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

[Tamminen]

Physical spacetime has a spatial component and a temporal component, but it has no spatial presence in the sense of "here" and no temporal present in the sense of "now". Only a conscious organism has a spatiotemporal location in the universe where it is "here and now". Therefore a subject's consciousness of the world belongs to a totally different category than matter, although matter belongs to its ontological structure.

My body is here and now because I experience it. When I am dead, my body is not here and now. Matter has no presence.

If you could look at my body from a distance of a billion light years, you could not say what its "here and now" is, even if you could describe it accurately. My presence is not my body. I am not my body. My brain does not think. I think with my brain in the same sense as I see with my eyes.

Now someone perhaps suggests that the presence arises from physical precenceless spacetime as its emergent property, but that sounds absurd.

[Halc]

Only a conscious organism has a spatiotemporal location in the universe where it is "here and now". Therefore...

How do you figure this? A cloud also has a 'here' and 'now' in the same way a conscious organism has. That it might not be aware of the fact doesn't change where or when it is. It isn't elsewhere. 'Therefore' your following conclusions seem unjustified.

My body is here and now because I experience it.

Your Monday body experiences Monday, not today. To use an presentist reference begs the view that there is such a reference, especially in a post opening with discussion of 'physical spacetime'. In that model, you are a worldline, and a worldline does not experience a here and now.

When I am dead, my body is not here and now. Matter has no presence.

It has no presence to you, or at least to your functioning processes. Matter (including other people) has just as much presence to itself as it ever did. Are you suggesting solipsism then? Not invalid to do so.

[Tamminen]

A cloud also has a 'here' and 'now' in the same way a conscious organism has.

A cloud is at location (x,y,z,t) but not here and now. I am here and now. You have your own here and now that I can observe if I am close enough. But the stone I am looking at has no presence of its own either in the sense of 'here' or in the sense of 'now'. This makes us different from stones and clouds.

In that model, you are a worldline, and a worldline does not experience a here and now.

I am here and now. Yesterday I had yesterday's here and now. But the cloud I am looking at has no 'here and now', and has never had any kind of presence in the sense I am speaking of that fundamental phenomenon.

Matter (including other people) has just as much presence to itself as it ever did.

How can matter have presence to itself? Other people have their own presence of course.

Are you suggesting solipsism then?

There are other people, you for instance. You have your presence but your pen has only your presence. Just to clarify what I mean by precence.

[Tamminen]

...a worldline does not experience a here and now.

Except for a conscious worldline, which is a succession of presences, also called experiential contents. This is what makes human history different from cosmic history: we speak of projects and intentions rather than brain processes. "Alea iacta est" refers to a decisive "here and now" of Caesar.

[Tamminen]

What is the "now" of a stone? It can only be defined in relation to an observer, and if that observer is far from the stone, the "now" of the stone cannot be defined, because it depends on the speed of the observer in relation to the stone, and if there is no observer, there is only the worldline of the stone without a "now" and without a "here". But if the stone were conscious, it would have its own succession of presences. This would be panpsychism.

All this means that the identity hypothesis is false, and so is property dualism, because matter without presence cannot generate presences. We must turn the picture upside down.

We are not accidental phenomena in the barren universe. The universe is our universe, our home. It is the playground for our relations with each other. And by 'we' I mean all the subjects of the world. But not clouds or stones - or computers.

[Wayne92587]

Mosesquine

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑
July 17th, 2018, 9:58 am
What was Billy's mind set when he threw the rock????


Mosesquine wrote;
It seems that you are confusing mental causation with the mind-body problems.

I am not confused, mental, Rationalization, illusions of Reality, Absolutely Bad Knowledge is the causation of the Mind-body problem, the Battle between the Spirit and the Flesh, mind and body, which leads to lunacy.

When the mind, rejects Materiality, the physical aspect of the mental, mind, the World of Reality, Individual begins to howl at the Moon.

[Wayne92587]

There are only two Entities that qualify as being a Duality.

