Does Time Really Pass? (Simon Prosser on the Illusion of Passage)

[@languagegame410]

love this... more PHILOSOPHY OF TIME content, pleaszzze!!!...

[@evinnra2779]

So, just one question if I may, when we pass areas of space is it Space we measuring or ... ?

[@davidbichsel1302]

That leaves open, what the connection between time and our experiences is. Didn't Kant explain that fairly well? What's new about this?

[@eternaldelight648]

Wonderfully thought out lecture, thanks! Having considered the arguments, perhaps we could arrive at something like the following as a tentative nominal definition of "time": Time is a proxy concept signifying the property of coordinated change

[@tesafilm8447]

Can someone pls explain what he's saying? I don't even know what he's refering to when he says that time is(n't) passing. Maybe I have implicitly accepted his premises and conclusions beforehand rendering all his talk about a non existent process (the passage of time) senseless...

[@kvaka009]

Seems like this whole argument may be used to show that if one begins by accepting naive premises then one ends up deriving naive conclusions.

[@Nature_Consciousness]

This guy have not read Kant.

[@pitdog75]

time = movement through space

[@rovosher8708]

The illusion of an illusion. Thanks Heraclitus that this lecture doesn’t need to be revisited

[@exalted_kitharode]

Could you please elaborate on your thought about lecture and Heraclitus' views?

[@Opposite271]

I think most of those paradoxes are the product of the human mind trying to spatialize time. The mind puts time on a line with a future, a present and a past. But maybe time is so radically distinct from space to such a degree that any conceptualization as something space-like will either lead to a static time or to a contradiction. This creates the illusion that passage is just a illusion. So instead of throwing away passage it would be better to throw away the spatial view of time. When it comes to how the mind can form true judgment about experience, I think this is a more general problem. I may have direct experience of passage and direct experience can not be in error like a judgment about experience, but how can there be any true judgment about any property of my experience? Not just about passage but also about phenomenal colors and phenomenal space? Maybe judgment just happens by a cosmic accident to correspond to it? But this is not a plausible explanation. Another better explanation would be metaphysical Idealism in which the brain is just a sensory representation of the mind. The mind does not have any physical properties beyond the properties and behavior of the appearances. And the fact that mental states correlate to brain states does not justify the view that the brain reveals the inner workings of the mind. Especially if the brain is just a representation and not the thing itself.

[@deponensvogel7261]

I don't know what he means by time passing and I don't understand why the B theory of time excludes or has no need of the passing of time as a concept. It seems especially clear to me when looking at the spacialized time of the B theory: How do we ever travel a distance between two points, either in space or in time, without motion? At that point, it's probably just a difference in semantics* whether one talks about space passing by an object or about an object moving in space; or whether one talks about the passage of time or the motion within time. But can you do away with the concept of motion altogether? ___ * This is not so obvious. Interesting intuitive interpretations of general relativity suggest that space itself is in motion. This might be a physical fact about the universe, or at least a conceptualization possibly enabling us to develop better theories in problematic theories of fundamental physics.

[@kvaka009]

What does "perfectly correlated" mean as it relates to brain and mind? Does it mean that for every state of consciousness there's one and only one corresponding state of the brain? Couldn't there be coarse graining processes going on whereby one in the same mental state correlates with a whole set of brain states?

[@tesafilm8447]

Could be a similar, almost identical mental state, but not the same right? I mean it's us doing the coarse graining in analysis of sth.

[@TokyoShemp]

I didn't know Ringo was this clever.

[@kvaka009]

Perhaps then the idea of a mind independent reality is itself an illusion?

[@penrose5383]

The distinction between the A and B theories of time seems pretty confused. I also don't think anyone really thinks there is a metaphysical difference between now and in the future. I'd simply be "now", but in the future.

[@penrose5383]

I gave up on this video, this guy seems really confused.

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

@@penrose5383Did it not occur to you that it might be you who is the confused one here? To be fair, it's a confusing subject and it's probably not so easy to follow without some background understanding of some of these concepts.

[@penrose5383]

@@Philosophy_Overdose I definitely have, and that's why I'm back haha. I'm reading Eddington right now so I decided to revisit this.

[@penrose5383]

@@Philosophy_Overdose Looking at this again, I implicitly assume the B theory, and that's why I think the distinction isn't important. It confused me because I never thought there was a problem in the first place.

[@penrose5383]

@@Philosophy_Overdose Also, I find it worrying that there was no mention of Bergson.