Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on June 24, 2017, 12:04:39 PM
-
And philosophers sink?
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-time-of-our-lives
-
And philosophers sink?
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-time-of-our-lives
There is nothing called Time. Only changing events exist. Measuring this change creates Time.
-
There is no time like the present!
-
There is no time like the present!
and there's no present like a Rolex
-
There is nothing called Time. Only changing events exist. Measuring this change creates Time.
How does measuring create the thing? If changing events exist (note all three words have time concepts implied), how do they happen?
-
How does measuring create the thing? If changing events exist (note all three words have time concepts implied), how do they happen?
I suspect that what Sriram means is, as you have suggested, 'time' is a concept, rather than something which exists in its own right.
-
I suspect that what Sriram means is, as you have suggested, 'time' is a concept, rather than something which exists in its own right.
I think this is where we have to be careful about muddling concepts and uses of words. I doubt anyone says time is a thing in the same way as a sock is a thing. The concept of time and how things change is not created by measurement unless Sriram is arguing for there being no change without consciousness.
-
There is nothing called Time. Only changing events exist. Measuring this change creates Time.
If time doesn't exist, does that mean that spacetime doesn't exist ?
-
Does space exist?
-
Again in the sense of existence as in is space and/or time like a rock, no. But language is a slippery slidey thing like a greased fish trying to he grasped by soapy hands. If it does not exist like a rock, does that mean there is no such thing as space and/or time? Or is the concept a valid facet or concept of reality. We have to be careful that the difficulty in being clear isn't used to simply give free passes to deepities.
-
If time doesn't exist, does that mean that spacetime doesn't exist ?
Actually what is Time? Time is only an observers view and measurement of change. It is a sequence or succession of events that creates Past, Present and Future. If nothing happened, where is Time?
We intuitively tend to think of Time as something that goes on and on forever...and within which events happen. We attribute change to Time. Actually it is the other way around. Only change happens. Time is only an observers way of understanding this change.
About Space-Time I would say that instead of Time they should incorporate 'Change' as the natural attribute of Space.
Time is only a human construct. Change is nature.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/time/
-
Actually what is Time? Time is only an observers view and measurement of change. It is a sequence or succession of events that creates Past, Present and Future. If nothing happened, where is Time?
We intuitively tend to think of Time as something that goes on and on forever...and within which events happen. We attribute change to Time. Actually it is the other way around. Only change happens. Time is only an observers way of understanding this change.
About Space-Time I would say that instead of Time they should incorporate 'Change' as the natural attribute of Space.
Time is only a human construct. Change is nature.
What is the difference here? Is Space just width? What if nothing changes but continues, why would that be change not time? Essentially this is a game of semantics but change needs time, it isn't clear that time needs change.
-
Again in the sense of existence as in is space and/or time like a rock, no. But language is a slippery slidey thing like a greased fish trying to he grasped by soapy hands. If it does not exist like a rick, does that mean there is no such thing as space and/or time? Or is the concept a valid facet or concept of reality. We have to be careful that the difficulty in being clear isn't used to simply give free passes to deepities.
Right. These words are useful within certain contexts, conceptual frameworks. Bandying them around outside of those, we just end up playing word games and eventually make no sense.
-
Right. These words are useful within certain contexts, conceptual frameworks. Bandying them around outside of those, we just end up playing word games and eventually make no sense.
Agree, it's why so much use of quantum is a meaningless game. The difficulties of it are used to smuggle in any conclusion.
-
.... but change needs time, it isn't clear that time needs change.
Why does change need time? Why can't there just be change, movement and interaction?
-
Why does change need time? Why can't there just be change, movement and interaction?
So remove time how does that happen? Remove change and time can still happen
-
So remove time how does that happen?
How does what happen?
Remove change and time can still happen
How does that happen?
-
How does what happen?How does that happen?
Change.
-
Change.
Change appears to be as a result of a release of or a flow of energy. Why does this need 'time'? Why can't this just happen?
-
Change appears to be as a result of a release of or a flow of energy. Why does this need 'time'? Why can't this just happen?
Dunno, aren't you just describing time?
-
But time and mass are linked and the passing of time can be different in one place to another.
Therefore I'd say time does exist, because the change in things can vary, depending on mass.
If it was just " change" it wouldn't vary from place to place. Something causes the variation, mass I guess but it has a real effect on the rate of change.
If it can differ between two places, that indicates time isn't just a perception of change.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
-
Omg!
The mind boggles!
:o
http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/is-death-an-illusion-evidence-suggests-death-isnt-the-end/
To late for me, night night!
;D
-
What is the difference here? Is Space just width? What if nothing changes but continues, why would that be change not time? Essentially this is a game of semantics but change needs time, it isn't clear that time needs change.
I think ekim has got the idea.
Why do we even think of something like Time? Only because events are happening in succession. We are habituated to thinking that there is something called Time that is flowing eternally on and on due to which events and changes happen. Actually this is not necessary at all.
Events and changes happen due to various forces and influences. Maybe entropy....or whatever else. If an observer watches these events and he also has some frame of reference, he measures these changes in terms of Time. Time is therefore a human construct.
In other words Time does not give rise to Change. It is the other way around. If Change is measured, it gives rise to Time.
Change can happen at different rates in different places. This gives rise to relative time.
-
I think ekim has got the idea.
Why do we even think of something like Time? Only because events are happening in succession. We are habituated to thinking that there is something called Time that is flowing eternally on and on due to which events and changes happen. Actually this is not necessary at all.
Events and changes happen due to various forces and influences. Maybe entropy....or whatever else. If an observer watches these events and he also has some frame of reference, he measures these changes in terms of Time. Time is therefore a human construct.
In other words Time does not give rise to Change. It is the other way around. If Change is measured, it gives rise to Time.
Change can happen at different rates in different places. This gives rise to relative time.
I don't think this captures Rose's point. My perception of the passage of time as measured by my wristwatch is the same as an astronaut's perception of the passage of time as measured by his wristwatch whilst on the ISS. But they aren't the same. If time does not exist how can it vary from place to place ?
-
I don't think this captures Rose's point. My perception of the passage of time as measured by my wristwatch is the same as an astronaut's perception of the passage of time as measured by his wristwatch whilst on the ISS. But they aren't the same. If time does not exist how can it vary from place to place ?
Presumably because the perception of time, rather than anything like objective, perception-independent time, is entirely subjective. You say that your perception of time and the astronaut's perception of time are the same, yet we know (and can measure) that they're different; but even aboard the ISS the difference is so minuscule that there's no perception of difference. After all, technically speaking there's a time difference (even smaller, in this case) between the ground floor and the highest point of the Shard, or the Burj Khalifa for example.
On this I suspect the mystics such as Eckhart Tolle and physicists such as Julian Barbour are in agreement: no matter where you are or what you're doing in the universe, your perception of time is an ever-present Now because it simply can't be otherwise.
I read Julian Barbour's (supposedly popular science but actually hard-going) The End of Time some years ago and was promptly won over to his thesis about the unreality of time - I've long threatened to bore everybody into the shagpile with a thread on it (though it's incredibly difficult to do in words alone, without pictures or diagrams) ... but so far Sriram has come close to expressing the central idea:
Time does not give rise to Change. It is the other way around. If Change is measured, it gives rise to Time.
-
I don't think this captures Rose's point. My perception of the passage of time as measured by my wristwatch is the same as an astronaut's perception of the passage of time as measured by his wristwatch whilst on the ISS. But they aren't the same. If time does not exist how can it vary from place to place ?
My point is that only 'change' actually exists. Time is just our way of measuring change.
If there are any variations in Time from place to place it only means that 'Change' varies from place to place.
-
My point is that only 'change' actually exists. Time is just our way of measuring change.
