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

[evolution]

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

LOL You STILL cannot get past YOUR OWN VIEWS and BELIEFS here.

The POINT IS; it is NOT 'time' which is being measured. Therefore, there is NO example of anyone measuring something as 'time' BECAUSE there is NO such 'thing' as 'time', which could even be measured.

You can NOT get past this FACT because you WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE otherwise.

This is THEE FACT:

I say, To me, 'time' is just the word that describes the human behavior of measuring the duration between perceived events, or in your words; the measuring of change/motion.

You, however, BELIEVE and say that change/motion IS 'time', itself.

If you cannot FATHOM and UNDERSTAND this FACT, then we can NOT have a Truly meaningful discussion here.

SEE, it is NOT possible to measure 'measuring' itself, which is what 'time' ACTUALLY IS, to me. So, what you ask ask about "measuring something as time" is a nonsensical question, to me. As what you are asking about, from my perspective is; "measuring something as measuring".

If 'you' UNDERSTOOD my point of view, as I UNDERSTAND your point of view, then you would have ALREADY UNDERSTOOD the nonsensical nature of asking me the question that you have above here.

If you also understood my point of view, as I do yours, then you would also be FULLY AWARE, like I am, of just how you are 'attempting' to DISTRACT this away from ANSWERING the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which I have posed to 'you'. So, IF you did Truly understand, like I do, then 'you' would have 'tried' harder this time to DISTRACT AWAY.

You are 'trying to' DISTRACT this AWAY from ANSWERING my CLARIFYING QUESTION, which you KNOW, consciously or unconsciously, that if you did answer Honestly then that would CONTRADICT your PREVIOUS CLAIMS, so you will just continue to say and ask the things that you are now, instead of just ANSWERING the clarifying questions that I pose to you. Or, you will JUST IGNORE this, COMPLETELY.

[Terrapin Station]

the human behavior of measuring the duration between perceived events,

So is there duration between (perceived) events in your view?

[evolution]

the human behavior of measuring the duration between perceived events,

So is there duration between (perceived) events in your view?

There is, what is called, "duration" between perceived events, which is what I said is measured. So, YES, there is, what is called, "duration" between perceived events.

[Fellowmater]

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

LOL You STILL cannot get past YOUR OWN VIEWS and BELIEFS here.

The POINT IS; it is NOT 'time' which is being measured. Therefore, there is NO example of anyone measuring something as 'time' BECAUSE there is NO such 'thing' as 'time', which could even be measured.

You can NOT get past this FACT because you WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE otherwise.

This is THEE FACT:

I say, To me, 'time' is just the word that describes the human behavior of measuring the duration between perceived events, or in your words; the measuring of change/motion.

You, however, BELIEVE and say that change/motion IS 'time', itself.

If you cannot FATHOM and UNDERSTAND this FACT, then we can NOT have a Truly meaningful discussion here.

SEE, it is NOT possible to measure 'measuring' itself, which is what 'time' ACTUALLY IS, to me. So, what you ask ask about "measuring something as time" is a nonsensical question, to me. As what you are asking about, from my perspective is; "measuring something as measuring".

If 'you' UNDERSTOOD my point of view, as I UNDERSTAND your point of view, then you would have ALREADY UNDERSTOOD the nonsensical nature of asking me the question that you have above here.

If you also understood my point of view, as I do yours, then you would also be FULLY AWARE, like I am, of just how you are 'attempting' to DISTRACT this away from ANSWERING the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which I have posed to 'you'. So, IF you did Truly understand, like I do, then 'you' would have 'tried' harder this time to DISTRACT AWAY.

You are 'trying to' DISTRACT this AWAY from ANSWERING my CLARIFYING QUESTION, which you KNOW, consciously or unconsciously, that if you did answer Honestly then that would CONTRADICT your PREVIOUS CLAIMS, so you will just continue to say and ask the things that you are now, instead of just ANSWERING the clarifying questions that I pose to you. Or, you will JUST IGNORE this, COMPLETELY.

Well said.

[Sculptor1]

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.

Yes, logic. A logical fantasy.

Either humans are the pinnacle of evolution - the divine, the ultimate, the supreme living beings possible - or evolution will continue.

Evolution does not mandate more intelligence.
Very likley we have evolved exactly enough itnelligence to completely wipe out all life on earth.
Or we have enough intelligence to completely remove the the slightest evolutionary pressure to have any more. There is already evidence that net intelligence is lowering since there are a lower ration of thinking jobs - as they have been takne over by computers.
You might want to get off your high horse one day, and entertain yourself with a comedy film called IDIOCRACY.

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.

Evolution "progessses" through reproductive success, reproductive failure and death. SInce repructive success requires no intelligence, and that reproductive restrictions and denials are the intelligent thing to do in a world with too many people, its the smart ones who have fewer childern or die childless.
Which ever way it might god the fact remains that:
There is no such thing as "post human intelligence", and you or I are not qualified to assess and quanitfy how different it is from current Intelligence.

“Where of one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." LW

[Terrapin Station]

So is there duration between (perceived) events in your view?

There is, what is called, "duration" between perceived events, which is what I said is measured. So, YES, there is, what is called, "duration" between perceived events.

Right. And in your view what is the problem with calling the duration in question "time"?

[evolution]

There is, what is called, "duration" between perceived events, which is what I said is measured. So, YES, there is, what is called, "duration" between perceived events.

Right. And in your view what is the problem with calling the duration in question "time"?

I have absolutely NO 'problem' whatsoever with 'you' calling ANY 'thing', anything you like. As I say, 'you' are absolutely FREE to do absolutely ANY thing you like, which obviously includes labelling, and defining, absolutely ANY 'thing', absolutely ANY way you like, as well.

However, I prefer to just label things in a way so when looked at FULLY what can be and WILL BE SEEN Is the FULL and BIG 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS.

I also like to find the definitions, which when looked at FULLY SHOW and REVEAL thee One accurate and UNIFIED 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS.

Defining the word 'time' as some 'thing', which does NOT fit in that 'picture', is NOT something which I choose to do.

You, however, and once again, as I say, are COMPLETELY FREE to choose to do what so ever you so wish to do.

[Terrapin Station]

Right. And in your view what is the problem with calling the duration in question "time"?

I have absolutely NO 'problem' whatsoever with 'you' calling ANY 'thing', anything you like. As I say, 'you' are absolutely FREE to do absolutely ANY thing you like, which obviously includes labelling, and defining, absolutely ANY 'thing', absolutely ANY way you like, as well.

However, I prefer to just label things in a way so when looked at FULLY what can be and WILL BE SEEN Is the FULL and BIG 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS.

I also like to find the definitions, which when looked at FULLY SHOW and REVEAL thee One accurate and UNIFIED 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS.

Defining the word 'time' as some 'thing', which does NOT fit in that 'picture', is NOT something which I choose to do.

You, however, and once again, as I say, are COMPLETELY FREE to choose to do what so ever you so wish to do.

Why would the "FULL" and "BIG 'picture'" be the act of measurement rather than what we're measuring?

[evolution]

I have absolutely NO 'problem' whatsoever with 'you' calling ANY 'thing', anything you like. As I say, 'you' are absolutely FREE to do absolutely ANY thing you like, which obviously includes labelling, and defining, absolutely ANY 'thing', absolutely ANY way you like, as well.

However, I prefer to just label things in a way so when looked at FULLY what can be and WILL BE SEEN Is the FULL and BIG 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS.

I also like to find the definitions, which when looked at FULLY SHOW and REVEAL thee One accurate and UNIFIED 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS.

Defining the word 'time' as some 'thing', which does NOT fit in that 'picture', is NOT something which I choose to do.

You, however, and once again, as I say, are COMPLETELY FREE to choose to do what so ever you so wish to do.

Why would the "FULL" and "BIG 'picture'" be the act of measurement rather than what we're measuring?

But the FULL and BIG 'picture' IS NOT 'the act of measurement'.

The FULL and BIG 'picture' IS ' the FULL and BIG 'picture' '. Just like, the act of measurement IS 'the act of measurement'.

[evolution]

There is, what is called, "duration" between perceived events, which is what I said is measured. So, YES, there is, what is called, "duration" between perceived events.

Right. And in your view what is the problem with calling the duration in question "time"?

Because doing so leads to COMPLETELY WRONG OBSERVATIONS, and thus MISINTERPRETATIONS of what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, which is where a lot of 'you', human beings, are right now, that is; in the days of when this is being written.

When 'you' start to SEE, and thus UNDERSTAND, MORE of the FULL and BIG 'picture', then you will start to UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY WHY calling 'perceived duration' 'time' is ACTUALLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

[Terrapin Station]

Why would the "FULL" and "BIG 'picture'" be the act of measurement rather than what we're measuring?

But the FULL and BIG 'picture' IS NOT 'the act of measurement'.

The FULL and BIG 'picture' IS ' the FULL and BIG 'picture' '. Just like, the act of measurement IS 'the act of measurement'.

You said the time is the human behavior of measuring the duration between perceived events, and you said that you prefer to just label things in a way so when looked at FULLY what can be and WILL BE SEEN Is the FULL and BIG 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS.

Is labeling time as the human behavior of measuring the duration between perceived events not an example of your preference to just label things in a way so when looked at FULLY what can be and WILL BE SEEN Is the FULL and BIG 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS?

[evolution]

But the FULL and BIG 'picture' IS NOT 'the act of measurement'.

The FULL and BIG 'picture' IS ' the FULL and BIG 'picture' '. Just like, the act of measurement IS 'the act of measurement'.

You said the time is the human behavior of measuring the duration between perceived events, and you said that you prefer to just label things in a way so when looked at FULLY what can be and WILL BE SEEN Is the FULL and BIG 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS.

I said the word 'time', to me, refers to the human behavior of measuring ...

Is labeling time as the human behavior of measuring the duration between perceived events not an example of your preference to just label things in a way so when looked at FULLY what can be and WILL BE SEEN Is the FULL and BIG 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS?

OF COURSE labeling the word 'time' in that way IS an example of my preference to label that word, that way. I have NOT YET SEEN anyone else label that word that way, so, from this perspective, this is MY PREFERENCE.

For information, I labeled that word, that way, BECAUSE that way is thee way which fits in with EVERY thing else, UNIFORMLY.

Instead of just making up some UNIFIED 'theory' (assumption) of Everything I, instead, prefer to just label 'things' in a way, which actually UNIFIES EVERY thing together just as thee One, UNIFIED Everything ACTUALLY IS.

[Terrapin Station]

You said the time is the human behavior of measuring the duration between perceived events, and you said that you prefer to just label things in a way so when looked at FULLY what can be and WILL BE SEEN Is the FULL and BIG 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS.

I said the word 'time', to me, refers to the human behavior of measuring ...

Is labeling time as the human behavior of measuring the duration between perceived events not an example of your preference to just label things in a way so when looked at FULLY what can be and WILL BE SEEN Is the FULL and BIG 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS?

OF COURSE labeling the word 'time' in that way IS an example of my preference to label that word, that way. I have NOT YET SEEN anyone else label that word that way, so, from this perspective, this is MY PREFERENCE.

For information, I labeled that word, that way, BECAUSE that way is thee way which fits in with EVERY thing else, UNIFORMLY.

Instead of just making up some UNIFIED 'theory' (assumption) of Everything I, instead, prefer to just label 'things' in a way, which actually UNIFIES EVERY thing together just as thee One, UNIFIED Everything ACTUALLY IS.

Sure. So back to my question. Why is labeling time as the human behavior of measurement, rather than as what is being measured, an example of your preference to just label things in a way so when looked at FULLY what can be and WILL BE SEEN Is the FULL and BIG 'picture' of ALL-THERE-IS?I

And why is labeling time as the human behavior of measurement, rather than as what is being measured, a way that fits in with EVERY thing else, UNIFORMLY?

[Sy Borg]

Evolution, OVERUSING CAPS LOCK achieves the opposite effect to what you intend. You wish to emphasise those words but the overall effect is to reduce the readability of your entire text - ultimately REDUCING, rather than AIDING focus.

Readability studies show that lowercase is easier to read than capital letters because we subconsciously follow the shapes of words, and that is lost with the uniform heights of CAPS.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm not at all convinced that he intends any effect aside from being a troll. It would take a lot of work to convince me otherwise.