AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

How our brains create time

I can't read the entire article, because it's behind a paywall, but the premise seems sound.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2248 views

Tony: How our brains create time

I can't read the entire article, because it's behind a paywall, but the premise seems sound.

Here is the article's beginning:

"SOME time ago, students at the University of Tennessee were handed an unusual assignment. Imagine yourself as a Lilliputian, they were told, as they stared at a miniature model of their communal lounge, complete with furniture and figurines. The students were asked to put themselves in the little people’s shoes, relaxing on the tiny chairs with minuscule cups of coffee. Then they had to say when they felt 30 minutes had passed.

"For the notionally shrunken students, time flew. Their estimates fell well short of clock time. Even more curiously, the acceleration in their felt time was proportional to the scale of the model lounges in which they were immersed.

This bizarre result, reported in Science in 1981, is occasionally invoked by neuroscientists to suggest that space and time are folded together in the brain as they are in the universe. It is also one of many intriguing demonstrations of how malleable our perception of time is – and how mysterious.

"Time’s passage is perhaps the most fundamental feature of our experience, and yet modern physics can’t decide if it is a fundamental property of the universe. So what is time, and why does it flow? How come it seems to slow and surge? And what, if anything, does the time we experience have to do with the time defined by the laws of nature?

"The search for answers takes us into the strange borderlands between neuroscience and physics – a foggy, treacherous place that exposes the limits of our ability to see reality as it ….....

I read the same article-beginning, and also would not succumb to the pay wall, but I looked at the earlier paper abstract:

Phenomenological space-time: toward an experiential relativity:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4508/681

Abstract
Subjects observing differently scaled environments undergo systematic shifts in the experience of time. The experience of temporal duration is compressed relative to the clock in the same proportion as scale-model environments being observed are compressed relative to the full-sized environment. This research suggests that spatial scale may be a principal mediator in the experience of time.

Comment: our brain learns from our surrounding reality in advance of our understanding what we see and experience, and is demonstrated to fill in bits and pieces, which is part of the argument against free will. I think you are completely correct. Our brain adapts to a smaller environment and shrinks time perception as an adaptation.

2190 views

Tony: How our brains create time

I can't read the entire article, because it's behind a paywall, but the premise seems sound.

Here is the article's beginning:

"SOME time ago, students at the University of Tennessee were handed an unusual assignment. Imagine yourself as a Lilliputian, they were told, as they stared at a miniature model of their communal lounge, complete with furniture and figurines. The students were asked to put themselves in the little people’s shoes, relaxing on the tiny chairs with minuscule cups of coffee. Then they had to say when they felt 30 minutes had passed.

"For the notionally shrunken students, time flew. Their estimates fell well short of clock time. Even more curiously, the acceleration in their felt time was proportional to the scale of the model lounges in which they were immersed.

This bizarre result, reported in Science in 1981, is occasionally invoked by neuroscientists to suggest that space and time are folded together in the brain as they are in the universe. It is also one of many intriguing demonstrations of how malleable our perception of time is – and how mysterious.

"Time’s passage is perhaps the most fundamental feature of our experience, and yet modern physics can’t decide if it is a fundamental property of the universe. So what is time, and why does it flow? How come it seems to slow and surge? And what, if anything, does the time we experience have to do with the time defined by the laws of nature?

"The search for answers takes us into the strange borderlands between neuroscience and physics – a foggy, treacherous place that exposes the limits of our ability to see reality as it ….....

I read the same article-beginning, and also would not succumb to the pay wall, but I looked at the earlier paper abstract:

Phenomenological space-time: toward an experiential relativity:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/213/4508/681

Abstract
Subjects observing differently scaled environments undergo systematic shifts in the experience of time. The experience of temporal duration is compressed relative to the clock in the same proportion as scale-model environments being observed are compressed relative to the full-sized environment. This research suggests that spatial scale may be a principal mediator in the experience of time.

Comment: our brain learns from our surrounding reality in advance of our understanding what we see and experience, and is demonstrated to fill in bits and pieces, which is part of the argument against free will. I think you are completely correct. Our brain adapts to a smaller environment and shrinks time perception as an adaptation.

Which makes me wonder about how we measure speeds that are on scales smaller than our own. I mean, our universe, even our planet is REALLY whizzing along through space, and our perception, because we exist on a smaller scales, comprehends the time in accordance with our comprehension of the scale relative to ourselves. Basically, its bigger so it appears to be moving far slower, while atoms appear to be moving far faster.

Perhaps it is tied to visual framerate. If you can, imagine your brain as a camera set to take a snapshot roughly 60 times a second. Then imagine it has to string those images together constantly, in real time, in order for you to move and act in the world at the scale which we exist. The brain does this constantly, analyzing each frame and using predictive algorithms and complex target identification (that we have no clue how to replicate yet) to enable to you respond, at times with 'cat like reflexes'. This is your 'Awake' mode where you are alert and aware of your environment.

Now, imagine are you are focused intently on something small, reading, writing, tying a fishhook, your brain has to optimize. One by one it will shut down every unnecessary system until the task itself will become something akin to another reality. However, in doing so the time frame of the real world, and our awareness of it, disappears.

The most interesting thing of this though, is that it means the start of time COINCIDED with, or was the product of, an awareness that makes the passage of time possible.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2182 views

TONY: Now, imagine are you are focused intently on something small, reading, writing, tying a fishhook, your brain has to optimize. One by one it will shut down every unnecessary system until the task itself will become something akin to another reality. However, in doing so the time frame of the real world, and our awareness of it, disappears.
The most interesting thing of this though, is that it means the start of time COINCIDED with, or was the product of, an awareness that makes the passage of time possible.

I don’t buy this at all, but everything depends on your concept of time. Consciousness and measurement of time are clearly only possible for a conscious, measuring mind. How fast or slowly it seems to pass will also depend on that mind and on the conditions in which that mind finds itself. But in my view, time manifests its existence by the passage from before to present to after, and from cause to effect. I have absolutely no doubt that the Earth and the sun had a beginning (and a cause), and that every single development entailed that passage. Time, then, for me is real and did not start with awareness. Only awareness of time started with awareness.