God and Mankind, The Spirit of God and Spirit, Mind, the mentality of Mankind, He and She.

Both God and Man being Transcendental, able to transcend the Darkness of the Great Void,

Non-Existence.

[Halc]

I am here and now.

My point was that I couldn't think of anything (with a location) that wasn't at its own here and now. The terms seem to be a reference to information already known. Without that information, no new information is conveyed. So you say you are 'here', but I am no more informed of your location, and you say you are posting this entry 'now', which doesn't tell me when it was posted were it not for the date the site tacks onto the post. No clock has 'now' engraved on it rather than hands. Such a clock would indeed be more accurate than most, but would convey as much useful information as a GPS unit that always says only 'here'.

Yesterday I had yesterday's here and now.

OK, you see that 'now' is not a special time, and you mention other people, meaning 'here' is also not a privileged place. That sort of drives out the solipsistic definition.

But the stone I am looking at has no presence of its own either in the sense of 'here' or in the sense of 'now'. This makes us different from stones and clouds.
You have your presence but your pen has only your presence. Just to clarify what I mean by precence.

Here we differ. The stone/pen is very much present at its location I would think. If you misplace your wireless phone and hit the locator button and it is programmed to say "I am here!", you don't instinctively look in your pocket (which is your 'here'), but you look for the 'here' of the place from where the sound came. Yes, it is imitating a human by using those words, and it isn't one. But the thing is indeed located at its own 'here' and not the 'here' of any 'conscious organism'.

A cloud is at location (x,y,z,t)

4D coordinates, which is a point in spacetime. A cloud (or rock) might indeed be present at that point (event), but it is also at different coordinates, as are you (depending on your definition of 'you' which may or may not be a 4D model for one thing). All these things are worldlines, and one given state of a thing is reasonably represented by (x,y,z,t), but a state of a thing is not the whole thing, just a cross section of it.

In that model, you are a worldline, and a worldline does not experience a here and now.

I am here and now.

No, in the 4D model, only a given state is that state's here and now. If that state defines you, then you cannot make reference to yourself yesterday as that state is somebody else. If the yesterday state is also you and it experiences a different here and now, then there is no objective here and now that you experience since there are clearly different ones. This is not an invalid view, but probably not what you are pushing here.
You are probably pushing the 3D model around which the language is anchored, but that was supposedly not the concept you were discussing. Perhaps you think that the 4D model is incorrect. That's fine. It certainly doesn't much fit in with some of the assertions you are making, and science cannot falsify the 3D model.

...a worldline does not experience a here and now.

Except for a conscious worldline, which is a succession of presences, also called experiential contents.

The 4D worldline model has an ordering of events along the worldline. A 'succession' I suppose is a valid way of putting it. A worldline cannot consist of a series of ambiguously ordered events, or so physics says, but so semiotics doesn't say.

This is what makes human history different from cosmic history: we speak of projects and intentions rather than brain processes. "Alea iacta est" refers to a decisive "here and now" of Caesar.

??? Of what relevance is this to something's worldline? A pen also is a worldline with unambiguously ordered events, even if it may not have projects and intentions.

What is the "now" of a stone? It can only be defined in relation to an observer, and if that observer is far from the stone, the "now" of the stone cannot be defined, because it depends on the speed of the observer in relation to the stone, and if there is no observer, there is only the worldline of the stone without a "now" and without a "here".

That's all the human has as well. Just the worldline, with a completely undefined 'now' in relation to a sufficiently distant reference point, be there an observer there or not. Besides, I cannot observe anything 'now'. I can only observe some past state of it, and that observed past state is a fixed event from said distant reference point, regardless of the reference frame used at that point.

But if the stone were conscious, it would have its own succession of presences.

It may not be aware, but it still has a succession of events, some of which need a reaction now, dependent on measurement, yes, but not dependent on observation.

I think a semiotic thing is needed to designate a group of events as a worldline. I don't think the worldline view has any real objective meaning outside language. For example, what exactly connects Halc making this post to the Halc of 1980? Answer seems to be 'nothing', except for language convention. Perhaps you assert otherwise.

