What is time?

[AlexW]

Fair enough. So, I guess, since I have no evidence that you exist at all you don't.

Do you exist? If you do, then chances are high I exist too.
Question is how do you exist? What defines you?
If thought is your only proof for your individual existence then maybe thought should be questioned - maybe one should check direct experience...

[AlexW]

What is "wrong" is the human ideal/expectation of scale invariance

OK... sounds reasonable.

Because our theories are simple, but reality is complex.

Funny, I would have stated the complete opposite: Our theories are complex, but reality is simple

[Logik]

Funny, I would have stated the complete opposite: Our theories are complex, but reality is simple

A common mistake. The complex ways in which "simple" things fail is just mind-boggling.

This is a fun reading in that regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics

Truth wrapped up in humorous cynicism.

[AlexW]

A common mistake. The complex ways in which "simple" things fail is just mind-boggling.

This is a fun reading in that regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics

Truth wrapped up in humorous cynicism.

Yes, thanks that’s a fun way of looking at it.
I do know what you are referring to, I ran an IT company about 20 years ago and yes, I agree, the errors that appear most simple are often caused by a very complex/unusual combination of reasons.

But, what I was trying to say was that reality is not really a system as such - to the mind of course it appears as a cause and effect machine where everything is infinitely complex as every effect apparently has an infinite chain of previous causes - it’s impossible to consider all of them and thus systems seem to fail, but the idea of failure is again part of the system, not of reality... reality cannot fail. Its so simple, nothing can go wrong.

[Logik]

But, what I was trying to say was that reality is not really a system as such - to the mind of course it appears as a cause and effect machine where everything is infinitely complex as every effect apparently has an infinite chain of previous causes - it’s impossible to consider all of them and thus systems seem to fail, but the idea of failure is again part of the system, not of reality... reality cannot fail. Its so simple, nothing can go wrong.

If that is your mode of thought, then you are saying too much.

Reality needs not be ascribed any adjectives like simple or complex.
Finity or infinite.
Success of failure.
Right or wrong.
System or non-system.

Reality is. The end.

The need to understand reality comes from the mind. And so - one must define "needs" and "minds".

And before one attempts to understand the universe using the mind, one first needs to understand the mind.

[AlexW]

Reality needs not be ascribed any adjectives like simple or complex.

Agree - yet we still do...

And before one attempts to understand the universe using the mind, one first needs to understand the mind.

But there is only one tool to understand, the mind (aka thought) - using thought to understand thought... does it work? Do you understand the mind/thought?

I found that simply observing the mind/thought works better than trying to understand it - what is there to understand?
There is simply one thought happening, then another, then another... each thought stating something more or less truthful (according to the belief-system that we identify with)...

[Logik]

Agree - yet we still do...

...because we have the need to understand it. And that's where we fall flat on our noses. "Understanding" is an emotion. A feeling. An experience. An expectation.

But there is only one tool to understand, the mind (aka thought) - using the thought to understand thought... does it work? Do you understand the mind/thought?

I have a theory

I found that simply observing the mind/thought works better than trying to understand it - what is there to understand?
There is simply one thought happening, then another, then another... each thought stating something more or less truthful (according to the belief-system that we identify with)...

Observe you are using the word "understand". Do you even have a concept for what it means "to understand" ?

This is why Metacognition is so important ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition )

Knowing about knowing.
Thinking about thinking.
Understanding understanding.

It's the foundation of learning.

[AlexW]

Observe you are using the word "understand". Do you even have a concept for what it means "to understand" ?

Sure, I use the word "understand" to refer to thought referring to more thought. An understanding is simply a thought stating "Ah.. I get it!" and potentially another one summing up what there is to understand. Understanding is conceptual, it always remains within the arena of thought, in mind.

Knowing about knowing.
Thinking about thinking.
Understanding understanding.

I use the word knowing in a different sense. Knowing is direct, understanding is conceptual.
You can know without understanding, but you can not understand without first knowing.
Knowing is direct perception, it is pre objectification.
Reality can be known, but not understood.

[Logik]

I use the word knowing in a different sense. Knowing is direct, understanding is conceptual.
You can know without understanding, but you can not understand without first knowing.
Knowing is direct perception, it is pre objectification.
Reality can be known, but not understood.

