my past nothingness is nothingness only in relation to my present eternal existence, but my assumed future nothingness would be absolute nothingness and therefore self-contradictory.

Atla
Posts: 1257
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Atla » May 11th, 2019, 3:32 am

Tamminen wrote:
May 11th, 2019, 2:56 am
Just to clarify the concept of nothingness I have used: I said that before the first subjective event there was nothing. This is consistent because it does not contradict my eternal existence. I do not have to be there before my first experience. But nothingness in my future of course contradicts my eternal existence, because I have to be in the future. In this sense my past nothingness is nothingness only in relation to my present eternal existence, but my assumed future nothingness would be absolute nothingness and therefore self-contradictory.
Past and future should behave "symmetrically". How do you make the past non-absolute and the future absolute?

Our "first experience" is simply the first one we can recall from memory, but of course experiences go back further all the way. So it makes no sense to say that you (in the absolute sense) weren't there before the first memory in that human head.

Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Tamminen » May 11th, 2019, 4:15 am

Atla wrote:
May 11th, 2019, 3:32 am
Past and future should behave "symmetrically".
I think they don't.
Atla wrote:
May 11th, 2019, 3:32 am
How do you make the past non-absolute and the future absolute?
Also the past is absolute - down to the first experience "when" all started. Time started. Being started.
Atla wrote:
May 11th, 2019, 3:32 am
Our "first experience" is simply the first one we can recall from memory, but of course experiences go back further all the way. So it makes no sense to say that you (in the absolute sense) weren't there before the first memory in that human head.
It makes sense to say that I was not there before the first experience if that experience was the first experience in the absolute sense, which I am claiming here. I am not speaking of an individual's first experience, nor am I speaking of remembering, but the real, concrete existence of subjective events from the first event up to my present experience. This view may be controversial but it is logically consistent, and much less absurd than the view that subjective past is infinite.

Atla
Posts: 1257
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Atla » May 11th, 2019, 4:40 am

Tamminen wrote:
May 11th, 2019, 4:15 am
Atla wrote:
May 11th, 2019, 3:32 am
Past and future should behave "symmetrically".
I think they don't.
Atla wrote:
May 11th, 2019, 3:32 am
How do you make the past non-absolute and the future absolute?
Also the past is absolute - down to the first experience "when" all started. Time started. Being started.
Atla wrote:
May 11th, 2019, 3:32 am
Our "first experience" is simply the first one we can recall from memory, but of course experiences go back further all the way. So it makes no sense to say that you (in the absolute sense) weren't there before the first memory in that human head.
It makes sense to say that I was not there before the first experience if that experience was the first experience in the absolute sense, which I am claiming here. I am not speaking of an individual's first experience, nor am I speaking of remembering, but the real, concrete existence of subjective events from the first event up to my present experience. This view may be controversial but it is logically consistent, and much less absurd than the view that subjective past is infinite.
I don't think that beginning and asymmetry can ever be logical. Nor can the infinite past ever be logical. But there aren't really other options available in one-directional (non-circular) thinking. So we are forced to pick the one that seems less bad, and then rationalize it away. (To me, the infinite past seems less bad, but is still nonsense.)

Assuming that the world is logical (which may not be the case), the alternative is what I proposed, circularity. (Besides, I think that linear one-directional metaphysics was directly refuted by QM, but I won't go there now.)

Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: The Implications Of Generic Subjective Continuity

Post by Tamminen » May 11th, 2019, 8:30 am

Generic subjective continuity in a nutshell:

I have experience A. Then I have experience B that consists of the memory of A. Then I have experience C that has no reference to A or B. A and B make an individual subject that consists of personal subjective continuity. A, B and C are all part of generic subjective continuity, and from the perspective of C the individual AB is dead.

Post Reply