Philosophy Now Forum

If the past doesn't actually exist, what are memories? Internal experiences?

Think about it.

Memories are recordings of things gone and times past.

Go Chaz!

Of course they're recordings, though not extremely accurate, at least in the retelling.

Bernard wrote:If the past doesn't actually exist...

But the past do exist. It's all there, in the past. The same goes for the future. It's all there, in the future. As we move through life, steadily drifting downstream through time, the latter becomes the former, as our point of view shifts, but it's still all there. "Now", on the ohter hand, does not exist anywhere. Try as you might, to pinpoint the moment of "now", and it's simply not there.

Bernard wrote:...what are memories? Internal experiences?

Memories are images of things past, constructs that we rely on in order to make sense of the world. Often not very accurate and usually less accurate the farther past we try to remember. The same goes for our plans for the future. They are images of things to come, constructs that we rely on in order to make sense of the world. Usually not very accurate and definitely less accurate the further into the future we try to project.

Bernard wrote:Go Chaz!

???

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Of course they're recordings, though not extremely accurate, at least in the retelling.

But the point being that their existence is not the same as the 'past existing'.

Notvacka wrote:

Bernard wrote:If the past doesn't actually exist...

But the past do exist. It's all there, in the past. The same goes for the future. It's all there, in the future. As we move through life, steadily drifting downstream through time, the latter becomes the former, as our point of view shifts, but it's still all there. "Now", on the ohter hand, does not exist anywhere. Try as you might, to pinpoint the moment of "now", and it's simply not there.

Bernard wrote:...what are memories? Internal experiences?

Memories are images of things past, constructs that we rely on in order to make sense of the world. Often not very accurate and usually less accurate the farther past we try to remember. The same goes for our plans for the future. They are images of things to come, constructs that we rely on in order to make sense of the world. Usually not very accurate and definitely less accurate the further into the future we try to project.

No, the now is where we always are.
As we live we remember what we like to call the past and imagine what we like to call the future. But the now is all we ever have.

Bernard wrote:If the past doesn't actually exist, what are memories? Internal experiences?

Perhaps the past does still exist...as matter in a rearranged form.

chaz wyman wrote:As we live we remember what we like to call the past and imagine what we like to call the future. But the now is all we ever have.

Yes. Of course. The trouble is that we don't really "have" the now. What we have is a construct based on memories and projections. That's how we understand the world and make sense of existence. We don't live our lives "now", because any given "now" makes no sense by itself.

While it is possible to fully experience "now" in meditation, (the "religious" experience I was talking about in another topic recently) it's an experience of detatchment, a kind of nothingness if you will. It's refreshing and rewarding, but you can't remain in that state. In order to actually live and engage, or even think, you must return to the construct, remember the past and anticipate the future.

In pracitce; if you think about it, life consists of past and future; if you don't think about it, life may consist of now, but only for as long as you are able not to think.

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Of course they're recordings, though not extremely accurate, at least in the retelling.

But the point being that their existence is not the same as the 'past existing'.

I was agreeing with you, just adding that they're not lossless recordings.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Of course they're recordings, though not extremely accurate, at least in the retelling.

But the point being that their existence is not the same as the 'past existing'.

I was agreeing with you, just adding that they're not lossless recordings.

Indeed, but review your words. Of course, of course. Is that how you agree?

Notvacka wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:As we live we remember what we like to call the past and imagine what we like to call the future. But the now is all we ever have.

Yes. Of course. The trouble is that we don't really "have" the now. What we have is a construct based on memories and projections. That's how we understand the world and make sense of existence. We don't live our lives "now", because any given "now" makes no sense by itself.

How does 'now' not make sense, but a poor memory or the imagined future is somehow more sensible?


While it is possible to fully experience "now" in meditation, (the "religious" experience I was talking about in another topic recently) it's an experience of detatchment, a kind of nothingness if you will. It's refreshing and rewarding, but you can't remain in that state. In order to actually live and engage, or even think, you must return to the construct, remember the past and anticipate the future.

I do not agree that you have to mediate to find the now. THe now is what you have, like it or not.

In pracitce; if you think about it, life consists of past and future; if you don't think about it, life may consist of now, but only for as long as you are able not to think.

Only when I think specifically about what I have done, or intend to do. 90% of the time I live in the now.

chaz wyman wrote:How does 'now' not make sense, but a poor memory or the imagined future is somehow more sensible?

Because "now" has no duration and thus in itself no context to make sense within. Nothing happens "now", because even the fastest of events take at least some time. When people talk about living "in the now", they mean focusing on the present, neither thinking too far ahead nor lingering on the past. They don't mean actually living in the moment, outside the context of previous and following events.

An example: You are playing tennis "now". How long is this "now"? The whole match? That would be a "now" measured in hours. This set? This game? This ball? Even as you return a serve, you are at the very least aware of where the ball is coming from (the recent past) and where you want it to go (the immediate future). But that is not all; each ball you strike only makes sense within the rules of the game, which are set in the past and presently active in memory, just like the meaning of each ball changes depending on whether you are on your way to win the match or lose it (how you are anticipating the future).

chaz wyman wrote:I do not agree that you have to mediate to find the now. THe now is what you have, like it or not.

The now finds you all the time; you are being had by the now at every moment.

For you to find the now, you need to free yourself from the context of past and future, which is what you have, like it or not.