If there are any variations in Time from place to place it only means that 'Change' varies from place to place.
Isn't this just avoiding dealing with the underlying concept by means of a simple word switch - using 'change' instead of 'time' ? Why would rate of change be sensitive to gravity ?
-
Isn't this just avoiding dealing with the underlying concept by means of a simple word switch - using 'change' instead of 'time' ?
No, since the principle at work here is that there are those who assert - and it is only an assertion - that time is fundamental and objectively 'out there' always and for ever true. Change is obvious; the perception-independent, objective background reality of time is a thing that needs to be argued for and evidenced.
Why would rate of change be sensitive to gravity ?
Why would 'time'?
In fact you're almost making Sriram's case for him, in a way. Gravity acts upon matter; the change that Sriram is referring to is an alteration in the configuration of matter, a difference in a particular state of affairs of the universe, and we deploy a useful but subjective tool called time in order to track such differences.
-
Presumably because the perception of time, rather than anything like objective, perception-independent time, is entirely subjective. You say that your perception of time and the astronaut's perception of time are the same, yet we know (and can measure) that they're different; but even aboard the ISS the difference is so minuscule that there's no perception of difference. After all, technically speaking there's a time difference (even smaller, in thus case) between the ground floor and the highest point of the Shard, or the Burj Khalifa for example.
It is not just the human perception of time, it is time measured by an insentient device and the differences between different measuring devices indicate that there is no such thing as a universal 'now'. That rules out a Newtonian view of time; every measuring device has its own subjective view of things so give varying results but there must be a thing there in order for it to vary.
-
It is not just the human perception of time, it is time measured by an insentient device and the differences between different measuring devices indicate that there is no such thing as a universal 'now'.
1. Though the devices may be insentient, they're humanly-created in order to measure this thing that humans call time; to regard this as evidence of objective, 'out there' time is a question-begging circular argument.
2. We may be at cross-purposes here - I'm not arguing for a universal Now in quite the way that you seem to think, if I understand you aright; that seems to imply that a universal Now is some definite and concrete 'thing' analogous to the Taj Mahal or Niagara Falls that everybody can visit and agree upon or fail to visit. Rather the point is that from the p.o.v. of subjective human experience, it not only always is but can only ever be Now. Eckhart Tolle poses the question: think of absolutely any moment at absolutely any point in your life doing absolutely anything (good, bad or neutral doesn't matter in this context) - was there ever any of those moments where your subjective perception was anywhere other than in the Now? The answer has to be no.
That rules out a Newtonian view of time; every measuring device has its own subjective view of things so give varying results but there must be a thing there in order for it to vary.
Not 100% sure I follow the train of thought here. If you're arguing for an objective, perception-independent reality of time, what does it say about its objectivity if it varies?
-
Surely Now is the same as self, it is precisely not the thing you can think about because it's reflexive. In trying to think about doing it you stop being able to do it.
-
Surely Now is the same as self, it is precisely not the thing you can think about because it's reflexive. In trying to think about doing it you stop being able to do it.
More or less. Past, present and future are mental constructs. You can think about them but then that is just another flow, in this case, of mental energy.
-
Are they mental constructs? That makes it sound a deliberate choice, and surely we don't have a choice in the way we experience things?
-
Are they mental constructs? That makes it sound a deliberate choice, and surely we don't have a choice in the way we experience things?
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are asking, but as regards the idea being discussed about the existence of time, events just happen, change, interact. The past is based upon memory or record of change, the future is based upon an assessment of probability of change and I suppose that the present is seen as a snapshot of immediate events. As regards choice, I suppose that some would say that you can choose to reflect upon memories of the 'past' or imagine the probability/possibility of 'future' events and allow 'present' events to arise as they will and be viewed as they are. There is no entity called 'time' involved, just change at different rates sometimes orderly, sometimes chaotically which the mind attempts to grapple with.
-
...
