|
|
| Author |
Message |
gunge
|
|
Just a matter of time.
| 
May 10 05:39 UTC 1992 |
I believe that the concept of time, and time itself do not exist
outside of the human mind.
Any questions?
|
| 118 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 1 of 118:
|
May 10 13:24 UTC 1992 |
Well, a concept is by definition something that requires a mind to house
it, so the first part of your assertion is a special case of the self-
evident proposition that *no* concept exists outside of mind (although
the restriction to *human* mind is probably too narrow).
As to time itself not existing outside of mind -- I guess I'd ask you to
expand on your reasons for this belief.
|
gunge
|
|
response 2 of 118:
|
May 10 15:21 UTC 1992 |
Observe all other animate and inanimate objects in the world (this
may be extrapolated to the universe, but the universe is so vast
I'll keep my discussion bounded to the earth and it's atmosphere)
Nothing else living seems to "know" the past or the future. They only
"know" NOW, that is, whatever is happening presently.
You may say that a bat knows that it's night, and will fly - but the bat
doesn't know HOW LONG it's been night. A lion may be battling a zebra,
but it doesn't know it was battling that zebra a moment ago, or that
it will be in the next moment.
Similarly, you may be able to track a mountain's movement over time - but
the mountain will always move, with or without time.
|
danr
|
|
response 3 of 118:
|
May 10 15:42 UTC 1992 |
What about squirrels burying nuts and acorns to dig up later?
|
gunge
|
|
response 4 of 118:
|
May 11 01:52 UTC 1992 |
My wife brought up that point earlier today. I truly don't believe that
squirrels have any sence of the future, they simply bury food because
it's in their genetic program. You may be aware that squirrels and similar
rodents don't even remember where their food is buried. They probably don't
remember that they buried it at all, they simply dig around for food in their
own territory when none can be found above ground or snow, etc.
|
tcc
|
|
response 5 of 118:
|
May 12 06:21 UTC 1992 |
And a genetic program of forecasting precludes the fact of time outside the
human mind necessity.
|
md
|
|
response 6 of 118:
|
May 12 13:09 UTC 1992 |
How do you know that lions and squirrels aren't aware of time?
I'm not going to believe it just because some human says so.
And I've observed plenty of behavior that implies an awareness
of the passage of time in various animals. A bluejay won't
eat a Monarch butterfly after it's sampled the first one,
which implies knowledge of past experiences. In any case, the
fact that a bluejay can fly from point A to point B without the
assistance or presence of any human indicates that bluejays
exist in time, whether they're aware of it or not.
Secondly, couldn't it be that time exists but humans are the only
ones capable of perceiving it?
Thirdly, could it be that time exists but that the language we use
to describe its passage (there I go - what "passage"?) is flawed?
|
gunge
|
|
response 7 of 118:
|
May 12 17:53 UTC 1992 |
eh...could be!
I believe however that a change in any scalar (other than time) is
independent of time, and therfore will occur without time.
It is my opinion that memory is not dependent on a concept of "the
past"
"forcasting" is not a genetic program, "bury nuts" is.
I don't want anyone to believe in this, "just because I told you."
You'll have to determine my theory's credibility for yourself.
|
mta
|
|
response 8 of 118:
|
May 14 21:07 UTC 1992 |
Considering how my cats behave, I seriously doubt your assertion that
animals don't know a past or a future. My younger cat evidently plans
for the short term future--waiting in the dining room for me to leave,
then leaping upon the leftovers with wild abandon!
My elder cat definitley knows a past--she has a periodic toileting problem.
If I go near a place she has fouled, she makes track for parts unknown so
quickly that I *know* to start hunting!
|
gunge
|
|
response 9 of 118:
|
May 15 12:58 UTC 1992 |
young cat: "I know food is present -NOW-, I will watch"
-master finishes eating-
young cat: "Food is attainable -NOW-, I will eat"
old cat: "My master will fight for my territory -NOW-, I will run"
This assumes that cats have a sense of "I" simply for the sake of
argument.
|
md
|
|
response 10 of 118:
|
May 15 13:16 UTC 1992 |
gunge is right. You could program a computer to do what a
cat does. Doesn't prove a thing about time, though, one
way or the other.
|
danr
|
|
response 11 of 118:
|
May 15 22:55 UTC 1992 |
Apparently, Bryan, nothing anyone says is going to sway you, but I'll
give it one more try. Longer days is one of the clues animals use to
begin migration and mating and stuff like that. Being able to measure
the length of daylight to me says that they have some conception of time.
Maybe not a human one, but a real one, nonetheless.
|
keats
|
|
response 12 of 118:
|
May 16 01:20 UTC 1992 |
there isn't really a question of whether there _is_ time, it's just a
question of what it is. in the most popular scientific conception right
now (based on basic principles of relativity), time is a fourth dimension.
in the basic example of the person on the train with a beam of light and
two mirrors, we can establish that time can be distorted in three di-
mensions, i.e.--
a person is sitting on a train which is still reflecting a beam of light
between two mirrors at a fixed distance. the beam of light gets from
surface a to surface b of the mirrors in time x. the speed of light and
the distance are both constants. now, suppose the train begins to move...
the beam of light still takes the same amount of time to get from surface
a to surface b...problem is that the distance is now greater because the
beam is travelling at a diagonal to the horizontal plane of the train
instead of a perpendicular. since the speed of light is constant and the
result time is the same, the fact that the beam is covering a greater
distance can only be explained in the hypothesis that time was actually
distorted in the relative field of travel for the beam of light--that is,
time slowed down.