Non-starter for me. I don't think I can know reality. Except via my mind.

Everything I say is about the map, or how I BELIEVE the map corresponds to the territory, but it's never ONLY about the territory.

Yes, there is a dog over there, but I can only say that because you know what the concept of a "dog" is and you can recognize that the concept corresponds to your current experience.

If I were to say "There is a grobmunf over there" it doesn't work. Because you have no concept of a "grobmunf".

[AlexW]

Non-starter for me. I don't think I can know reality. Except via my mind.

But... all you ever know is reality - how could it be any different?

Everything I say is about the map

True

Yes, there is a dog over there, but I can only say that because you know what the concept of a "dog" is and you can recognize that the concept corresponds to your current experience.

You can only say "dog" because you have learned to pattern match / extract a certain part of experience - certain shapes and colors - and label it accordingly. But reality is known all the time, no matter if pattern matching and labelling is happening or not.

If I were to say "There is a grobmunf over there" it doesn't work. Because you have no concept of a "grobmunf".

True, but reality is not about concepts. Concepts inhabit their own world, they never touch reality.

[Belinda]

AlexW wrote:

Time (as well as space) require some kind of "substratum" to be conceptualised and thus to make any sense at all.
In deep sleep this substratum is missing and therefore we do not experience time or space - in the waking state this substratum is present as objective experience.

I think what you mean is that extended matter and mind each are aspects of the one substance. This one substance is commonly referred to as nature.

No, it's commonly known as mind. ''Nature'' implies something that is KNOWN....for something to be known you need a mind.

.

By 'nature' I imply, and philosophers usually imply, what is the case. The usual words for what is known are' phenomena', 'relative way of being', or 'manifest existence'.

[Logik]

But... all you ever know is reality - how could it be any different?

All I can ever know is my experience of reality, not reality itself. This is the foundation of empiricism.

Do I know that I am hungry or am I experiencing hunger and therefore I know I am hungry.
Do I know that it's raining outside or am I experiencing rain and therefore I know it's raining.

Everything I say is about the map

True

The map is experience. Memory of past events.

It's raining outside. I am saying that 0.05 seconds AFTER I experienced/observed the rain.
Everything we SAY about the "now" is actually a statement about the very-recent past.

Short and long-term memory plays part here.

You can only say "dog" because you have learned to pattern match / extract a certain part of experience - certain shapes and colors - and label it accordingly. But reality is known all the time, no matter if pattern matching and labelling is happening or not.

Do you know what a "dog" is or do you only CLAIM to know what a dog is?
Can you really recognize "dogs" or do you only CLAIM to be able to recognize dogs?

Science can help you answer this. With a trivial experiment.

I give you a room that has 100 animals. Dogs, wolves, wild dogs, coyotes, dholes, jackals. Basically - a mixed bag of everything from the Canis genus

If you REALLY know what a "dog" is then you should have absolutely no problem sorting the room of animals into two categories:
* Dogs
* Not dogs

This is binary classification 101. You WILL make Type I and Type II errors. Guaranteed

The reason is simple: you are trying to map 100 animals to 2 categories (dog vs not-dog)
To do that you are necessarily discarding differences and focusing on similarities between the concepts of "animals" and "dog". It's called Reduction.

We use ROC CUrves to measure the precision-level of binary classifiers.
With one caveat: There are no perfect classifiers.

The implications of that is if I were to sort the room of animals and if you were to sort the room of animals we'd probably end up with different sortings.

True, but reality is not about concepts. Concepts inhabit their own world, they never touch reality.

"Dog" is a concept. The fact that you are making Type I and Type II errors when deciding whether something is a "dog" or "not-a-dog" is evidence to that fact.

[Walker]

Ever get bitten by a concept?

[Dontaskme]

By 'nature' I imply, and philosophers usually imply, what is the case. The usual words for what is known are' phenomena', 'relative way of being', or 'manifest existence'.

An 'imply' is an utterance of a known concept I. This known I is an illusory known appearance in I that never uttered a word..(implied anything) There are seemingly two I's ..one real the other unreal, both exist simultaneously as ONE I


.

[Dontaskme]

Ever get bitten by a concept?

Head in the tigers mouth.