George Lakoff - How Does Metaphysics Reveal Reality?

[@flynnryan7423]

There are linguistic exceptions to the conception of time as being a journey in which the future is ahead of us and the past behind us. The Aymaran language for example (in which the future is conceived as being behind us--which relates to the fact that it cannot be seen--while the past is conceived as being in front of us--literally the landscape of our memories and the past events that have impacted upon us). I know Lakoff isn't saying the better known, and more common, linguistic conception of time is exclusively the case, but I found it an interesting case-study and thought it worth sharing.

[@honeychurchgipsy6]

@Flynn Ryan - the idea that the past is before us makes a lot of sense - since we can, as you note, see the past whereas the future is hidden. Perhaps this is not as different (from how English speakers think of time) as it seems though: What I think might be different between the Aymaran language/cognition and ours is the usage/meaning of the words behind and infront. We use them in a stricter directional way (perhaps) than the Aymarans??

[@welshriver]

why doesnt this have 1000s of views, @closertotruth you guys rock!

[@praveenvarma9107]

Wow! Totally revolutionary thinking!

[@BharathKumarIyer]

Brilliant! The identification that our causal, present-bound description of time is bound to be flawed is an important step in the right direction. Going to look up loads of his work now! Thanks again for the upload. These are illuminating!

[@chrisjernigan1912]

Is this from an episode? I love George Lakoff

[@henrirauhala4335]

Lakoff dismisses the existence of time too hastily. Even if the nature of time might be different from our conception of it, there's evidence of time existing objectively. The theory of relativity predicts a phenomenon called time dilation which means that time moves at different paces depending on velocity and gravity. Time dilation was first observed in 1971 in Hafele-Keating experiment. If there was no time as a real factor, how could such a phenomenon occur? The arrow paradox that Lakoff describes can also be explained: there are no separate "instances" of time, because time is constantly moving as a continuum. A motionless instance is merely an abstraction.

[@ArcadianGenesis]

The way we observe the evidence of time existing objectively is via our cognitive architecture, which has time built into it. There are current physicists who have proposed that "spacetime is doomed" - i.e. spacetime is not the fundamental substrate of reality.

[@dyliathyramyteodon330]

But relativity also predicts that time has no movement since all times exist equally, and is thus a static 4-dimensional block. So there is no time factor there either, just observers with varying alignment to events depending on relative speed :)

[@EvanEvansE3]

This makes Einstein's Theory of Relativity even more ingenius. There is no time, only relativity.

[@jayarava]

This is excellent. Clear and precise.

[@slingoking]

Q : "Does time exist separate from our metaphors of time?" A: " unlikely." Hello, Mr. Einstein?

[@prenuptials5925]

Einstein wouldn't have argued the existence of perceived time, in fact his theories ultimately conclude a block universe

[@dlbattle100]

Momentum is there, you just can't see it :P.

[@chiraqnapalm2558]

i have the answers

[@chiraqnapalm2558]

i know the truth about time

[@yuriarin3237]

tell me

[@APaleDot]

@@yuriarin3237 Time is a tool you can put on the wall, or wear it on your wrist. The past is far behind us, the future doesn't exist.

[@brownrayen]

@@APaleDot how can the past be more real than the future?

[@APaleDot]

@@brownrayen kzbin.info/www/bejne/rKXOeKeOqamfh6M

[@Bruh-el9js]

this guy managed to make both theists and atheists think he's stupid, what an achievement

[@honeychurchgipsy6]

@Gaior - do YOU think he's stupid? If you do then, I'm sorry to enlighten you, but it is YOU who are stupid - or rather - ignorant. Lakoff has spent 50 years or more working in neuroscience and cognitive linguistics - discovering how our brains work. His work on the connections between metaphor and cognition is based in neuroscience. He might not be correct about everything but he is not stupid. Perhaps watching a 3 minute clip is not the best way to make a judgement about a person's body of work ??

[@Bruh-el9js]

@@honeychurchgipsy6 when did I say he's stupid ? and why is it so hard for you to consider it a possibility ?

[@honeychurchgipsy6]

@@Bruh-el9js - I asked you IF you thought he was stupid - I did not accuse you of thinking/saying he was stupid - did I? I was/am genuinely interested in your opinion of Lakoff. And I have no problem with adjusting my opinions on anyone - but first I would require the evidence to do so. I actually think very few people are really 'stupid' and certainly not someone with Lakoff's credentials. He might be stupid/wrong/ignorant about a particular point (think I even said this in my comment above) - even the finest minds on the planet are capable of that - but that wouldn't make them STUPID - now would it??

[@Bruh-el9js]

@@honeychurchgipsy6 I literally just said he managed to make people think he's stupid, not that he is, because what he said there except for the psychological time part is wrong and mainstream, I have no opinion on the guy

[@yggdrasil9039]

No, time is more than just a 'metaphor', but it's clear that Wittgenstein still dominates 21st century philosophy as he did the second half of the 20th.

[@Svenkong3]

Sorry that I'm late to the party, but what is time then if not a metaphor? :)

[@Sinleqeunnini]

Completely disregarded what Lakoff was saying

[@BradHolkesvig]

These fools don't have any idea how our Creator created us.

[@luckyyuri]

+Brad Holkesvig yeah, but than again they're way of thinking made possible this conversation between people on different continents. also medicine so we don't die at the age of 21 from cavities. maybe our father wants us to be smart and alive, and do things, grow, fail, and start all over again. or, than again, maybe he would want us to stay all day on our knees and pray, and fast, and sleep... and pray, and sleep...

[@BradHolkesvig]

anywherein12seconds I have nothing against God's scientists because without them, the computer technology wouldn't have been built by His Beast which is what He needed to teach me how He created us and all our worldly experiences.

[@luckyyuri]

Brad Holkesvig your pseudo-phylosophy, naive-religion, false-belief, whatever you may call it, disintegrates by itself. the first thing that comes in my mins is: if all creatures, even those who are ignorant, stupid, even devils... are doing His work, than you must surely have absolutely nothing against them. you are against holly creation! you heretic beast of an ignorant you!

[@BradHolkesvig]

anywherein12seconds I'm not at all against God's creation because I speak for Him. It's the stupid flesh He made that are going to be killed by Him, not the spirit of a man.

[@luckyyuri]

Brad Holkesvig :)) but why would he create flesh to destroy and fucking annihilate the damn cursed thing, in the first place... it's gibberish blabbering this kinda thinking; and of course it is, because it's human thinking