did i get that correct? i'm only an english student, after all. anyway,
hypothesize with me now a two-dimensional plane where there are existent
creatures. these creatures observe the passage of a looped, solid object
as it rotates on its center constantly through their plane--but what they
see is a series of infinitely thin slices, because, strictly speaking,
the three dimensional solid object does not exist _on_ their plane, just
_through_ it. they have no possible way of visualizing its true nature,
let alone conceiving of it.
but they do notice something. the ringed object is not uniform in its
size...sometimes it seems bigger, sometimes smaller. it is also multihued.
they begin to measure their actions against the progress of this loop,
calling it "time." because, again, strictly speaking, it doesn't exist
on their plane, they don't really know what it is--but it has a tangible
effect on that plane, and once they've noticed it, there's always a
lingering feeling of its actions. and that feeling can only be tangible in
a lingering sense, just outside their intelligence because it doesn't
exist in a way that they, with two-dimensional senses and sensibilities,
can comprehend.
somewhere on the fourth dimension, somebody right now is arguing hypothet-
ically that there is a third dimension where we erroneously perceive some
unknown quantity as "time." and that being is also relating how a
fictitious little three-dimensional being with woefully inadequate sense
perceptions entered a very lengthy item explaining his silly theory about
this quantity in a forum held with other threebies. apologies for having
made an example of myself.
|
gunge
|
|
response 13 of 118:
|
May 16 19:24 UTC 1992 |
Try to imagine having no memory of the past, and no thought of the future.
I'll share a thought on the subject of time by the french writer Simone De
Beauvoir:
And indeed it is old age, rather than death, that is to be contratsed with
life. Old age is lifes' parody, wereas death transforms life into a
destiny. In a way, death preserves life by giving it the absolute
dimension- "As unto himself eternity changes him at last." Death does away
with time.
|
arthur
|
|
response 14 of 118:
|
May 24 19:30 UTC 1992 |
Linguistic research with gorillas shows them to have a sense of
time. 'Course, you _could_ argue that having a sense of time just
makes them human.
BTW, you really need to define 'sense of time' more clearly. If
something has genetic programming to detect and take advantage of the
passage of time or certain cyclic events, it could be said to have
a sense of time under certain definitions. You used the word
'know' (about the past): what does it mean to 'know' something?
Does genetic programming count as knowing? Why not? How do we
(as observers) distinguish between 'genuine' (human) kinds of
knowing and other kinds ('genetic programming'), other than
by proclaiming our species bias?. If it can be shown that
animals learn some sense of time from others of their species, does
that count?
|
wizard
|
|
response 15 of 118:
|
Jun 16 04:15 UTC 1992 |
How can a beast have no sense of time when it can learn?
Isnt learning an extension of what you remember from the past?
The stove is hot, it hurts to touch it because I have touched it in t
the past and it hurt me then, so it will hurt me now.
THat is an application of time. Animals know this.
Take a dog for instance, dog chews up shoes, master hits dog with newspaper.
Dog comes upon a shoe the next day, does not chew on the shoe because it
remembers what happend the last time (in the past) it chewed on one.
This is all a semblence of time. Animals see time just as we do.
I know for a fact that animals have a sense of future, they have to in order
to do anything at all. They know that if they approach the door and whine,
that they will be let out to do what they need to do, this is an obvious
sense of future and what it holds. Can you not see this?
|
jes
|
|
response 16 of 118:
|
Jun 17 15:20 UTC 1992 |
Time exists, all right.
Entropy detemines its arrow.
|
n8lic
|
|
response 17 of 118:
|
Jun 17 18:39 UTC 1992 |
time flies like an arrow-- Fruit flies like a banana!
seen at the Hatcher Library
|
tsty
|
|
response 18 of 118:
|
Jun 17 22:49 UTC 1992 |
Banana fries are good to eat.
|
arthur
|
|
response 19 of 118:
|
Jun 21 21:25 UTC 1992 |
Some scientists argue that animals have no sense of time,
in that they cannot anticipate and plan for future events. This
is a different thing than the association of certain actions
with pain or reward. I'm not arguing their side, which I do
not agree with, but presenting it as a commonly held viewpoint,
which it is.
|
gunge
|
|
response 20 of 118:
|
Jun 23 05:49 UTC 1992 |
Consider another planet. If you lived at the core of a planet made
mostly of dense gases, and you had no indication of the planet's
orbit or rotation, would you exist in time? What if you never witnessed
a regular event? What if you were a photon?
|
tsty
|
|
response 21 of 118:
|
Jun 23 08:32 UTC 1992 |
?1, yes
?2, undefined variable, unanswerable as such
?3, so what?
|
gunge
|
|
response 22 of 118:
|
Jun 24 13:46 UTC 1992 |
My...how thought provoking. Use a little imagination TS!
A few explanatory statements wouldn't hurt either.
|
tsty
|
|
response 23 of 118:
|
Jun 24 16:16 UTC 1992 |
My terse switch was on. And right now my verbose mode is taking
a nap. How would you answer #20's questions?
|
ragnar
|
|
response 24 of 118:
|
Jul 4 15:15 UTC 1992 |
To expand (some): Yes, because you've already tied my existence to the
planet, assumed to exist in time.
#2: Yes, you could still exist in time. Witnessing events (conscious
perception) only matters to the existentialist. It seems to me the
question was posed assuming there is such a thing as "existing in
time." This gets right down to a matter of axiom, so you could
easily decide to disagree wiht me.
#3: Yes, see above.
|