All this means that the identity hypothesis is false, and so is property dualism, because matter without presence cannot generate presences. We must turn the picture upside down.

What is the identity hypothesis? Forgive my ignorance. A quick search seems to be the brain=mind (monistic) view, but I don't see the term regularly used to be sure of that.

Does your model of identity hold up to the usual gamut of assaults? What is your model?

[Tamminen]

My point was that I couldn't think of anything (with a location) that wasn't at its own here and now. The terms seem to be a reference to information already known. Without that information, no new information is conveyed. So you say you are 'here', but I am no more informed of your location, and you say you are posting this entry 'now', which doesn't tell me when it was posted were it not for the date the site tacks onto the post. No clock has 'now' engraved on it rather than hands. Such a clock would indeed be more accurate than most, but would convey as much useful information as a GPS unit that always says only 'here'.

And my point was what makes a conscious presence different fom the "presence" of a material object. A material object has a "presence" only in relation to the genuine presence of an observer. In itself it has no presence at all. It is the original situation of a conscious being, and therefore it has no objective reference to anything outside of it. It is what makes us different from our instruments and the material objects in our universe. It is what makes us us.

Here we differ. The stone/pen is very much present at its location I would think. If you misplace your wireless phone and hit the locator button and it is programmed to say "I am here!", you don't instinctively look in your pocket (which is your 'here'), but you look for the 'here' of the place from where the sound came. Yes, it is imitating a human by using those words, and it isn't one. But the thing is indeed located at its own 'here' and not the 'here' of any 'conscious organism'.

I think we are misusing the word 'here' if our phones say they are "here". At least this is not the original meaning. And I am speaking of the original meaning now. As to your last sentence, the phone is located at a place which is in relation to the presence of its owner or the coordinate system we have made. Without such a reference point no one could say at which point of its wordline it is. And even if that were possible, it would not be its presence, only its location.

No, in the 4D model, only a given state is that state's here and now. If that state defines you, then you cannot make reference to yourself yesterday as that state is somebody else. If the yesterday state is also you and it experiences a different here and now, then there is no objective here and now that you experience since there are clearly different ones. This is not an invalid view, but probably not what you are pushing here.
You are probably pushing the 3D model around which the language is anchored, but that was supposedly not the concept you were discussing. Perhaps you think that the 4D model is incorrect. That's fine. It certainly doesn't much fit in with some of the assertions you are making, and science cannot falsify the 3D model.

It does not really matter if my yesterday's presence was me or someone else. What matters is whether the worlline is conscious or not, because consciouness is essentially a succession of experiential contents or presences in the original meaning of the term. What I am trying to say is that conscious and non-conscious processes are radically different.

A pen also is a worldline with unambiguously ordered events, even if it may not have projects and intentions.

A pen has no presence.

That's all the human has as well. Just the worldline, with a completely undefined 'now' in relation to a sufficiently distant reference point, be there an observer there or not. Besides, I cannot observe anything 'now'. I can only observe some past state of it, and that observed past state is a fixed event from said distant reference point, regardless of the reference frame used at that point.

Observing distant conscious events means observing presences: intentions, projects and so on. And these presences are fixed within themselves. The objecive "presence" of those events can only be determined in relation to some arbitrary coordinate system.

What is the identity hypothesis?

The brain/mind identity hypothesis with its various versions is being discussed on this thread especially by Consul and Anonymous66. I reject the materialistic starting point which seems to be what many participants have committed to without reflecting on this commitment. My starting point is the subject's consciousness of the world, a kind of a triadic structure from which none of the three components can be removed.

[Halc]

And my point was what makes a conscious presence different fom the "presence" of a material object.