2177 views

TONY: Now, imagine are you are focused intently on something small, reading, writing, tying a fishhook, your brain has to optimize. One by one it will shut down every unnecessary system until the task itself will become something akin to another reality. However, in doing so the time frame of the real world, and our awareness of it, disappears.
The most interesting thing of this though, is that it means the start of time COINCIDED with, or was the product of, an awareness that makes the passage of time possible.

dhw: I don’t buy this at all, but everything depends on your concept of time. Consciousness and measurement of time are clearly only possible for a conscious, measuring mind. How fast or slowly it seems to pass will also depend on that mind and on the conditions in which that mind finds itself. But in my view, time manifests its existence by the passage from before to present to after, and from cause to effect. I have absolutely no doubt that the Earth and the sun had a beginning (and a cause), and that every single development entailed that passage. Time, then, for me is real and did not start with awareness. Only awareness of time started with awareness.

Your answer avoids the question which is, why does space-time as a concept work, as if time is built into the workings of the universe, requiring an underlying mind?

2199 views

David: Comment: our brain learns from our surrounding reality in advance of our understanding what we see and experience, and is demonstrated to fill in bits and pieces, which is part of the argument against free will. I think you are completely correct. Our brain adapts to a smaller environment and shrinks time perception as an adaptation.

Tony: Which makes me wonder about how we measure speeds that are on scales smaller than our own. I mean, our universe, even our planet is REALLY whizzing along through space, and our perception, because we exist on a smaller scales, comprehends the time in accordance with our comprehension of the scale relative to ourselves. Basically, its bigger so it appears to be moving far slower, while atoms appear to be moving far faster.

Perhaps it is tied to visual framerate. If you can, imagine your brain as a camera set to take a snapshot roughly 60 times a second. Then imagine it has to string those images together constantly, in real time, in order for you to move and act in the world at the scale which we exist. The brain does this constantly, analyzing each frame and using predictive algorithms and complex target identification (that we have no clue how to replicate yet) to enable to you respond, at times with 'cat like reflexes'. This is your 'Awake' mode where you are alert and aware of your environment.

Now, imagine are you are focused intently on something small, reading, writing, tying a fishhook, your brain has to optimize. One by one it will shut down every unnecessary system until the task itself will become something akin to another reality. However, in doing so the time frame of the real world, and our awareness of it, disappears.

The most interesting thing of this though, is that it means the start of time COINCIDED with, or was the product of, an awareness that makes the passage of time possible.

Which raises the issue: if space-time is real and we know the concept works, was time present before humans with brains appeared? Or does that mean God's mind m ust become a necessary part of space-time's existence?

2175 views

TONY: Now, imagine are you are focused intently on something small, reading, writing, tying a fishhook, your brain has to optimize. One by one it will shut down every unnecessary system until the task itself will become something akin to another reality. However, in doing so the time frame of the real world, and our awareness of it, disappears.
The most interesting thing of this though, is that it means the start of time COINCIDED with, or was the product of, an awareness that makes the passage of time possible.

dhw: I don’t buy this at all, but everything depends on your concept of time. Consciousness and measurement of time are clearly only possible for a conscious, measuring mind. How fast or slowly it seems to pass will also depend on that mind and on the conditions in which that mind finds itself. But in my view, time manifests its existence by the passage from before to present to after, and from cause to effect. I have absolutely no doubt that the Earth and the sun had a beginning (and a cause), and that every single development entailed that passage. Time, then, for me is real and did not start with awareness. Only awareness of time started with awareness.

DAVID: Your answer avoids the question which is, why does space-time as a concept work, as if time is built into the workings of the universe, requiring an underlying mind?

Please note the subject of this thread. Your comment avoids the question of how you define time. Totally mindless energy and matter constantly forming and reforming entails a before and after, and a cause and effect. That to me is time. What do you mean by something working? Billions of stars, suns and galaxies come and go. What is “working”? I would agree with you 100% if you wished to argue that life requires fine tuning, and so you can certainly make out a case that in our galaxy something is working. But that does not change the concept of time. There was a before and after, and a cause and effect, long before life arrived.

2204 views

TONY: Now, imagine are you are focused intently on something small, reading, writing, tying a fishhook, your brain has to optimize. One by one it will shut down every unnecessary system until the task itself will become something akin to another reality. However, in doing so the time frame of the real world, and our awareness of it, disappears.
The most interesting thing of this though, is that it means the start of time COINCIDED with, or was the product of, an awareness that makes the passage of time possible.

dhw: I don’t buy this at all, but everything depends on your concept of time. Consciousness and measurement of time are clearly only possible for a conscious, measuring mind. How fast or slowly it seems to pass will also depend on that mind and on the conditions in which that mind finds itself. But in my view, time manifests its existence by the passage from before to present to after, and from cause to effect. I have absolutely no doubt that the Earth and the sun had a beginning (and a cause), and that every single development entailed that passage. Time, then, for me is real and did not start with awareness. Only awareness of time started with awareness.

DAVID: Your answer avoids the question which is, why does space-time as a concept work, as if time is built into the workings of the universe, requiring an underlying mind?

dhw: Please note the subject of this thread. Your comment avoids the question of how you define time. Totally mindless energy and matter constantly forming and reforming entails a before and after, and a cause and effect. That to me is time. What do you mean by something working? Billions of stars, suns and galaxies come and go. What is “working”? I would agree with you 100% if you wished to argue that life requires fine tuning, and so you can certainly make out a case that in our galaxy something is working. But that does not change the concept of time. There was a before and after, and a cause and effect, long before life arrived.

I agree with you, but if time is simply before and after, what is space-time?

2180 views

TONY

DAVID: Your answer avoids the question which is, why does space-time as a concept work, as if time is built into the workings of the universe, requiring an underlying mind?

DHW: Please note the subject of this thread. Your comment avoids the question of how you define time. Totally mindless energy and matter constantly forming and reforming entails a before and after, and a cause and effect. That to me is time. What do you mean by something working? Billions of stars, suns and galaxies come and go. What is “working”? I would agree with you 100% if you wished to argue that life requires fine tuning, and so you can certainly make out a case that in our galaxy something is working. But that does not change the concept of time. There was a before and after, and a cause and effect, long before life arrived.