I read Julian Barbour's (supposedly popular science but actually hard-going) The End of Time some years ago and was promptly won over to his thesis about the unreality of time - I've long threatened to bore everybody into the shagpile with a thread on it (though it's incredibly difficult to do in words alone, without pictures or diagrams) ... but so far Sriram has come close to expressing the central idea:
Unfortunately I found that book to be, basically, unreadable and it has been left in the pile for some future decade (if there can be such a thing). Anyway, what are the implications of the non-existence of time? Does it mean that I don't have to follow speed limit restrictions? or that I can get to Mars without having to pack first?
-
... There is no entity called 'time' involved, just change at different rates sometimes orderly, sometimes chaotically which the mind attempts to grapple with.
What do you meant by "rates" if there is no time?
-
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are asking, but as regards the idea being discussed about the existence of time, events just happen, change, interact. The past is based upon memory or record of change, the future is based upon an assessment of probability of change and I suppose that the present is seen as a snapshot of immediate events. As regards choice, I suppose that some would say that you can choose to reflect upon memories of the 'past' or imagine the probability/possibility of 'future' events and allow 'present' events to arise as they will and be viewed as they are. There is no entity called 'time' involved, just change at different rates sometimes orderly, sometimes chaotically which the mind attempts to grapple with.
I think that this is s strawman. I haven't seen anyone suggest there is an entity called time. And in exactly the same way, there isn't an entity space but time is simply a description of the dimension in which things change, just as space is the dimension in which they move.
The question is about whether time is purely a construct of the mind or is an inevitable way of experiencing.
-
Agree, it's why so much use of quantum is a meaningless game. The difficulties of it are used to smuggle in any conclusion.
Yes, - for any claims to taken seriously a consistent model must be provided with experimental validation.
-
1. Though the devices may be insentient, they're humanly-created in order to measure this thing that humans call time; to regard this as evidence of objective, 'out there' time is a question-begging circular argument.
2. We may be at cross-purposes here - I'm not arguing for a universal Now in quite the way that you seem to think, if I understand you aright; that seems to imply that a universal Now is some definite and concrete 'thing' analogous to the Taj Mahal or Niagara Falls that everybody can visit and agree upon or fail to visit. Rather the point is that from the p.o.v. of subjective human experience, it not only always is but can only ever be Now. Eckhart Tolle poses the question: think of absolutely any moment at absolutely any point in your life doing absolutely anything (good, bad or neutral doesn't matter in this context) - was there ever any of those moments where your subjective perception was anywhere other than in the Now? The answer has to be no.
Not 100% sure I follow the train of thought here. If you're arguing for an objective, perception-independent reality of time, what does it say about its objectivity if it varies?
Whether clocks are manmade or not merely confuses the issue by introducing the messy business of human perception into it. At the heart of the clock there is an entirely natural regular energy state oscillation of a caesium 133 atom that we use to calibrate what we normally call time. What is being calibrated there if not time, or time by some other name, like duration, or change. Maybe it is not a question of reality but a question of usefulness of conceptualisation. Maybe strings don't exist, but are a useful mathematical tool to conceptualise subatomic matter. Maybe we could say the same for time, it is a convenience for something we don't actually understand, but the fact of locality and variation in the beatings of said caesium atoms requires us to incorporate time as a dimension into conceptual models otherwise we sacrifice authenticity.
Sorry, brain starting meltdown now, knew it was a mistake to get into this .... :(
-
Surely Now is the same as self, it is precisely not the thing you can think about because it's reflexive. In trying to think about doing it you stop being able to do it.
Maybe that resonates with the Buddhist insight that the more you go looking for the self, the more it is not there. Also with the Xeno paradox of motion. Exactly how long is now ? A valid concept of now requires it to be of zero duration, so 'now' cannot actually exist for the same reason that a string of zero length is not a string.
