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

[Sculptor1]

It is just that when time is considered a conjuration by the mind, why not space as well?

I did not intend to imply anything about time or the validity of the statement in the OP, my question was merely intended to address the validity of the reasoning in the OP.

Just because all our sensible experience is that which is "conjured" by the mind, does not mean that time and space are not real.
In fact we only have our sensible ideas upon which to form ANY sense/idea of reality.

So what is your point here?

[psyreporter]

Just because all our sensible experience is that which is "conjured" by the mind, does not mean that time and space are not real.
In fact we only have our sensible ideas upon which to form ANY sense/idea of reality.

So what is your point here?

The OP argues the following:

From that model, if time is static and space does not exist, how we conceptualize the passing of time is merely conjured in our own minds. Nowhere and Everywhere become obsolete, the only true appreciation is that of our present moment, NOW... In other words, somewhere!

If time is to be considered eternal NOW, would Somewhere be a valid concept? This is the only aspect that I intended to address (the reasoning, not the statement).

[Terrapin Station]

It is just that when time is considered a conjuration by the mind, why not space as well?

I did not intend to imply anything about time or the validity of the statement in the OP, my question was merely intended to address the validity of the reasoning in the OP.

Ah . . .

Hopefully folks would quickly realize the foolishness of thinking that time or space are only mental creations, though.

[Terrapin Station]

Just because all our sensible experience is that which is "conjured" by the mind

Sometimes this board seems like a cult of people who believe this.

I can't be the only person here who doesn't believe this, can I?

[Terrapin Station]

Just because all our sensible experience is that which is "conjured" by the mind, does not mean that time and space are not real.
In fact we only have our sensible ideas upon which to form ANY sense/idea of reality.

So what is your point here?

The OP argues the following:

From that model, if time is static and space does not exist, how we conceptualize the passing of time is merely conjured in our own minds. Nowhere and Everywhere become obsolete, the only true appreciation is that of our present moment, NOW... In other words, somewhere!

If time is to be considered eternal NOW, would Somewhere be a valid concept? This is the only aspect that I intended to address (the reasoning, not the statement).

The initial post suggests that the topic creator has an IQ of about 20.

I think the most valuable thing to do is to point that out, rather than pretending that the initial post wasn't saying something stupid. Philosophy isn't aided by pretending that someone hasn't said something stupid when they have.

[Sculptor1]

Just because all our sensible experience is that which is "conjured" by the mind, does not mean that time and space are not real.
In fact we only have our sensible ideas upon which to form ANY sense/idea of reality.

So what is your point here?

The OP argues the following:

From that model, if time is static and space does not exist, how we conceptualize the passing of time is merely conjured in our own minds. Nowhere and Everywhere become obsolete, the only true appreciation is that of our present moment, NOW... In other words, somewhere!

If time is to be considered eternal NOW, would Somewhere be a valid concept? This is the only aspect that I intended to address (the reasoning, not the statement).

Events are successions of action.
Without time there is no event.
Without event there is no space.
There is time and space. They are not the same. They are not on the same page. They do different things, and occupy different conceptual realms.
If you try to take one on the same terms as the other you are going to get confused.
This thread is an example of that confusion.

[Sculptor1]

Just because all our sensible experience is that which is "conjured" by the mind

Sometimes this board seems like a cult of people who believe this.

I can't be the only person here who doesn't believe this, can I?

What is true is that ALL our sensible experience is a thing conjured by the mind.
So some take that to mean that they are only a mind, and that there is no cause for this conjuration.
What is laughable is that they want to share this incoherent position with others whom they have to assume are also only mere conjurations of their own mind.
Since us - the others - are only conjurations, it begs the question why are they asking us, since we are without substance!!!

[Terrapin Station]

Sometimes this board seems like a cult of people who believe this.

I can't be the only person here who doesn't believe this, can I?

What is true is that ALL our sensible experience is a thing conjured by the mind.
So some take that to mean that they are only a mind, and that there is no cause for this conjuration.
What is laughable is that they want to share this incoherent position with others whom they have to assume are also only mere conjurations of their own mind.
Since us - the others - are only conjurations, it begs the question why are they asking us, since we are without substance!!!

The problems are (a) with the word "conjure" in the way you're using it--"it's a thing conjured by the mind." That suggests that it's created by the mind, (b) the word "mind" easily (though not necessarily) suggests some sort of "coloration" aside from simple awareness, and (c) much like Prof Bulani (apologies if I'm getting his name wrong), it suggests that the mind does something, and then we become aware of what the mind has done.

[Sculptor1]

What is true is that ALL our sensible experience is a thing conjured by the mind.
So some take that to mean that they are only a mind, and that there is no cause for this conjuration.
What is laughable is that they want to share this incoherent position with others whom they have to assume are also only mere conjurations of their own mind.
Since us - the others - are only conjurations, it begs the question why are they asking us, since we are without substance!!!

The problems are (a) with the word "conjure" in the way you're using it--"it's a thing conjured by the mind." That suggests that it's created by the mind,

No apologies.
Since the "IT" in this context is NOT the sensible world but our "sensible experience".

... (b) the word "mind" easily (though not necessarily) suggests some sort of "coloration" aside from simple awareness, and (c) much like Prof Bulani (apologies if I'm getting his name wrong), it suggests that the mind does something, and then we become aware of what the mind has done.

What the mind does IS what we are aware of. The construction of our understanding of the world is not unbias and neutral, we see through out previous experience. What we see is laden with what we expect to see.
This explains the paucity of witness statements, and the reason why people disagree about the most simple facts of the world.

[Terrapin Station]

What the mind does IS what we are aware of. The construction of . . . the world is not unbias and neutral, we see through out previous experience. What we see is laden with what we expect to see.
This explains the paucity of witness statements, and the reason why people disagree about the most simple facts of the world.

I don't at all agree that "what the mind does is what we're (solely) aware of."

Something I just wrote this morning in response to Greta is pertinent here, too:

Well, first we need to be careful that we're talking about perceptions there rather than things we do aside from perception, such as concept-application, opinion or value-application, etc.

And secondly, we need to realize that people can't literally share their perceptions with us. They can only talk about them, or do things like draw them, create other artworks about them, etc. And there, it might be an issue of using language differently, it might be an issue of drawing ability (assuming we're all trying to be photorealistic), etc. At any rate, we can't literally experience anyone else's perception.

Aside from that, perceptions will differ from person to person if only because their spatio-temporal situatedness necessarily differs. [Adding for emphasis here: no two people can possibly have the same perception.]

There are other reasons that perceptions can differ, too--there can be various problems with perceptual faculties, but it's important to keep in mind that many other things might be going on, too.

Those differences do not at all suggest that we're only aware of something our minds are doing rather than being aware of the world.

[Sculptor1]

What the mind does IS what we are aware of. The construction of . . . the world is not unbias and neutral, we see through out previous experience. What we see is laden with what we expect to see.
This explains the paucity of witness statements, and the reason why people disagree about the most simple facts of the world.

I don't at all agree that "what the mind does is what we're (solely) aware of."

Something I just wrote this morning in response to Greta is pertinent here, too:

Well, first we need to be careful that we're talking about perceptions there rather than things we do aside from perception, such as concept-application, opinion or value-application, etc.

And secondly, we need to realize that people can't literally share their perceptions with us. They can only talk about them, or do things like draw them, create other artworks about them, etc. And there, it might be an issue of using language differently, it might be an issue of drawing ability (assuming we're all trying to be photorealistic), etc. At any rate, we can't literally experience anyone else's perception.

Aside from that, perceptions will differ from person to person if only because their spatio-temporal situatedness necessarily differs. [Adding for emphasis here: no two people can possibly have the same perception.]

There are other reasons that perceptions can differ, too--there can be various problems with perceptual faculties, but it's important to keep in mind that many other things might be going on, too.

Those differences do not at all suggest that we're only aware of something our minds are doing rather than being aware of the world.

I think you misunderstand my meaning.
I said "What the mind does IS what we are aware of.".
Meaning they are the same thing, hence the capitalised "IS". There is no dualism here.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't at all agree that "what the mind does is what we're (solely) aware of."

Something I just wrote this morning in response to Greta is pertinent here, too:



Those differences do not at all suggest that we're only aware of something our minds are doing rather than being aware of the world.

I think you misunderstand my meaning.
I said "What the mind does IS what we are aware of.".
Meaning they are the same thing, hence the capitalised "IS". There is no dualism here.

Right, but I don't agree with that. Say you have a fly in your room. Well, what the fly does is what you're aware of if you're watching the fly.

[Sculptor1]

I think you misunderstand my meaning.
I said "What the mind does IS what we are aware of.".
Meaning they are the same thing, hence the capitalised "IS". There is no dualism here.

Right, but I don't agree with that. Say you have a fly in your room. Well, what the fly does is what you're aware of if you're watching the fly.

False analogy
Rubbish. A fly is not my mind is it.

[Terrapin Station]

Right, but I don't agree with that. Say you have a fly in your room. Well, what the fly does is what you're aware of if you're watching the fly.

False analogy
Rubbish. A fly is not my mind is it.

I'm stumped why you're calling that an analogy. I'm giving you an example.

The fly is not in your mind, right. Hence what you're aware of isn't your mind. It's the fly.

[Sculptor1]

False analogy
Rubbish. A fly is not my mind is it.

I'm stumped why you're calling that an analogy. I'm giving you an example.

The fly is not in your mind, right. Hence what you're aware of isn't your mind. It's the fly.

Like I said - a poor analogy.