I believe that the concept of time, and time itself do not exist
outside of the human mind.
Any questions?

118 responses total.

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.

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.

What about squirrels burying nuts and acorns to dig up later?

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.

And a genetic program of forecasting precludes the fact of time outside the
human mind necessity.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

   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?

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?

Time exists, all right.

Entropy detemines its arrow.

 time flies like an arrow-- Fruit flies like a banana!
                       seen at the Hatcher Library

Banana fries are good to eat.

   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.

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?

  ?1, yes
  ?2,  undefined variable, unanswerable as such
  ?3, so what?

My...how thought provoking.  Use a little imagination TS!
A few explanatory statements wouldn't hurt either.

My terse switch was on. And right now my verbose mode is taking
a nap. How would you answer #20's questions?

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.

I do not exist in the "past" or the "future", I exist.

this item linked as agora 31, our "link of the month." please check out
reality for more discussions of the temporal, transcendental, and totally
tubular (well, okay, skip that last...)

  We could easily test #0.  I could drop a bowling ball from a building,
aiming at the head of 0's author.  Since he would be unaware of this, & thus
not include his perception of time at the gravitational pull excerted upon the
bowling ball as it plummets towards his cabbage, the bowling ball would 
theoretically never hit him.  Or, perhaps *my* perception (since I would be
including him in my perception of the space-time continuum) would show the 
bowling ball converging with his head & then him writhing in agony (or just
omentum of the bowling ball are).
uation never took place.
 
   Very intersting, but I don't have a bowling ball!

I refrain.

re #27: My statements all support movement through space irrespective
of time.  Your bowling ball would indeed hit its mark (if aimed properly).
As for agony - it does not exist for the dead.  Since a well placed
ball would definitely kill me instantly (considering a starting point
atop a multilevel structure), I would not fall prey to this or any 
other emotion.

I don't understand your hostility Hoolie.  I haven't made any offensive
remarks during my commentary.  If you choose to disagree with my concepts,
I respect your decision.  I be more inclined to respond favorably to your
thoughts on the issue if they were presented in a peaceful manner.

your friend,
-Gunge

After reading all these wonderful and thought provoking replies, I have
to admit that I too believe that time, that's "time" is man made.  "Time"
didnt exist until man made devices to monitor his new idea.  Therefor, it
is true I believe, that "time", in and of itself, does not exist.
    
HOWEVER...
   
It is also true that learning by both man and animal is an extension of
what has been taught in the past, and the past is a measure of time.
To say one doesn't exist in the past is conceptually wrong, in that if
one existed yesterday, then I indeed existed in the past.  With any luck
I will be here tomorrow, therefor I will exist in the future.  Past,
present, future....today, tomorrow, yesterday.  All are relative to our
existing right at this very moment.  For those who can fully grasp and
understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity (I cannot...), it is known
that time is relative...but to what is where I get lost...last I knew. :)
(I say "it is known" not to imply it to be a fact, just that it is
understood within the theory).
   
I find this topic interesting, because I have often pondered it, as well
as the Theory of Relativity, and I have tried to get others to understand
the concept of it all - not necessarily to believe in it, but just to
understand it.
   
As always, please excuse any grammatical errors and typos.  I am a
graduate of Huron High, and thats the only excuse I have to offer.  :)
  

 Gunge,  I wasn't attempting to be mean.  I didn't pay attention to who        
 
authored item 0, as it was irrelevent.

Apologies are unnecessary Hoolie - I'm not seriously offended.
Getting back to the relativity of time and one of my earlier questions:
What if you were a photon (a "particle" of light), would time exist?
My feeling is that your universe would be one dimentional and that
time would not exist.

Insufficient data ... ;)

i don't know if i can even think about one dimension...i mean, one dimen-
sion being (in theory) an infinitely small point, how could there be
movement, let alone time? but how about in two dimensions? could there
be time in two dimensions, or is there some other illusion associated 
with the infringement of three dimensions upon those two?

I thought one dimension was a line.  Are we talking a different metric?

Maybe this was covered earlier, but could someone give a quick
definition of "time"?

   If I remember correctly, we humans have various
conceptions of time.  The Hopi, for instance, are
said to have a quite different one than the usual
Western conception with which we are familiar.

   Also, the Western conception of time has changed
over the centuries.  S.J. Gould's _Times' Arrow, Time's
Cycle_  tells part of that story (along with that of the
birth of geology).

Any more details on The Hopi's?

An adequate response in this conference:

Purple Trees.

(I hate philisophical discussions)

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss