Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Humans' time is limited like all species. However, my guess is that the kind of intelligence that has arisen in our species will extend far beyond the human era and, over deep time, far beyond the solar system. I think the process we are undergoing is metaphorically akin to us nearing the end of our larval form (where the focus is on consumption). We are heading towards the reproductive phase, where the focus will be on sending packets of information into the environment. When these "seeds" encounter suitable conditions, they will convert their new local materials into something like itself. For example, this process will start fairly soon, when machines sent to other worlds will use local materials to build mining equipment.

Just what the rest of the Universe needs, human intelligence!

Post-human intelligence. Huge difference. Like the difference between microbes and mammals.

[evolution]

[fimg][/fimg]

NOTHING. But you are completely FREE to come up with as many "examples" as you like.

Correct. There is no example of measuring time where the person is measuring something other than change or motion.

This appears to have absolutely NOTHING in relation to what I ACTUALLY said and talked about here.

To me, people do NOT measure 'time'. This is because, to me 'time' is just the name given to the act of measuring the duration between perceived events.

However, if you want to keep insisting that 'time' is some thing, which can be measured, then that is perfectly fine with me. Keep going with that, and then we will SEE where that ends up.

Remember views have to be able to be unified with absolutely EVERY thing else.

The claim isn't about how the person in question is thinking about it, by the way.

Okay. If you say so, then it must be so, correct?

It's about what they're doing whether they think about it that way or not.

And what they are doing is just measuring the duration between perceived events, from my perspective.

But, from your perspective, what they are doing is measuring 'time', itself. Which you claim is just change/motion, itself, correct?

[evolution]

TIme is identical to either/or/both phenomena.

Is this the absolute and irrefutable truth? Or, is this just a truth from your perspective?

[impermanence]

Motion is relative change of position of x, often (though not necessarily) with a connotation of it being a continuous/"flowing" relative change of position of x relative to something else, some y, without a requirement that the entity undergoing a relative change of position has any parts or changes in its parts or properties. In other words, aside from its change of position relative to y, x can move while being the identical x.

Its change in position is exactly what causes x to be different [as it changes its position, each point in the Universe is subject to differing forces].

So the two ideas are similar and sometimes overlap, but they can be differentiated, too. TIme is identical to either/or/both phenomena.

When you think about it, who else could have come with the concept of time other than human beings? Time is right up there with, 'representative democracy,' 'the more you buy, the more you save,' and other absurdities.

[Steve3007]

...Therefore, time becomes meaningless [which it is].

Is this a statement that you intend to be applicable to real life, or just something deep to say in a philosophy forum? In other words, does it actually have any effect on anything? Does it cause you to behave in ways that are different than if you proposed "time is meaningful"?

Do you consider there to be nothing meaningful in the world? If not, could you provide an example of something that you don't regard as meaningless, in contrast with time? I ask because I want to get some sense of what you mean by the word "meaningless".

[Steve3007]

Obviously if somebody says that such-and-such-a-thing is meaningless, they could mean a variety of different things, or a vaguely defined combination of things, or they might not really know what they mean. For example, they could simply be proposing that a word has no meaning of which they are aware. For example, I might say " 'zkillik' is meaningless" because I know of no meaning for the word "zkillik" (which I've just made up). Somebody might point out that, according to their understanding and that of lots of other people, a zkillik is a small semi-aquatic rodent. If that turns out to be true, and that the word has a history of being useful for passing practical information between people (for example by saying "Look out! There's a zkillik behind you!") then the word has meaning.

I think the word "time" has a history of being useful for passing practical information between people (e.g. "What time is it?"). Therefore, by at least that criterion, it is meaningful.

Do you think that the word "time" is meaningless as "zkillik" is?

[evolution]

Obviously if somebody says that such-and-such-a-thing is meaningless, they could mean a variety of different things, or a vaguely defined combination of things, or they might not really know what they mean. For example, they could simply be proposing that a word has no meaning of which they are aware. For example, I might say " 'zkillik' is meaningless" because I know of no meaning for the word "zkillik" (which I've just made up). Somebody might point out that, according to their understanding and that of lots of other people, a zkillik is a small semi-aquatic rodent. If that turns out to be true, and that the word has a history of being useful for passing practical information between people (for example by saying "Look out! There's a zkillik behind you!") then the word has meaning.

I think the word "time" has a history of being useful for passing practical information between people (e.g. "What time is it?"). Therefore, by at least that criterion, it is meaningful.

Do you think that the word "time" is meaningless as "zkillik" is?

ALL 'meaning' is just given.

So, if 'you' give the word 'time' (a) meaning, then that word would, obviously, not be 'meaning-less'.

Also, a word is only as 'meaning-full' or as 'meaning-less' in relation to whatever 'meaning' one is giving to another word.

Words, themselves, do NOT have NOR hold ANY 'meaning' AT ALL, in, and by, themselves. Only 'you', human beings, 'give' words meaning.

Words ONLY 'mean' what 'you' human beings give them. For example, the word 'time' ONLY means whatever 'you' give 'it'.

If, for example, you say; "What time is it?", but what you actually only mean is; Where are the two hands on that clock or watch, then that IS how much meaning, and the only meaning, you have given to that, human made up, word 'time'. However, you can give that word 'time' as much or as little meaning as you like, as well as give that word absolutely whatever meaning you like.

'You', the human being, are absolutely TOTALLY FREE to do this.

[Terrapin Station]

Motion is relative change of position of x, often (though not necessarily) with a connotation of it being a continuous/"flowing" relative change of position of x relative to something else, some y, without a requirement that the entity undergoing a relative change of position has any parts or changes in its parts or properties. In other words, aside from its change of position relative to y, x can move while being the identical x.

