What is time?

[Walker]

Aren't you the pushy one.

[Logik]

Silence knows all.

Since you speak - state the knowledge you seek.

[Logik]

Aren't you the pushy one.

Did you mean to put a question mark at the end of that sentence and address it to anybody in particular?

[Dontaskme]

Silence knows all.

Since you speak - state the knowledge you seek.

It’s in the knowledge..

[Speakpigeon]

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

Uttering the phrase "you don't exist" is a performative contradiction.
What is this "you" that you are referring to and why are you speaking to it if it "doesn't exist"?

What is indeed performative here, spectacularly so, is you proving you don't even understand language, meaning and reference.
Clue: Frege won't help.
EB

[Logik]

What is indeed performative here, spectacularly so, is you proving you don't even understand language, meaning and reference.

Which language? There are so many...

Linguistic prescriptivism is not going to bring you any closer to effectively communicating your meaning to another human.

Clue: Frege won't help.

Who's Frege?

[Speakpigeon]

What is time? What it is which we measure with a clock.

So, why bother thinking about and discussing this topic that really has no affect upon your life?

???
Oh, right, I get it, this is your clever way of asserting what time is. Something that has no effect on our lives.
OK, that's a good answer.
And to answer your clever assertoric question, I bother at all because, me I accept I know nothing about time beyond my own limited subjective experience of time. So, whether time, time as what we all mean by the word "time", has or hasn't some effect on anything, I wouldn't brag I know the answer to that.

Time is not important. What is important is Life, and heart valves. What time is, is on my side. Mundane knowledge fulfillment: Mick Jagger recently underwent a medical procedure. Mick Jagger is front man for The Rolling Stones, which composed and performs, Time Is On My Side.

Thanks for reminding me of things I had forgotten and thereby that I'm forgetting things. I happen to be listening just now for the first time in thirty years to Led Zep's Black Dog. I hope Mick is doing well in his fight to keep time going.

Clocks are for the purpose of synchronizing schedules of human activity, as in train schedules.

True enough... Some scientists say time is what is measured by clocks. You're saying apparently that clocks don't even measure anything at all. I shall tell the MIT. I'm sure they're unaware of the change of master plan.

In Germany, time is important. In India, time is meh.

Yeah, well, I'd love to see that. The one Indian I knew had a wristwatch.
Now it's time for No. 12, When the Levee Breaks... Harmonica and percussions first. Then Robert's voice. Time travel, sort of.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Wrong answer.

Question is how do you exist? What defines you?

Don't you know? I think, therefore I am. I'm the thinking thing. Read Descartes.

If thought is your only proof for your individual existence then maybe thought should be questioned - maybe one should check direct experience...

What's direct experience if not something thought?
Contrary to your suggestion that we don't experience the succession of moments in time, me I have the experience of the passage of time. You don't, fair enough. We don't have the same experience.
Or, possibly, you could try to look at the evidence you have a little more carefully.
EB

[Logik]

Don't you know? I think, therefore I am. I'm the thinking thing. Read Descartes.

It is a rather dangerous hedge to couple your existence to your thought.

Especially since your inability to think is being demonstrated over and over.

[Speakpigeon]

Don't you know? I think, therefore I am. I'm the thinking thing. Read Descartes.

It is a rather dangerous hedge to couple your existence to your thought.
Especially since your inability to think is being demonstrated over and over.

LOL.
Wait, no, not LOL. Just sad.
EB

[Logik]

LOL.
Wait, no, not LOL. Just sad.
EB

No need for self-pity. We are trying to help you.

[Dontaskme]

Don't you know? I think, therefore I am. I'm the thinking thing. Read Descartes.

Wrong way round. I doesn’t think. I is thought.

I am aware of the thought ..not the thought. I am doesn’t need thought to be, but thought needs I am to be.

[AlexW]

Don't you know? I think, therefore I am. I'm the thinking thing. Read Descartes.

Instead of believing somebody else's thoughts/ideas its better to look at whats actually really happening now (at least thats what I believe in).
Its easier than you might think - maybe its too simple for someone that expects/believes in the complicated...

What's direct experience if not something thought?

Its everything that happens right now minus whatever interpretation thought might come up with.
Use your right fingers to pinch your left arm - feel that? That is not a thought, right? It is direct experience.
The statement "I pinched my left arm" is a (after)thought, an interpretation, an objectification of something that is not objective.

Contrary to your suggestion that we don't experience the succession of moments in time, me I have the experience of the passage of time.

How does it feel to experience the "succession of moments in time"?
Is there something like "a succession of moments" if you don't think about it? The idea that a succession of moments exists requires the memory of a previous moment - a moment that is not now, right? What is this memory if not thought? To experience time you would have to experience the previous moment as well as the current moment at the same time - which is obviously impossible - otherwise the experience of time is not more than the experience of one thought talking about another thought.

[AlexW]

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

What if direct experience/knowing (not understanding) and reality are one and the same?
And what if there is no I that experiences a separate reality but if: I = reality ?
If you actually really, honestly look at direct experience you will find this to be the case.

The map is experience. Memory of past events.

You are mixing things up here. Memory is an interpretation of experience.
The map, as well is an interpretation of experience - it is not experience itself.

Everything we SAY about the "now" is actually a statement about the very-recent past.

True - its all the map.

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?

You can only claim to recognise dogs - you can never directly know "dog", as "dog" is a pattern matched extract of unified experience, it is an interpretation of a part of the whole - you only ever know the whole, never a part. You understand (via objectification) what a "dog" is, but you cannot know it directly.

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.

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

The reason is simple: you are trying to map 100 animals to 2 categories (dog vs not-dog)
...
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.

Sure, I agree - because, as I said before, you never know "dog" - dog is the outcome of a pattern matching algorithm, and, as we know, algorithms are never perfect...

[Logik]

What if direct experience/knowing (not understanding) and reality are one and the same?
And what if there is no I that experiences a separate reality but if: I = reality ?
If you actually really, honestly look at direct experience you will find this to be the case.

You are paraphrasing something we have already established.

I = reality is the same as "We experience the map, not the territory".

You are mixing things up here. Memory is an interpretation of experience.
The map, as well is an interpretation of experience - it is not experience itself.

So what did you experience when you interpreted a "dog"?

True - its all the map.

Hence. I = reality.t

You understand (via objectification) what a "dog" is, but you cannot know it directly.

Hence me asking you: what did you experience when you interpreted/objectified a "dog"?

Sure, I agree - because, as I said before, you never know "dog" - dog is the outcome of a pattern matching algorithm, and, as we know, algorithms are never perfect...

So we are back to: "You can recognize a dog but you can't recognize a grobmunf".