[/i]

In order for time to be a concept, someing must be able to conceptualize it. From quantum physics to time, science is showing over and over that consciousness is a prerequisite requirement for the state of existence we inhabit to even exist. It doesn't just depend on your definition or time, but also of life. There is nothing that points to their being no apriori intelligence except our arrogant claim to being the most complex beings in the universe.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2174 views

TONY

DAVID: Your answer avoids the question which is, why does space-time as a concept work, as if time is built into the workings of the universe, requiring an underlying mind?

DHW: Please note the subject of this thread. Your comment avoids the question of how you define time. Totally mindless energy and matter constantly forming and reforming entails a before and after, and a cause and effect. That to me is time. What do you mean by something working? Billions of stars, suns and galaxies come and go. What is “working”? I would agree with you 100% if you wished to argue that life requires fine tuning, and so you can certainly make out a case that in our galaxy something is working. But that does not change the concept of time. There was a before and after, and a cause and effect, long before life arrived.

[/i]

Tony: In order for time to be a concept, something must be able to conceptualize it. From quantum physics to time, science is showing over and over that consciousness is a prerequisite requirement for the state of existence we inhabit to even exist. It doesn't just depend on your definition or time, but also of life. There is nothing that points to there being no apriori intelligence except our arrogant claim to being the most complex beings in the universe.

I agree. Time, as we view it is a sequence of experiences. Animals who are conscious are aware of a series of events, but they cannot recognize it as 'time' which is a concept of the series. Hawking stated years ago there is no physical 'before' before the big Bang. Time started with the Bang. Guth et al. confirmed it in a mathematical paper at Hawking's 60th birthday celebration. But that doesn't mean the BB came from nothing. Einstein uses space-time as the basis of his theories about the mechanics of the universe. If time is a mental concept, it suggest strongly a mind made the universe.

2139 views

DAVID: Your answer avoids the question which is, why does space-time as a concept work, as if time is built into the workings of the universe, requiring an underlying mind?

dhw: Please note the subject of this thread. Your comment avoids the question of how you define time. Totally mindless energy and matter constantly forming and reforming entails a before and after, and a cause and effect. That to me is time. What do you mean by something working? Billions of stars, suns and galaxies come and go. What is “working”? I would agree with you 100% if you wished to argue that life requires fine tuning, and so you can certainly make out a case that in our galaxy something is working. But that does not change the concept of time. There was a before and after, and a cause and effect, long before life arrived.

DAVID: I agree with you, but if time is simply before and after, what is space-time?

Do tell me.

TONY: In order for time to be a concept, someing must be able to conceptualize it. From quantum physics to time, science is showing over and over that consciousness is a prerequisite requirement for the state of existence we inhabit to even exist. It doesn't just depend on your definition or time, but also of life. There is nothing that points to their being no apriori intelligence except our arrogant claim to being the most complex beings in the universe.

Part of that arrogance is the idea that if we were not here, nothing else would be here either. Of course concepts are impossible without someone/something to do the conceiving. That does not mean the thing being conceptualized does not have an independent existence of its own! “Concept” can mean how something should be done, or how something is done, and “time” is our concept of how things are done, namely in a sequence of before and after, cause and effect. I truly believe that our planet and our solar system and billions of solar systems and galaxies existed long before we did. If you wish to argue that they could not have existed without some “a priori intelligence” (i.e. your God), I shan’t argue with you, just as I shan’t argue with the atheist who says that intelligence could not have existed without some a priori combination of materials to engender it. Neither of these arguments, in my opinion, alters the fact that everything we know about reality indicates that there is a sequence of before and after, cause and effect, and that constitutes time whether there is anyone to observe it or not.

DAVID [referring to Tony’s post above]: I agree. Time, as we view it is a sequence of experiences. Animals who are conscious are aware of a series of events, but they cannot recognize it as 'time' which is a concept of the series. Hawking stated years ago there is no physical 'before' before the big Bang. Time started with the Bang. Guth et al. confirmed it in a mathematical paper at Hawking's 60th birthday celebration. But that doesn't mean the BB came from nothing. Einstein uses space-time as the basis of his theories about the mechanics of the universe. If time is a mental concept, it suggest strongly a mind made the universe.

I do not accept that time is a mental concept. I see “time” as the word we have invented to describe something which has an objective reality of its own. See above.

2151 views

DAVID: Your answer avoids the question which is, why does space-time as a concept work, as if time is built into the workings of the universe, requiring an underlying mind?

dhw: Please note the subject of this thread. Your comment avoids the question of how you define time. Totally mindless energy and matter constantly forming and reforming entails a before and after, and a cause and effect. That to me is time. What do you mean by something working? Billions of stars, suns and galaxies come and go. What is “working”? I would agree with you 100% if you wished to argue that life requires fine tuning, and so you can certainly make out a case that in our galaxy something is working. But that does not change the concept of time. There was a before and after, and a cause and effect, long before life arrived.

DAVID: I agree with you, but if time is simply before and after, what is space-time?

Do tell me.

TONY: In order for time to be a concept, someing must be able to conceptualize it. From quantum physics to time, science is showing over and over that consciousness is a prerequisite requirement for the state of existence we inhabit to even exist. It doesn't just depend on your definition or time, but also of life. There is nothing that points to their being no apriori intelligence except our arrogant claim to being the most complex beings in the universe.

Part of that arrogance is the idea that if we were not here, nothing else would be here either. Of course concepts are impossible without someone/something to do the conceiving. That does not mean the thing being conceptualized does not have an independent existence of its own! “Concept” can mean how something should be done, or how something is done, and “time” is our concept of how things are done, namely in a sequence of before and after, cause and effect. I truly believe that our planet and our solar system and billions of solar systems and galaxies existed long before we did. If you wish to argue that they could not have existed without some “a priori intelligence” (i.e. your God), I shan’t argue with you, just as I shan’t argue with the atheist who says that intelligence could not have existed without some a priori combination of materials to engender it. Neither of these arguments, in my opinion, alters the fact that everything we know about reality indicates that there is a sequence of before and after, cause and effect, and that constitutes time whether there is anyone to observe it or not.

DAVID [referring to Tony’s post above]: I agree. Time, as we view it is a sequence of experiences. Animals who are conscious are aware of a series of events, but they cannot recognize it as 'time' which is a concept of the series. Hawking stated years ago there is no physical 'before' before the big Bang. Time started with the Bang. Guth et al. confirmed it in a mathematical paper at Hawking's 60th birthday celebration. But that doesn't mean the BB came from nothing. Einstein uses space-time as the basis of his theories about the mechanics of the universe. If time is a mental concept, it suggest strongly a mind made the universe.

I do not accept that time is a mental concept. I see “time” as the word we have invented to describe something which has an objective reality of its own. See above.

Quantum physics shows us that matter exists in a state of superposition until observed. So, no, matter does not exist in a defined state without consciousness, and now it appears that time does not either. I suspect that what will be found in the final analysis is that information and energy will also follow this trend, all needing something to process their meaning prior to being made real and locked into our reality

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2154 views

DAVID: Your answer avoids the question which is, why does space-time as a concept work, as if time is built into the workings of the universe, requiring an underlying mind?

dhw: Please note the subject of this thread. Your comment avoids the question of how you define time. Totally mindless energy and matter constantly forming and reforming entails a before and after, and a cause and effect. That to me is time. What do you mean by something working? Billions of stars, suns and galaxies come and go. What is “working”? I would agree with you 100% if you wished to argue that life requires fine tuning, and so you can certainly make out a case that in our galaxy something is working. But that does not change the concept of time. There was a before and after, and a cause and effect, long before life arrived.

DAVID: I agree with you, but if time is simply before and after, what is space-time?

dhw: Do tell me.

TONY: In order for time to be a concept, someing must be able to conceptualize it. From quantum physics to time, science is showing over and over that consciousness is a prerequisite requirement for the state of existence we inhabit to even exist. It doesn't just depend on your definition or time, but also of life. There is nothing that points to their being no apriori intelligence except our arrogant claim to being the most complex beings in the universe.

dhw: Part of that arrogance is the idea that if we were not here, nothing else would be here either. Of course concepts are impossible without someone/something to do the conceiving. That does not mean the thing being conceptualized does not have an independent existence of its own! “Concept” can mean how something should be done, or how something is done, and “time” is our concept of how things are done, namely in a sequence of before and after, cause and effect. I truly believe that our planet and our solar system and billions of solar systems and galaxies existed long before we did. If you wish to argue that they could not have existed without some “a priori intelligence” (i.e. your God), I shan’t argue with you, just as I shan’t argue with the atheist who says that intelligence could not have existed without some a priori combination of materials to engender it. Neither of these arguments, in my opinion, alters the fact that everything we know about reality indicates that there is a sequence of before and after, cause and effect, and that constitutes time whether there is anyone to observe it or not.

DAVID [referring to Tony’s post above]: I agree. Time, as we view it is a sequence of experiences. Animals who are conscious are aware of a series of events, but they cannot recognize it as 'time' which is a concept of the series. Hawking stated years ago there is no physical 'before' before the big Bang. Time started with the Bang. Guth et al. confirmed it in a mathematical paper at Hawking's 60th birthday celebration. But that doesn't mean the BB came from nothing. Einstein uses space-time as the basis of his theories about the mechanics of the universe. If time is a mental concept, it suggest strongly a mind made the universe.

dhw: I do not accept that time is a mental concept. I see “time” as the word we have invented to describe something which has an objective reality of its own. See above.

Tony: Quantum physics shows us that matter exists in a state of superposition until observed. So, no, matter does not exist in a defined state without consciousness, and now it appears that time does not either. I suspect that what will be found in the final analysis is that information and energy will also follow this trend, all needing something to process their meaning prior to being made real and locked into our reality

I see this comment as being correct for whole organisms and for the universe, while single cells can use information they are given by processes they are given,.

2120 views

DAVID: Your answer avoids the question which is, why does space-time as a concept work, as if time is built into the workings of the universe, requiring an underlying mind?

dhw: Please note the subject of this thread. Your comment avoids the question of how you define time. Totally mindless energy and matter constantly forming and reforming entails a before and after, and a cause and effect. That to me is time. What do you mean by something working? Billions of stars, suns and galaxies come and go. What is “working”? I would agree with you 100% if you wished to argue that life requires fine tuning, and so you can certainly make out a case that in our galaxy something is working. But that does not change the concept of time. There was a before and after, and a cause and effect, long before life arrived.

DAVID: I agree with you, but if time is simply before and after, what is space-time?

dhw: Do tell me.

Einstein's invention which works to understand relative related motions in the universe

TONY: In order for time to be a concept, something must be able to conceptualize it. From quantum physics to time, science is showing over and over that consciousness is a prerequisite requirement for the state of existence we inhabit to even exist. It doesn't just depend on your definition or time, but also of life. There is nothing that points to their being no apriori intelligence except our arrogant claim to being the most complex beings in the universe.

dhw: Part of that arrogance is the idea that if we were not here, nothing else would be here either. Of course concepts are impossible without someone/something to do the conceiving. That does not mean the thing being conceptualized does not have an independent existence of its own! “Concept” can mean how something should be done, or how something is done, and “time” is our concept of how things are done, namely in a sequence of before and after, cause and effect. I truly believe that our planet and our solar system and billions of solar systems and galaxies existed long before we did. If you wish to argue that they could not have existed without some “a priori intelligence” (i.e. your God), I shan’t argue with you, just as I shan’t argue with the atheist who says that intelligence could not have existed without some a priori combination of materials to engender it. Neither of these arguments, in my opinion, alters the fact that everything we know about reality indicates that there is a sequence of before and after, cause and effect, and that constitutes time whether there is anyone to observe it or not.

DAVID [referring to Tony’s post above]: I agree. Time, as we view it is a sequence of experiences. Animals who are conscious are aware of a series of events, but they cannot recognize it as 'time' which is a concept of the series. Hawking stated years ago there is no physical 'before' before the big Bang. Time started with the Bang. Guth et al. confirmed it in a mathematical paper at Hawking's 60th birthday celebration. But that doesn't mean the BB came from nothing. Einstein uses space-time as the basis of his theories about the mechanics of the universe. If time is a mental concept, it suggest strongly a mind made the universe.

dhw: I do not accept that time is a mental concept. I see “time” as the word we have invented to describe something which has an objective reality of its own. See above.

No organism but humans see time. It exists only for us and is real only for us. It only exists in our heads.

2154 views

Dhw: Part of that arrogance is the idea that if we were not here, nothing else would be here either. Of course concepts are impossible without someone/something to do the conceiving. That does not mean the thing being conceptualized does not have an independent existence of its own! “Concept” can mean how something should be done, or how something is done, and “time” is our concept of how things are done, namely in a sequence of before and after, cause and effect. I truly believe that our planet and our solar system and billions of solar systems and galaxies existed long before we did. If you wish to argue that they could not have existed without some “a priori intelligence” (i.e. your God), I shan’t argue with you, just as I shan’t argue with the atheist who says that intelligence could not have existed without some a priori combination of materials to engender it. Neither of these arguments, in my opinion, alters the fact that everything we know about reality indicates that there is a sequence of before and after, cause and effect, and that constitutes time whether there is anyone to observe it or not.
And:
Dhw: I do not accept that time is a mental concept. I see “time” as the word we have invented to describe something which has an objective reality of its own. See above.

TONY: Quantum physics shows us that matter exists in a state of superposition until observed. So, no, matter does not exist in a defined state without consciousness, and now it appears that time does not either. I suspect that what will be found in the final analysis is that information and energy will also follow this trend, all needing something to process their meaning prior to being made real and locked into our reality.

DAVID: I see this comment as being correct for whole organisms and for the universe, while single cells can use information they are given by processes they are given.

I don’t know, Tony, what you mean by “a defined state”, and I don’t know what either of you mean by “time”. I have explained above precisely what I mean – namely, the sequence of before and after, cause and effect. Do either of you seriously believe that the Earth did not exist before we arrived on it and gave names to all the realities we observe, and formulated concepts to try and explain them?

DAVID: I agree with you, but if time is simply before and after, what is space-time?

dhw: Do tell me.

DAVID: Einstein's invention which works to understand relative related motions in the universe.

How does this invalidate the concept of time as a sequence of before and after, cause and effect?

DAVID: No organism but humans see time. It exists only for us and is real only for us. It only exists in our heads.

So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

2136 views

Dhw: Part of that arrogance is the idea that if we were not here, nothing else would be here either. Of course concepts are impossible without someone/something to do the conceiving. That does not mean the thing being conceptualized does not have an independent existence of its own! “Concept” can mean how something should be done, or how something is done, and “time” is our concept of how things are done, namely in a sequence of before and after, cause and effect. I truly believe that our planet and our solar system and billions of solar systems and galaxies existed long before we did. If you wish to argue that they could not have existed without some “a priori intelligence” (i.e. your God), I shan’t argue with you, just as I shan’t argue with the atheist who says that intelligence could not have existed without some a priori combination of materials to engender it. Neither of these arguments, in my opinion, alters the fact that everything we know about reality indicates that there is a sequence of before and after, cause and effect, and that constitutes time whether there is anyone to observe it or not.
And:
Dhw: I do not accept that time is a mental concept. I see “time” as the word we have invented to describe something which has an objective reality of its own. See above.

TONY: Quantum physics shows us that matter exists in a state of superposition until observed. So, no, matter does not exist in a defined state without consciousness, and now it appears that time does not either. I suspect that what will be found in the final analysis is that information and energy will also follow this trend, all needing something to process their meaning prior to being made real and locked into our reality.

DAVID: I see this comment as being correct for whole organisms and for the universe, while single cells can use information they are given by processes they are given.

dhw: I don’t know, Tony, what you mean by “a defined state”, and I don’t know what either of you mean by “time”. I have explained above precisely what I mean – namely, the sequence of before and after, cause and effect. Do either of you seriously believe that the Earth did not exist before we arrived on it and gave names to all the realities we observe, and formulated concepts to try and explain them?

DAVID: I agree with you, but if time is simply before and after, what is space-time?

dhw: Do tell me.

DAVID: Einstein's invention which works to understand relative related motions in the universe.

dhw: How does this invalidate the concept of time as a sequence of before and after, cause and effect?

It doesn't

DAVID: No organism but humans see time. It exists only for us and is real only for us. It only exists in our heads.

dhw: So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

Of course I do, but we are again discussing apples and oranges. Of course there is sequential time, but it is an immaterial concept of the human mind as it analyzes a real sequence.

2177 views

DAVID: No organism but humans see time. It exists only for us and is real only for us. It only exists in our heads.

dhw: So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

DAVID: Of course I do, but we are again discussing apples and oranges. Of course there is sequential time, but it is an immaterial concept of the human mind as it analyzes a real sequence.

If the sequence is real, then it is clearly absurd to say that “our brains create time”! Our brains name, describe and try to explain realities of all kinds, and the sequence of time is one of them.

2155 views

DAVID: No organism but humans see time. It exists only for us and is real only for us. It only exists in our heads.

dhw: So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

DAVID: Of course I do, but we are again discussing apples and oranges. Of course there is sequential time, but it is an immaterial concept of the human mind as it analyzes a real sequence.

dhw: If the sequence is real, then it is clearly absurd to say that “our brains create time”! Our brains name, describe and try to explain realities of all kinds, and the sequence of time is one of them.

Our brain names the sequence as time. That is still a concept. Of course the sequence is real. The real question still is: is 'time' in space-time real or use of a concept entering it as a fourth dimension?

2181 views

DAVID: No organism but humans see time. It exists only for us and is real only for us. It only exists in our heads.

dhw: So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

DAVID: Of course I do, but we are again discussing apples and oranges. Of course there is sequential time, but it is an immaterial concept of the human mind as it analyzes a real sequence.

dhw: If the sequence is real, then it is clearly absurd to say that “our brains create time”! Our brains name, describe and try to explain realities of all kinds, and the sequence of time is one of them.

Our brain names the sequence as time. That is still a concept. Of course the sequence is real. The real question still is: is 'time' in space-time real or use of a concept entering it as a fourth dimension?

Or is it a higher consciousness that is defining time?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2178 views

DAVID: No organism but humans see time. It exists only for us and is real only for us. It only exists in our heads.

dhw: So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

DAVID: Of course I do, but we are again discussing apples and oranges. Of course there is sequential time, but it is an immaterial concept of the human mind as it analyzes a real sequence.

dhw: If the sequence is real, then it is clearly absurd to say that “our brains create time”! Our brains name, describe and try to explain realities of all kinds, and the sequence of time is one of them.

David: Our brain names the sequence as time. That is still a concept. Of course the sequence is real. The real question still is: is 'time' in space-time real or use of a concept entering it as a fourth dimension?

Tony: Or is it a higher consciousness that is defining time?

Of course a greater consciousness started time with creation of the universe

2157 views

TONY: Quantum physics shows us that matter exists in a state of superposition until observed. So, no, matter does not exist in a defined state without consciousness, and now it appears that time does not either. I suspect that what will be found in the final analysis is that information and energy will also follow this trend, all needing something to process their meaning prior to being made real and locked into our reality.

DAVID: I see this comment as being correct for whole organisms and for the universe, while single cells can use information they are given by processes they are given.

I don’t know, Tony, what you mean by “a defined state”, and I don’t know what either of you mean by “time”. I have explained above precisely what I mean – namely, the sequence of before and after, cause and effect. Do either of you seriously believe that the Earth did not exist before we arrived on it and gave names to all the realities we observe, and formulated concepts to try and explain them?

DAVID: I agree with you, but if time is simply before and after, what is space-time?

dhw: Do tell me.

DAVID: Einstein's invention which works to understand relative related motions in the universe.

How does this invalidate the concept of time as a sequence of before and after, cause and effect?

DAVID: No organism but humans see time. It exists only for us and is real only for us. It only exists in our heads.

So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

So, again, you miss the point. I never said that it was OUR consciousness holding things together. Some consciousness that must have been available to observe prior to the big bang.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2159 views

TONY: Quantum physics shows us that matter exists in a state of superposition until observed. So, no, matter does not exist in a defined state without consciousness, and now it appears that time does not either. I suspect that what will be found in the final analysis is that information and energy will also follow this trend, all needing something to process their meaning prior to being made real and locked into our reality.

DAVID: I see this comment as being correct for whole organisms and for the universe, while single cells can use information they are given by processes they are given.

I don’t know, Tony, what you mean by “a defined state”, and I don’t know what either of you mean by “time”. I have explained above precisely what I mean – namely, the sequence of before and after, cause and effect. Do either of you seriously believe that the Earth did not exist before we arrived on it and gave names to all the realities we observe, and formulated concepts to try and explain them?

DAVID: I agree with you, but if time is simply before and after, what is space-time?

dhw: Do tell me.

DAVID: Einstein's invention which works to understand relative related motions in the universe.

dhw: How does this invalidate the concept of time as a sequence of before and after, cause and effect?

DAVID: No organism but humans see time. It exists only for us and is real only for us. It only exists in our heads.

dhw: So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

Tony: So, again, you miss the point. I never said that it was OUR consciousness holding things together. Some consciousness that must have been available to observe prior to the big bang.

Of course dhw misses the point

2143 views

DAVID: No organism but humans see time. It exists only for us and is real only for us. It only exists in our heads.

dhw: So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

DAVID: Of course I do, but we are again discussing apples and oranges. Of course there is sequential time, but it is an immaterial concept of the human mind as it analyzes a real sequence.

dhw: If the sequence is real, then it is clearly absurd to say that “our brains create time”! Our brains name, describe and try to explain realities of all kinds, and the sequence of time is one of them.

DAVID: Our brain names the sequence as time. That is still a concept. Of course the sequence is real. The real question still is: is 'time' in space-time real or use of a concept entering it as a fourth dimension?

Sorry, but that is not the “real” question for me. I object to the statement that the brain creates time. You agree that the sequence is real and therefore exists independently of the brain, just like every other reality that we name, describe and try to explain, so I don’t know why you are trying to muddy the waters with space-time and the fourth dimension. Do you agree or not that the brain does NOT create time?

TONY: Or is it a higher consciousness that is defining time?

DAVID: Of course a greater consciousness started time with creation of the universe

I suggest that time is the sequence of before and after, cause and effect. Even if you believe your God started time, you will still have to admit that our brains do not create it. Our brains only define it.

Dhw (as above): So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

TONY: So, again, you miss the point. I never said that it was OUR consciousness holding things together. Some consciousness that must have been available to observe prior to the big bang.

You started this thread with the title “How our brains create time”. My point is that our brains do not create time, but it has a reality of its own. You may believe that the universe required a consciousness to “hold things together”, but that is a completely different subject. However, it might help to clarify your views if you would give us your own definition of time, assuming it is NOT the sequence of before/after and cause/effect.

2164 views

DAVID: No organism but humans see time. It exists only for us and is real only for us. It only exists in our heads.

dhw: So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

DAVID: Of course I do, but we are again discussing apples and oranges. Of course there is sequential time, but it is an immaterial concept of the human mind as it analyzes a real sequence.

dhw: If the sequence is real, then it is clearly absurd to say that “our brains create time”! Our brains name, describe and try to explain realities of all kinds, and the sequence of time is one of them.

DAVID: Our brain names the sequence as time. That is still a concept. Of course the sequence is real. The real question still is: is 'time' in space-time real or use of a concept entering it as a fourth dimension?

dhw: Sorry, but that is not the “real” question for me. I object to the statement that the brain creates time. You agree that the sequence is real and therefore exists independently of the brain, just like every other reality that we name, describe and try to explain, so I don’t know why you are trying to muddy the waters with space-time and the fourth dimension. Do you agree or not that the brain does NOT create time?