Its change in position is exactly what causes x to be different [as it changes its position, each point in the Universe is subject to differing forces].

Assume that there are elementary particles (or more generally, ontic simples). X is an elementary particle (ontic simple). X changes position relative to y. However, x, the elementary particle (ontic simple), hasn't changed. It has no parts that can vary (otherwise it wouldn't be an elementary particle (ontic simple)). It's still the same (particular) elementary particle (ontic simple). X's relationship to other things has changed, obviously, but x itself hasn't.

When you think about it, who else could have come with the concept of time other than human beings? Time is right up there with, 'representative democracy,' 'the more you buy, the more you save,' and other absurdities.

Well, because concepts are mental phenomena. So we need a sentient being--something capable of mentality--to come up with any concept. But it's a rudimentary error to conflate concepts with what they're concepts of or in response to.

In other words, this is like saying, "Who else could have come up with a painting than human beings?" Sure, because painting is a technological development, paintings are artifacts, etc. But we wouldn't want to conflate (at least representational) paintings with what they're paintings of, especially not so that we're mislead into believing that only the painting exists (or existed).

[Terrapin Station]

[fimg][/fimg]

Correct. There is no example of measuring time where the person is measuring something other than change or motion.

This appears to have absolutely NOTHING in relation to what I ACTUALLY said and talked about here.

That would only be the case if your comment wasn't a response to what I asked you. Which would be a rude way to respond that I wouldn't bother with. If I ask a question, think about it and try to answer it.

[Terrapin Station]

Oops re the "mislead" typo in the second to last post. Should have been "misled."

[Sculptor1]

Just what the rest of the Universe needs, human intelligence!

Post-human intelligence. Huge difference. Like the difference between microbes and mammals.

SInce there is no such thing as "post-human" intelligence, or at least you or I can have no knowledge of it, you are not qualified to assess the degree of difference it might have, from human intelligence.
It's just a fantasy.

[Sculptor1]

Obviously if somebody says that such-and-such-a-thing is meaningless, they could mean a variety of different things, or a vaguely defined combination of things, or they might not really know what they mean. For example, they could simply be proposing that a word has no meaning of which they are aware. For example, I might say " 'zkillik' is meaningless" because I know of no meaning for the word "zkillik" (which I've just made up). Somebody might point out that, according to their understanding and that of lots of other people, a zkillik is a small semi-aquatic rodent. If that turns out to be true, and that the word has a history of being useful for passing practical information between people (for example by saying "Look out! There's a zkillik behind you!") then the word has meaning.

I think the word "time" has a history of being useful for passing practical information between people (e.g. "What time is it?"). Therefore, by at least that criterion, it is meaningful.

Do you think that the word "time" is meaningless as "zkillik" is?

Meaning only inheres in the person who knows. No word has inherent meaning of itself.
ZKillik is actually a Swahili word for confusion.

[evolution]

[fimg][/fimg]

This appears to have absolutely NOTHING in relation to what I ACTUALLY said and talked about here.

That would only be the case if your comment wasn't a response to what I asked you. Which would be a rude way to respond that I wouldn't bother with. If I ask a question, think about it and try to answer it.

I have ALREADY responded to YOUR ACTUAL question. So, I ALREADY ANSWERED IT, which can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVEN above.

You, however and unfortunately, 'tried to' TWIST AROUND what I ACTUALLY said, so that it would appear to conform to YOUR ALREADY HELD ONTO VIEWS and BELIEFS.

You BELIEVE that 'time' IS change/motion. So, you ONLY SEE what conforms with this VIEW/BELIEF.

You are thus NOT able to LOOK AT and SEE CLEARLY what I am ACTUALLY saying, pointing out, and talking about here.

Remember you are FREE to BELIEVE whatever you WANT to BELIEVE, but just because 'you' BELIEVE some 'thing', then this does NOT make what 'you' BELIEVE necessarily true AT ALL.

You have even written that:
TIme is identical to either/or/both phenomena. [that is; motion and/or change]

I then asked you the clarifying question, [which you, once again, FAILED to answer]
Is this the absolute and irrefutable truth? Or, is this just a truth from your perspective?

SEE, IF you had ALREADY ANSWERED this question Honestly AND OPENLY, then we could have ALREADY 'moved along'.

BUT, unfortunately, we are STUCK where we are now, and that is with 'you' 'trying' all sorts of things to 'try to' "justify" your ALREADY gained and well maintained views or beliefs.

[Sy Borg]

Post-human intelligence. Huge difference. Like the difference between microbes and mammals.

SInce there is no such thing as "post-human" intelligence, or at least you or I can have no knowledge of it, you are not qualified to assess the degree of difference it might have, from human intelligence.
It's just a fantasy.

Nope, it's just logic.Try using it sometime. It's much more interesting than grumping around the place like a losing chess player who cannot think more than one move ahead.

Either humans are the pinnacle of evolution - the divine, the ultimate, the supreme living beings possible - or evolution will continue. We all might die out first but, with eight billion of us and the kind of technology that protects the wealthiest, I think the technologically enabled have a great chance of surviving whatever kills most of us. You can even see clear differences today, where an elderly, obese man who lives on junk food and who holds a hugely stressful job, shrugged off COVID in just three days - a disease that has killed millions of younger and healthier people. The gaps between rich and poor are widening rapidly.

[Terrapin Station]

So is there an example of anyone measuring something as time where what's being measured isn't change of motion?