Fine, but 'here' (in a discussion about spacetime) refers to (already known) location, not presence.
presence:
1 : the fact or condition of being present (now existing)
2 a : the part of space within the immediate vicinity
3 archaic : company 2a
4 : one that is present: such as
a : the actual person or thing that is present
b : something present of a visible or concrete nature
5 a : the bearing, carriage, or air of a person; especially : stately or distinguished bearing
b : a noteworthy quality of poise and effectiveness the actor's commanding presence
6 : something (such as a spirit) felt or believed to be present

You seem to be perhaps reaching for 6, although I could attribute all six meanings to a non-living object, although 'here' might be used in context of 1,2,4 or 6.

And even if that were possible, it would not be its presence, only its location.

Yes, exactly. In the 4D model, neither you nor the pen has a location.

It does not really matter if my yesterday's presence was me or someone else.

It matters if you say you have a location. It's why I don't want to use 'presence'. And the way you use presence, it would seem to matter very much if your yesterday version had the same precence as your current one or not. How can you say you did such and such yesterday if it wasn't you who did it? Physics seems mute on the topic.

What matters is whether the worlline is conscious or not, because consciouness is essentially a succession of experiential contents or presences in the original meaning of the term. What I am trying to say is that conscious and non-conscious processes are radically different.

Don't agree, but I understand.

What is the identity hypothesis?

The brain/mind identity hypothesis with its various versions is being discussed on this thread especially by Consul and Anonymous66. I reject the materialistic starting point which seems to be what many participants have committed to without reflecting on this commitment. My starting point is the subject's consciousness of the world, a kind of a triadic structure from which none of the three components can be removed.[/quote]OK, thought so. Haven't read most of the posts. I would have said body/mind identity since brain is just part of it, and even then not really conscious in absence of nomena, whatever its nature.

I jumped on your case in particular due to the first comment I quoted about a conscious thing having a location (in spacetime) that nothing else does. This is just false. You don't have that anymore than does a rock. Ah, but you get around this by defining 'I' as something non-physical, which just begs all your conclusions, and doesn't really disprove any contrary view. And this is coming from me, who is a few steps short of an idealist.

[Tamminen]

It matters if you say you have a location. It's why I don't want to use 'presence'. And the way you use presence, it would seem to matter very much if your yesterday version had the same precence as your current one or not. How can you say you did such and such yesterday if it wasn't you who did it? Physics seems mute on the topic.

I have a location, or many locations, or a worldline, but also presence, and my presence is something much more fundamental than my location. I can be at location x or location y along my timeline seen from the origo of a well-defined coordinate system, but at each point I am also present if I am a conscious being. When I said that it does not matter if I was someone else yesterday, I meant that a presence is a presence independent of whose presence is in question, as long it is a conscious being. What makes the identity of an individual subject is another question. So presence is always subjective, whereas location is objective. But also the bodies of subjects have their worldlines and locations on arbitrary reference frames.

I think we have more or less forgotten ourselves, our existence, and its fundamental role in the structure of reality. There is no universe in itself, independent of subjects. The universe is a community of subjects. The basic structure of reality is: (1) the subject's (2) consciousness of (3) the world. None of these three components can be removed without destroying everything. Of course the being of the world does not depend on the being of any individual subject, but it depends on the being of the community of subjects, without which the being of the world loses its meaning, reason of being and, if we think of it to the bitter end, its very being.

In the above structure the world is what we usually call nature, everything we meet around us and get to know by empirical means. Consciousness is what I have called 'presence' in these posts. It is always a subject's presence. Therefore it is also private, which is another of its essential properties. So what makes the being of a subject totally different from the being of a non-conscious object is that a subject is present and its being is private. But also private worlds can communicate with each other, as we are here doing.

I jumped on your case in particular due to the first comment I quoted about a conscious thing having a location (in spacetime) that nothing else does. This is just false. You don't have that anymore than does a rock. Ah, but you get around this by defining 'I' as something non-physical, which just begs all your conclusions, and doesn't really disprove any contrary view. And this is coming from me, who is a few steps short of an idealist.

As I said above, a conscious being has a location, which is not different from the location of a non-conscious being, but it has also its own inner presence, which is something altogether different. I think you misunderstood me here.

[Tamminen]

I jumped on your case in particular due to the first comment I quoted about a conscious thing having a location (in spacetime) that nothing else does. This is just false. You don't have that anymore than does a rock.

I am not sure if I have been clear enough. To sum up:

Only conscious beings are present in the double meaning of the word as 'here' and 'now'.
Non-conscious and conscious beings have a spatiotemporal location in relation to the presences of conscious beings.

I still wonder how you can apply the concept of 'presence' defined as 'here' and 'now' to your pen. Your pen has a location at your presence, but it has no presence of its own.

My standpoint is subjective, following the tradition from Descartes to Kant, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and so on. None of them asked how the being of consciousness can be explained from the being of matter. They knew what consciousness is. And so do we all. We have only forgotten it.

[Halc]

I think we have more or less forgotten ourselves, our existence, and its fundamental role in the structure of reality. There is no universe in itself, independent of subjects. The universe is a community of subjects. The basic structure of reality is: (1) the subject's (2) consciousness of (3) the world. None of these three components can be removed without destroying everything.

Oddly enough, I agree with this wording, but probably not with how you are using some of the terms. In particular, I have a very loose definition of consciousness. If a subject has a relation with the world, that is consciousness at the most basic level. It makes humans nothing fundamentally special. A rock makes a fine subject, as does a unicorn.

Of course the being of the world does not depend on the being of any individual subject, but it depends on the being of the community of subjects, without which the being of the world loses its meaning, reason of being and, if we think of it to the bitter end, its very being.

The whole community of subjects bit is shaky. For a subject to define reality, there becomes a sort of solipsistic relationship. (I said I was borderline idealistic). So a different subject defines a different reality, only part of which is shared with another subject. Just how I see things is all. Not trying to convince you of this.

In the above structure the world is what we usually call nature, everything we meet around us and get to know by empirical means. Consciousness is what I have called 'presence' in these posts. It is always a subject's presence. Therefore it is also private, which is another of its essential properties.

Again, I have no problem with that. But the next part talks about non-conscious objects, which in my view are things that don't relate to any other thing. Can't really think of an example.

I still wonder how you can apply the concept of 'presence' defined as 'here' and 'now' to your pen. Your pen has a location at your presence, but it has no presence of its own.

I am using the first definition of presence. The pen exists as a worldline, and a temporal cross section through that worldline has a location (x,y,z,t), and the pen is present at that location. It is not elsewhere in that cross section, but is perhaps elsewhere in a different cross section. Nothing more complicated than a simple statement that a thing is where the thing is.

[Tamminen]

A rock makes a fine subject, as does a unicorn.

So you think rocks and unicorns have experiences? Or is experiencing something else?

The whole community of subjects bit is shaky. For a subject to define reality, there becomes a sort of solipsistic relationship. (I said I was borderline idealistic). So a different subject defines a different reality, only part of which is shared with another subject. Just how I see things is all. Not trying to convince you of this.

A subject indeed has a kind of a solipsistic relationship to the world, but what I am saying is that if there is no single subject in the universe, has never been and will never be, there is no sense and no justification in saying that there is a universe at all.

Again, I have no problem with that. But the next part talks about non-conscious objects, which in my view are things that don't relate to any other thing. Can't really think of an example.

So you think a rock is a conscious subject? Or a non-conscious subject? What are non-conscious objects then?

I am using the first definition of presence. The pen exists as a worldline, and a temporal cross section through that worldline has a location (x,y,z,t), and the pen is present at that location. It is not elsewhere in that cross section, but is perhaps elsewhere in a different cross section. Nothing more complicated than a simple statement that a thing is where the thing is.

So you use the word 'presence' in the objective sense, which from my perspective looks a bit confusing. At least it is something totally different from what I mean by it. I guess you do not admit that there is a difference.

[Felix]

Halc: Nothing more complicated than a simple statement that a thing is where the thing is.

Not so simple a statement; who determines where a thing is or even that it is?