-
Whether clocks are manmade or not merely confuses the issue by introducing the messy business of human perception into it. At the heart of the clock there is an entirely natural regular energy state oscillation of a caesium 133 atom that we use to calibrate what we normally call time. What is being calibrated there if not time, or time by some other name, like duration, or change. Maybe it is not a question of reality but a question of usefulness of conceptualisation. Maybe strings don't exist, but are a useful mathematical tool to conceptualise subatomic matter. Maybe we could say the same for time, it is a convenience for something we don't actually understand, but the fact of locality and variation in the beatings of said caesium atoms requires us to incorporate time as a dimension into conceptual models otherwise we sacrifice authenticity.
Sorry, brain starting meltdown now, knew it was a mistake to get into this .... :(
No problem .. I think you are exactly right.
-
I have wondered for a long time if time is circular, there is no past, present or future as such. We all act out our lives on our own bit of the time circle, just a thought.
-
Excellent points by torridon. If you go looking for an objective thing called time, you will go mad, and you will end up drinking heavily every afternoon. The pragmatic solution is well, a pragmatic one, or an instrumental one. Isn't this true of most things?
Self? Damn, where's that bottle.
-
Well...this discussion has gone into philosophical musings about perception, Buddhism and so on. All that is fine. Whether life really is all about perception or not and whether life is an illusion or not is a different discussion.
In this thread, my point about Time being merely a human construct is about a fact which we tend to miss. We have gotten used to thinking of Time as some real, eternal and abstract dimension of the universe that causes things to change. My point is that things change due to internal reasons or external influences. There is no need to resort to anything like an endless Time that causes all these things.
As I have mentioned above, changes happen by themselves.....and when we measure them or perceive them as Past, Present and Future...we create Time as a convenient tool or canvas in our minds. But in reality there is no reason to believe that here is anything like Time in existence.
Whatever Time dilation and other observations that have been made due to the effects of gravity and motion etc. will be equally valid if perceived as effects on Change rather than on Time....because Time is nothing but rate of Change.
There is however a possible benefit of thinking of it as Change rather than as Time. If we think of the effects of gravity in slowing down Time, it remains abstract.....as a strange and mysterious phenomenon.
If however we think of it as the effect on Change rather than on Time, we have the possibility of investigating the reasons for the slowing down of Change, because Change is caused by internal or external influences. So we can find out why and how these influences change due to gravity.
Just some thoughts.
-
What do you meant by "rates" if there is no time?
In this context, I think what is meant is observable relative rates of change e.g. growth, decay, velocity etc., without the need of measurement in terms of an invented concept of time.
-
In this context, I think what is meant is observable relative rates of change e.g. growth, decay, velocity etc., without the need of measurement in terms of an invented concept of time.
And how would you measure relative here? Would you measure velocity without speed?
-
Is there a set of invisible posts here about time being a cause?
-
I think that this is s strawman. I haven't seen anyone suggest there is an entity called time. And in exactly the same way, there isn't an entity space but time is simply a description of the dimension in which things change, just as space is the dimension in which they move.
The question is about whether time is purely a construct of the mind or is an inevitable way of experiencing.
No straw man intended, but perhaps I misunderstood your assertion that 'change needs time'. If the question is as you say then perhaps it is both a construct of the mind and has become an inevitable way of experiencing.
-
No straw man intended, but perhaps I misunderstood your assertion that 'change needs time'. If the question is as you say then perhaps it is both a construct of the mind and has become an inevitable way of experiencing.
Try it as 'movement needs space'. There isn't any sense there of an entity. If there was no dimension of time in what would change happen. If there was no change, it wouldn't mean there was no time. If there was no time how could there be change.
-
And how would you measure relative here? Would you measure velocity without speed?
In the context of change there is no need to measure, just observe.
-
In the context of change there is no need to measure, just observe.
You were the one talking about relative rates, that's measuring. BTW how do you observe change if not for the dimension of time?
-
Try it as 'movement needs space'. There isn't any sense there of an entity. If there was no dimension of time in what would change happen. If there was no change, it wouldn't mean there was no time. If there was no time how could there be change.
If I am reading you correctly, change would happen in space. You have introduced 'dimension of time' so it is for you to provide evidence of this dimension and how it is essential for change.
-
If I am reading you correctly, change would happen in space. You have introduced 'dimension of time' so it is for you to provide evidence of this dimension and how it is essential for change.
No. I didn't mention change in space, I mentioned movement I really haven't introduced the dimension of time. You have it loaded into change.
ETA for clarity, yes change can happen in space and movement is obviously change but change doesn't need space I would suggest the same way it needs to time.
-
You were the one talking about relative rates, that's measuring. BTW how do you observe change if not for the dimension of time?
Not necessarily measuring, just observing, e.g. the positional change of 4 people running a mile I could simply observe without needing to know what time they took. There is no need to introduce the fictional 'dimension of time'.
-
Not necessarily measuring, just observing, e.g. the positional change of 4 people running a mile I could simply observe without needing to know what time they took. There is no need to introduce the fictional 'dimension of time'.
Positional change is a measuring. And you have to use two time coordinates to do it.
-
No. I didn't mention change in space, I mentioned movement I really haven't introduced the dimension of time. You have it loaded into change.
ETA for clarity, yes change can happen in space and movement is obviously change but change doesn't need space I would suggest the same way it needs to time.
Isn't movement a change of position? You said: 'if there was no dimension of time', bringing that concept into the discussion and implying there was a dimension of time.
-
Positional change is a measuring. And you have to use two time coordinates to do it.
I don't. I just watch them changing positions until they arrive at their destination. I haven't got the time for anything else. ;)
-
I don't. I just watch them changing positions until they arrive at their destination. I haven't got the time for anything else. ;)
Until?
-
I don't. I just watch them changing positions until they arrive at their destination. I haven't got the time for anything else. ;)
You watch them in time.
-
Until?
Yes, I use my imagination and create a possible future for them, otherwise where's the fun.
-
You watch them in time.
No, I'm out of time.
-
No, I'm out of time.
is this you announcing you are replacing Peter Capaldi?
-
is this you announcing you are replacing Peter Capaldi?
Why should I replace him, he's not replacing me. Who does he think he is!
-
One of the famous Zen koans is: there is no time; what is memory? Susan Blackmore wrestles with this in her book, 'Ten Zen Questions', and another one, whose title I've forgotten. Ha ha ha.
-
Whose title I've forgotten would be a brilliant title.
-
Why should I replace him, he's not replacing me. Who does he think he is!
A Change Lord
-
Animals in all probability don't have a comprehension of Time. I am not sure if any of them actually think of their lives as Past, Present and Future.
But we humans seem to have developed it fairly early in our development. A very remarkable ability indeed that forms a fundamental base requirement for development of other intellectual abilities. Without a concept of Time most other abilities would be impossible, I think.
-
Elephants? Birds?
It is clear that practically all living things have internal clocks. Perception of time develops along with memory ability.
-
Elephants? Birds?
It is clear that practically all living things have internal clocks. Perception of time develops along with memory ability.
Indeed, I'm not sure that animal behaviour would make any sense if you thought they didn't perceive time. How would something 'hunt'?
-
Elephants? Birds?
It is clear that practically all living things have internal clocks. Perception of time develops along with memory ability.
I don't think that is the same as developing an abstract concept of time, which I think is what Sriram meant. The vast majority of creatures live their lives in the present moment, I would have thought. A few, chimps for instance, can show evidence of forward planning, but the extent to which they know that they are forward planning is hard to say.
-
I don't think that is the same as developing an abstract concept of time, which I think is what Sriram meant. The vast majority of creatures live their lives in the present moment, I would have thought. A few, chimps for instance, can show evidence of forward planning, but the extent to which they know that they are forward planning is hard to say.
I think 'living in the present moment' makes no sense. That implies that there isn't such a thing as memory for animals and their behaviour doesn't bear that out. I don't see that there is a simple dichotomy of a compkex notion of time, and no concept.
-
I don't think that is the same as developing an abstract concept of time, which I think is what Sriram meant. The vast majority of creatures live their lives in the present moment, I would have thought. A few, chimps for instance, can show evidence of forward planning, but the extent to which they know that they are forward planning is hard to say.
Well ... agreed ... but do animals have any abstract concepts at all?
-
I think 'living in the present moment' makes no sense. That implies that there isn't such a thing as memory for animals and their behaviour doesn't bear that out. I don't see that there is a simple dichotomy of a compkex notion of time, and no concept.
I expect what Torridon means is that animals live according to the drives prevalent in the moment rather than planning ahead e.g. if they are hungry they hunt and feed rather than have a breakfast time, a lunch time and dinner time. Perhaps they are driven more by circadian rhythms and physiological drives rather than chronometers.
-
I expect what Torridon means is that animals live according to the drives prevalent in the moment rather than planning ahead e.g. if they are hungry they hunt and feed rather than have a breakfast time, a lunch time and dinner time. Perhaps they are driven more by circadian rhythms and physiological drives rather than chronometers.
This seems weirdly specific. Perception of time surely doesn't need a ceasium clock? That there may be differences in how we perceive time and indeed ourselves is trivially true. But the assumption that our experience has nothing in common in terns of our perception of time seems odd. We have had AB on the Searching for God thread continually banging on about how all non human animals are simply reactive, and that being challenged strongly by torridon.
When the links to the orangutan making the hammock, or the monkey trying to resuscitate its electrocuted companion, or the elephants saving the baby elephant when it falls into the water, these seem to me to need a fairly rich concept of time to allow for cause and effect, and intentional actions to take place.
-
It would be impossible for humans to live without the concept of Time, without a memory of the past and without thinking of the possibility of a future, even though animals do it.
I wonder how the idea and comprehension of something called Time started and developed. Evolutionary scientists need to think about that. Very intriguing!
-
This seems weirdly specific. Perception of time surely doesn't need a ceasium clock? That there may be differences in how we perceive time and indeed ourselves is trivially true. But the assumption that our experience has nothing in common in terns of our perception of time seems odd. We have had AB on the Searching for God thread continually banging on about how all non human animals are simply reactive, and that being challenged strongly by torridon.
When the links to the orangutan making the hammock, or the monkey trying to resuscitate its electrocuted companion, or the elephants saving the baby elephant when it falls into the water, these seem to me to need a fairly rich concept of time to allow for cause and effect, and intentional actions to take place.
On animals 'merely reacting' I object principally to the implication that they are essentially insentient beings with no inner experience involved in their responses; biological robots in other words. I would argue that the responses of most higher animals are mediated through the mechanisms of emotion as they are for us. So, when a squirrel buries nuts in the autumn, it does so because it wants to, a complex inner emotional state, an evolved instinctive behaviour, but it is not cognitively forward planning in the way that we would plan for winter, knowing what is coming. It is living in the moment. Some animals however do seem to be able to cognitively factor in the future and to use imagination and what-if thinking to guide their behaviours, chimps, corvids, orangs etc perhaps. Taken across the animal kingdom as a whole, these are the exceptions rather than the rule, most creatures survive on basically instinctive behaviours.
-
I obviously don't agree with the idea that animals are insentient. I think they have consciousness and a Self too. They are just at a lower stage of development because of which their consciousness is not as complex as ours is.
It is a spectrum again. Some animals could start developing the rudimentary aspects of our complex intellectual capabilities.
I think there is no distinct and clear demarcation between animals and humans. There are lots of qualities and capabilities that probably start off in some higher animals and then develop further in humans.
As far as Time is concerned, though some animals have been known to perform complex tasks, whether they actually understand Time in its abstract form I am not sure. I don't think so.