I've agreed and so I'll repeat: "Our brain names the sequence as time. That is still a concept. Of course the sequence is real."

TONY: Or is it a higher consciousness that is defining time?

DAVID: Of course a greater consciousness started time with creation of the universe

dhw: I suggest that time is the sequence of before and after, cause and effect. Even if you believe your God started time, you will still have to admit that our brains do not create it. Our brains only define it.

Of all organisms, only our brain recognizes it.

Dhw (as above): So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

TONY: So, again, you miss the point. I never said that it was OUR consciousness holding things together. Some consciousness that must have been available to observe prior to the big bang.

You started this thread with the title “How our brains create time”. My point is that our brains do not create time, but it has a reality of its own. You may believe that the universe required a consciousness to “hold things together”, but that is a completely different subject. However, it might help to clarify your views if you would give us your own definition of time, assuming it is NOT the sequence of before/after and cause/effect.

2145 views

TONY: Or is it a higher consciousness that is defining time?

DAVID: Of course a greater consciousness started time with creation of the universe

I suggest that time is the sequence of before and after, cause and effect. Even if you believe your God started time, you will still have to admit that our brains do not create it. Our brains only define it.

Dhw (as above): So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

TONY: So, again, you miss the point. I never said that it was OUR consciousness holding things together. Some consciousness that must have been available to observe prior to the big bang.

DHW You started this thread with the title “How our brains create time”. My point is that our brains do not create time, but it has a reality of its own. You may believe that the universe required a consciousness to “hold things together”, but that is a completely different subject. However, it might help to clarify your views if you would give us your own definition of time, assuming it is NOT the sequence of before/after and cause/effect.

That was the name of the article. However, if consciousness at our scale produces the perception of time at our scale, but time also exists at a higher scale, then it stands to reason that a higher consciousness is required for that.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

2201 views

dhw (as above): So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

TONY: So, again, you miss the point. I never said that it was OUR consciousness holding things together. Some consciousness that must have been available to observe prior to the big bang.

dhw: You started this thread with the title “How our brains create time”. My point is that our brains do not create time, but it has a reality of its own. You may believe that the universe required a consciousness to “hold things together”, but that is a completely different subject. However, it might help to clarify your views if you would give us your own definition of time, assuming it is NOT the sequence of before/after and cause/effect.

TONY: That was the name of the article. However, if consciousness at our scale produces the perception of time at our scale, but time also exists at a higher scale, then it stands to reason that a higher consciousness is required for that.

What is “a higher scale” if time is a sequence of before and after, cause and effect? Your argument is tantamount to saying that if there is a reality we humans cannot observe, then it needs a different sort of consciousness to observe it. Nothing to do with the creation of reality anyway (“How our brains create time”). But once again, your thoughts would perhaps be easier to understand if you gave us your own definition of time and also of a “higher scale” of time.

DAVID: Our brain names the sequence as time. That is still a concept. Of course the sequence is real. The real question still is: is 'time' in space-time real or use of a concept entering it as a fourth dimension?

dhw: Sorry, but that is not the “real” question for me. I object to the statement that the brain creates time. You agree that the sequence is real and therefore exists independently of the brain, just like every other reality that we name, describe and try to explain, so I don’t know why you are trying to muddy the waters with space-time and the fourth dimension. Do you agree or not that the brain does NOT create time?

DAVID: I've agreed and so I'll repeat: "Our brain names the sequence as time. That is still a concept. Of course the sequence is real."

Thank you. It’s nice that we can agree for a change!

2190 views

dhw (as above): So you really do believe that there is no such objective reality as before and after, cause and effect? Try standing in front of a moving bus.

TONY: So, again, you miss the point. I never said that it was OUR consciousness holding things together. Some consciousness that must have been available to observe prior to the big bang.

dhw: You started this thread with the title “How our brains create time”. My point is that our brains do not create time, but it has a reality of its own. You may believe that the universe required a consciousness to “hold things together”, but that is a completely different subject. However, it might help to clarify your views if you would give us your own definition of time, assuming it is NOT the sequence of before/after and cause/effect.

TONY: That was the name of the article. However, if consciousness at our scale produces the perception of time at our scale, but time also exists at a higher scale, then it stands to reason that a higher consciousness is required for that.

dhw: What is “a higher scale” if time is a sequence of before and after, cause and effect? Your argument is tantamount to saying that if there is a reality we humans cannot observe, then it needs a different sort of consciousness to observe it. Nothing to do with the creation of reality anyway (“How our brains create time”). But once again, your thoughts would perhaps be easier to understand if you gave us your own definition of time and also of a “higher scale” of time.

DAVID: Our brain names the sequence as time. That is still a concept. Of course the sequence is real. The real question still is: is 'time' in space-time real or use of a concept entering it as a fourth dimension?

dhw: Sorry, but that is not the “real” question for me. I object to the statement that the brain creates time. You agree that the sequence is real and therefore exists independently of the brain, just like every other reality that we name, describe and try to explain, so I don’t know why you are trying to muddy the waters with space-time and the fourth dimension. Do you agree or not that the brain does NOT create time?

DAVID: I've agreed and so I'll repeat: "Our brain names the sequence as time. That is still a concept. Of course the sequence is real."

Thank you. It’s nice that we can agree for a change!

You are welcome

2155 views

Ethan Siegal on time:

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/does-time-exist-182965/?utm_source=mailchimp&am...

"Time is relative, not absolute. Time always marches forward, not backward, but we still lack an explanation for the arrow of time. Thermodynamically, the Universe has an arrow of time, which “flows” in the same direction as increasing entropy. And when we investigate the Universe on a fundamental level, it turns out that time may not be fundamental at all.

"But existence itself? It’s very, very difficult to take that property away from time and to still wind up with a Universe consistent with what we observe. Here’s why.

"When it comes to the question of existence, physics is very simple and straightforward about what it considers to be a satisfactory answer.

"Can you measure it?
Can you quantify it?
Can you define it in a mathematically self-consistent way?
Is it, itself, an observable quantity, and do other observables depend on it in an inextricable way?
If your answers to these questions are all in the affirmative, there’s no way out of it: you’ve got yourself a quantity that exists.

