Philosophy Now Forum

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:20 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:57 pm Something isn't an oxymoron just because you personally can't imagine it, Timeseeker.

Oxymorons are not about imagination, Age.

Oxymorons are about contradictory use of language.

Circles are 2-dimensional.
3-dimensional "circles" are called spheres.
4-dimensional "circles" are called n-Spheres.

And let-me tell you, a 4-dimensional n-Sphere looks NOTHING like a circle.

But there is a really easy way to go about this. Is this what you have imagined: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFW769hqa1U ?

I said a million times: circular. You really are a profound idiot aren't you.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:02 pm I said a million times: circular. You really are a profound idiot aren't you.

OK. And I am pointing out for the millionth time that the word 'circular' doesn't mean what you think it means.

Circular shapes are 2-dimensional.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/circular

adjective. Having the form of a circle.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spherical

adjective. Shaped like a sphere

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:09 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:02 pm I said a million times: circular. You really are a profound idiot aren't you.

OK. And I am pointing out for the millionth time that the word 'circular' doesn't mean what you think it means.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/circular

adjective. Having the form of a circle.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spherical

adjective. Shaped like a sphere

At what age did you learn English?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:10 pm At what age did you learn English?

Way after I learned geometry.

That's why I am correcting your English.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:10 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:10 pm At what age did you learn English?

Way after I learned geometry.

Because now we have a long list of simple English words which you turned out to not be able to use properly in a given context.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:12 pm Because now we have a long list of simple English words which you turned out to not be able to use properly in a given context.

If there was any authority on the "proper" use of the words for 4-dimensional objects - I would bet on mathematics, not English.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:43 pm I do experience time when I focus to don't think at all.

Which sensory organ do you use for this perception?
You state that you perceive time when you don't think, so it can't be thought that informs you about time passing - thus time would have to be "encoded" in seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting or the sense of touch, right? Which one?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:43 pm Any single thought I have ever had had a duration. Thought is like a steam for me.

Does a thought have a beginning and an end?
Or are you maybe talking about a chain of thoughts? One of them stating "this is the start" and another one "this is the end"?

If one thought has no duration, can a chain of thought have duration?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:43 pm Does experience of motion of a tiny thing has a duration to you? I think time is our background experience. You can find it when you focus on it.

I doubt that very much... all I can find is this experience which also contains thoughts stating "Its one o'clock!" - but this doesn't mean that I can find "time" or "duration" anywhere else but as an idea that arises via thought.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:44 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:45 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:49 pm
Was there a point that there was no human and things were in motion?

No.
No humans = no "things" and no "motion" which are supposedly human realizations.

To be realistic we have to start with the real, i.e. whence humans cognize reality.
Note Meno's 'how can you know something when you do not know what it is in the first place'
The most efficient is to start from "Know Thyself" and from what the self knows.

So dinosaur were not real?

Dinosaur, the stars and moon then were real relative to the time that is conditioned upon yours and human conditions, the evidences of the bones and inferences therefrom.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:27 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:43 pm I do experience time when I focus to don't think at all.

Which sensory organ do you use for this perception?

I am amazed how we do experience time. It seems that there is no sensory organ for it. I have a thread on this topic in here.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:27 am You state that you perceive time when you don't think, so it can't be thought that informs you about time passing - thus time would have to be "encoded" in seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting or the sense of touch, right? Which one?

I said we experience time and not perceive it. I don't think if time is codded in any of our senses since I experience it well when I focus only on time.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:27 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:43 pm Any single thought I have ever had had a duration. Thought is like a steam for me.

Does a thought have a beginning and an end?

Yes, of course.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:27 am Or are you maybe talking about a chain of thoughts?

No. I think that the beginning of a thought and end of it cannot coincide. This seems contradictory to me.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:27 am One of them stating "this is the start" and another one "this is the end"?

No, it is not like that as it is illustrated in the previous comment.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:27 am If one thought has no duration, can a chain of thought have duration?

No.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:27 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:43 pm Does experience of motion of a tiny thing has a duration to you? I think time is our background experience. You can find it when you focus on it.

I doubt that very much... all I can find is this experience which also contains thoughts stating "Its one o'clock!" - but this doesn't mean that I can find "time" or "duration" anywhere else but as an idea that arises via thought.

Strange. Perhaps you can also experience time with practice.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:17 pm Strange. Perhaps you can also experience time with practice.

Or you might find that you really cannot experience time and that this practice is rather conditioning leading to the imagination that this is possible...

What is it like to experience time for you? How does the experience express itself? How does time feel like?
I am curious as I cant see how this would be possible...

I will also have a look at your other topic - thanks.

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:40 am What is it like to experience time for you? How does the experience express itself? How does time feel like?

It feels like gravity when skydiving.

I can see in all directions, but I am only going one way.

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:40 am Or you might find that you really cannot experience time and that this practice is rather conditioning leading to the imagination that this is possible...

Conceptual experiences are still valid experiences. Do you not sense that which you conceptualise?
Which one of your senses experiences gravity?

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:26 am It feels like gravity when skydiving

Does it? Wow! Seems like I am missing out on quite a thrilling ride

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:26 am Conceptual experiences are still valid experiences. Do you not sense that which you conceptualise?

No. I conceptualise what I sense.
And this is the juicy bit: The concept has really nothing in common with the direct experience.

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:26 am Which one of your senses experiences gravity?

None

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:25 am

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:26 am Which one of your senses experiences gravity?

None

So you really cannot experience gravity thus leading to the imagination that this is possible?

AlexW wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:25 am No. I conceptualise what I sense.
And this is the juicy bit: The concept has really nothing in common with the direct experience.

How have you decided to draw this line? You aren't experiencing gravity when skydiving?

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:27 am So really cannot experience gravity thus leading to the imagination that this is possible?

Not being able to experience gravity doesn't lead to the imagination - its much rather conditioning, acquired belief, the way we like to think (based on social norms and generally accepted belief).
You might think and believe you can experience certain things - "apple" is maybe an easier example than "gravity". How do experience "apple"?

Logik wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:27 am How have you decided to draw this line? You aren't experiencing gravity when skydiving?

Conventionally yes, sure I experience gravity when skydiving, but when really inquiring into this direct experience you will find that this is ultimately not true.