***

"Yes, you get different answers to the question of “How much time has passed?” or “When did this event occur?” or even “Which event happened first?” depending on where you are and how you’re moving, but no one is more “right” or “wrong” than anyone else. Instead, we just need to transform our idea of time — according to the laws of relativity — to match what someone at either a different location or moving at a different relative speed would conclude.

***

"In fact, almost all of the laws of physics — including motion, gravitation, electromagnetism, and even the strong nuclear force — are completely time-reversible. They are the same forward and backward in time, and you cannot discern, simply by watching a physical system unfold, which one is occurring.

***

"It will often happen that a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an anti-electron neutrino. But it never happens that a proton, an electron, and an anti-electron neutrino spontaneously react together to form a neutron. In fact, in a variety of ways, the weak interaction is the poster-child for time-asymmetric reactions in physics.

"The second way, however, is even more familiar to most of us. Every time you:

"scramble an egg,
drop a full glass of water onto the ground and watch it shatter,
or simply open the door between a hot room and a cold one,
you are creating a situation where there will be a thermodynamic arrow of time.

***

"We do not know what causes our perceived arrow of time. We always observe time to be flowing forward and not backward; we recognize the passage of time and are subject to the laws of physics moving forward in time, just as all physical objects and quantities are. But whether the entropy of your system remains constant, increases slowly, increases rapidly, or is even artificially decreased by inputting energy into it, the perceived arrow of time never ceases to flow nor reverses direction.

"While time is definitely real, it may or may not be fundamental. In our present way of looking at the Universe, we view something like entropy as a derived quantity and treat time as though it’s fundamental. However, mathematically, it is possible to treat entropy as though it’s a fundamental quantity, and then time behaves as though it can be an emergent quantity. We do not yet know enough about the Universe to comment much about the potential validity of this approach.

"Time is an integral part of the Universe, and the boundary between events that have been observed or measured to have a definitive outcome and those whose outcome has not yet been decided is the best way we have to define, precisely, what we mean by the moment of “now”. As esteemed physicist Lee Smolin put it in an exclusive interview with him:

“'in the Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics, there is a quantum world and there is a classical world, and a boundary between them: when things become definite. When things that are indefinite in the quantum world become definite. And what they’re trying to say is that is the fundamental thing that happens in nature, when things that are indefinite become definite. And that’s what “now” is. The moment now, the present moment, that all these people say is missing from science and missing from physics, that is the transition from indefinite to definite.”

"Time may or may not be fundamental, and our perceived arrow of time may or may not (my hunch is “not”) be related to the thermodynamic arrow of time. But the fact that we can measure, observe, and quantify it should put any doubts of its non-existence to rest."

Comment: We invent segments of time, but what we are doing is setting up arbitrary measurements of sequential events, based on our 24-hour day,

762 views

A slightly different approach:

https://psyche.co/ideas/time-doesnt-flow-like-a-river-so-why-do-we-feel-swept-along?utm...

"Heraclitus thought that time was like a river: ‘Everything flows and nothing abides; everything gives way and nothing stays fixed.’

***

"Physicists and philosophers may have different approaches to the structure of time, but what unites them is a rejection of the notion that that there is a ‘now’, a present moment, that moves from the past toward the future. If that is true, and time does not really move, we are left with a question: why does it seem to pass? We would never mistake a frozen river for a running one, so, if nothing flows and everything abides, why does it feel as if time is rushing by?

***

"Just as the world is not set up for someone to hallucinate a square circle, the world is not set up for the illusion of time passing. So if the flow of time is not an illusion, what is it?

***

"The arguments above – that flowing time is an illusion or a result of how we experience changing objects – appeal to our perception of the world to explain why time seems to pass. We see, smell, hear or feel things moving and changing, but perhaps the feeling of time passing is not related to our experience of sensing the world. We also feel pain in our bodies; feel emotions, intuitions and yearnings. The important word here is ‘feel’. In these cases, we are not perceiving the outside world. These non-perceptual experiences include the feeling of doing things, of making changes in the world: we feel ourselves walking and running, opening doors and tapping screens, talking and listening. I think time passing is a result of how we experience the changes that we make in our daily lives.

***

"When you move your body, you feel yourself making changes in the world around you; when you refocus your thoughts, you experience yourself changing the landscape of your mind. We could call this ‘agentive change’ – change that an agent (like you, for example) experiences themselves as causing – and it is pervasive in a way that perceptual experiences of change in our external environment are not. As long as you are awake, you won’t stop thinking, meaning that the feeling of making mental changes persists (even in a sensory deprivation tank).

***

"As long as you are awake, you will never feel as if you can stop causing change. Jean-Paul Sartre declared that mankind was ‘condemned to be free’; similarly, we find ourselves at every waking moment condemned to act. Of course, we stop acting when we fall asleep but, as any insomniac will tell you, sleep is something you must wait for, not something you do. You can hasten sleep’s arrival, but you cannot switch yourself off like a laptop.

"I believe that this leads us to mistake the feeling of doing – moving, thinking, focusing – for the feeling of time passing. We experience ourselves as perpetually, helplessly active. This is likely a product of our neurophysiology. Brains don’t stop: information is continually being received, recalled, processed and responded to, so it is not surprising that we always find ourselves doing something. But we are not consciously aware of this fact. In fact, consciousness does not provide any explanation as to why we find ourselves in such a state. We are driven to keep making changes. And it is here that we make a mistake. Rather than blaming our neurophysiology for the feeling that we must constantly act, we blame the world outside: we mistakenly think that some outside force (like a flowing river of time) is responsible for the ever-present feeling that we are being ‘pushed along’.

"We are condemned to act. It is not, as Heraclitus imagined, that ‘everything flows and nothing abides.’ Instead, the feeling of being swept along is the result of our brains’ constant churning. We mistake our own momentum for that of the world. Time does not flow. We do."

Comment: the author tells us we innately create the sense of time. But there is real time in those physics' equations, or is it?

590 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum