/lit/ - Literature

>>14989119
The very notion of an object having a past or present is what makes time a priori.

>>14989126
>A slug can learn. The small neural network that serves as its brain can be modified by sensory input from its environment, and the slug’s behavior modified accordingly. To this extent, the slug "remembers" the input. But because its simple brain cannot form an internal model of its changing relationship with the garden, the slug cannot recognize its memories as "changes"; the state of its nervous system at any given moment can pass for all that it has ever known. Because the neural function by which the slug identifies self is instinctual and perceptual as opposed to cognitive – because the slug "defines itself" strictly by nonreflective instinctual processing of environmental stimuli - the dependent neural function time is limited to here-and-now. The slug recognizes no past self or future self on which to define an extended temporal relationship.

>>14989139
The slug having a concept of the present still makes time a priori.

>>14989147
I think you should read the comments of Mr. Langan, with a staggering IQ of 230, more clearly.
>Actually, our awareness of time depends on the extent to which our mental models of reality reflect change. To see an object change, one must recall its former state for comparison to its present state, and to do that, one must recall one’s former perception of it.

>>14989126
>>14989147
To determine something's past or present, you need to observe it. Hence, a posteriori.

Damm bro
Actually Langan and Kant agree, can't is talking about the experience of time, while Langan is talking about the awareness of time. The real dummy is op.

>>14989172
No, not awareness. He is showing that to create the concept "time" necessitates memory.

>>14989213
And the concept of memory necessitates observation and experience. What is your point?

>>14989119
>230 IQ
>nothing to show for it but a paper that no one can understand
IQ doesn't determine potential remember that. Also IQ measurments are pretty bad and 230 is most likely a statiscal outlier as it gets less accurate the higher you go

>>14989229
Based and solipsistpilled.

every time i see this guys face i want to laugh

>>14989167
No, awareness of past and present offers a posteriori knowledge of time. The ability to sort between past and present, to even acknowledge one's own existence in time, suggests it is a priori.
>>14989157
One does not need to observe an object's change to conceptualise time, that is a ridiculous assertion. His very analogy of the slug's unawareness of its own past or future exemplifies that.

>>14989167
you need the ability to do that in order to do that

>>14989449
>to even acknowledge one's own existence
Yes
>in time
No.

Here's a quick rundown:
>one's own existence acknowledged - a priori
>the environment defined and acknowledged as a frame of reference - axiom of existence
>acknowledgement of self in time - a posteriori from the second step

>>14989520
How does one define their existence if not in relation to their place in time?

>>14989119
>object

>>14989167
And in observing anythinf you rely on a synthetic a priori form of their relation which is time and space, neither of which are observable in themselves but which are inferred from all else as their condition.

>>14989565
Can one really 'define' their existence? It's kind of defined simply by being.

>>14989742
Yeah, 'define' is perhaps the wrong word. What I mean is, is existence not inextricably linked to a place in time? To be aware of one's one existence, and able to experience/observe the world, surely one must require an a priori knowledge of time?

>>14989565
>I am.
>>14989663
>neither of which are observable in themselves
we have just gone over this, their inference require observation.

>>14989757
A human existence - within a life - requires time

Any existence - is independent of time, it is an instance, it is not continuous. This is the position of the observer: not observable and thus a priori.

Acknowledgement of existence, or "I am", requires the acknowledgement of your surroundings and by extension, the position of the observer within these surroundings, by the observer. That is the axiom of existence. From this interaction one derives time.

>>14989799
Where do you exist, though? Where is the instance located? How can an instance be differentiated from continuous instances if not without a concept of time? ‘I am’ suggests ‘am’ is somewhere, sometime.

>>14989757
Huh, kind of like the chicken and the egg scenario. I think I'm not smart enough to reach a rational conclusion towards why I believe this, but I believe that awareness/consciousness is dependent on one's ability to process stimuli/experience feelings, and future and past are a delusion of projection/imagination/fantasy.

>>14989783
>I am
I mean, if you're saying I am, you're also saying, I am (now).
So the real question should be, what is the 'present'? Is it really connected to the past or the future?

>>14989844
define 'the present'

>>14989914
I don't think that the present holds any value over the past or future, to be honest the "now now" doesn't exist.
go ahead and chat with higher life forms to get their opinions on the matter, not us, we are unreliable and stupid.

>>14989126
This is not what kant means by a priori or how a kantian would understand time

>>14989565
Isn’t time a second order justification though? You can only apprehend time by first being, so you use time to define being, but time itself requires being.

>>14989119
Is Langan seriously that fucking ripped? I ask because I stopped reading books by people who have never been in shape in their life. Mishima kinda brainwashed me into it but to be honest I think it's good advice. Why trust some fat or lanklet weirdo

>>14989955
>I don't think that the present holds any value over the past or future, to be honest the "now now" doesn't exist.
Well, the past and the future are defined by their relation to the present - if something didn't happen before the present, how would you know if it's before you or after you? If you throw away the concept of 'now' you have to throw away the 'future' and the 'past' and look at them from a point of view that doesn't differentiate in the first place. And the brain has 'memories', fuck this is hard for me...
>go ahead and chat with higher life forms to get their opinions on the matter, not us, we are unreliable and stupid.
Meh. I'd rather discuss it with you people.

>>14990024
Yeah, he worked as a bouncer.

>>14989449
>One does not need to observe an object's change to conceptualise time
Yes, it does. The idea of time is just the idea of change, as time = change, as the great physicist Mach pointed out. In order to conceptualize change, you need a former state to compare to a new state. And in order to understand some former state, you need a memory of it.

>>14989955
>I don't think that the present holds any value over the past or future
Yes it does. All notions of "past" and "future" always exist imminent to the present. You cannot be in the past, or in the future.

>>14989914
>process
The idea of processing is itself intrinsic to the subhuman notion of time, past and future.

>>14989844
In truth, the simplest form of existence is "I". I've used "I am" because it is a proposition and it would be easier to grasp. So "I" it is.

I disagree that "I am" suggests a location though. An instance is like a frame of a video. Instances put together become "continuous" from which we define the linear time we are accustomed to.

A location becomes irrelevant if you think in the concept of scale. I exist, but do I exist in a home, a city, a country, a planet, a galaxy, a universe? And what is I if I don't necessarily call myself human, but a random collection of particles bundled together? And even that is too redundant. I is I, nothing more. I observe.

>>14989914
>what is the 'present'? Is it really connected to the past or the future?
Present is the past and the future. Can you define a past or a future without a present? No. We build our past and our future from a present. They are all one.

>>14990093
What you do is throw out the notions of past, future, and present, then you instead model time on pure change. This does not mean observable change, in which a past and a present is required.
What do I mean by pure change? I mean some infinite cycle of instances from the perspective of every body, of which there is also an infinite amount.
Of the bodies that have some memory, they will conceptualize a thought of some past, and a projection of some future, in that instance.
So you while sitting up and you while sitting down are two different people that you arbitrarily connect through memory, that is, the artificial idea of some you projected. Really, those two people are completely different in every respect, as Heraclitus would say.
All the cycles of all these bodies of all these instances is the universe, that is, everything, on which time doesn't exist, since all of time is imminent to it.
That which we consider time (that is, these cycles), would only then be created with limitation, that is, being some limited thing.
>Then what creates, for instance, the speed of time? I can feel time going slower in some moments, like high adrenaline moments in which I am in danger, and faster in boring moments, like at my school or at my job, etc. What gives?
Yes. I can explain those too. The "speed" of time is created by our memory. When the memory is overactive (in high adrenaline scenarios), then time will feel like it is going slower. When it is underactive (sleep), time will feel like it is going faster. And when it memory is nonexistent (in plants and primitive insects), then speed can't even really be talked of, since their is no artificial memory in which to conceptualize some speed, which requires some registering of difference, which requires memory.

And there is philosophy pretty much solved.

>>14990280
I've already solved the problem of why you are you, too. Though I don't know if I want to share it. It is my most valuable thought so far.

>>14989783
>>14989119
>their inference require observation.
“All knowledge begins with experience” -Kant.
Yeah, r*tard you have to have made inferences in time in order to have noticed it. Yet the inference of time is not provided by any one time-object, but by a relationship that was supplied i ternally to other objects. That Y occured after X is not something you can analytically derive from any one object based upon its qualities but from the internal intuition of time, because YOU synthetized one element in succession to an other, that makes succession a quality you can observe in yourself, but not in objects. Time can’t be discern by any other means than by internal reflection.

>>14990385
Thanks for putting in the effort for this post, seemed really interesting.
So, if I understood what you wrote properly, Time is an illusion of change when it is experienced from a certain point of view? If a point of reference doesn't exist, change still exists, it's simply 'unlimited', because a point of view implies 'limitation' or differentiating in the first place?

Also, You bring up a good point about the 'speed' of time.

>>14989966
Yes it is, it’s just worded poorly

>>14990515
>Time is an illusion of change when it is experienced from a certain point of view? If a point of reference doesn't exist, change still exists, it's simply 'unlimited', because a point of view implies 'limitation' or differentiating in the first place?
Yes, if by "point of reference don't exist" you mean the universe. The point of reference is always some limitation of the universe.

>>14990413
From my viewpoint, I don't know if I care much anon. Existence means very little to me.
>>14990457
>Time can’t be discern by any other means than by internal reflection
Exactly. Take good notice of your word choices my super intelligent friend. "Reflection". The reflection is the image one thing casts on a "surface", so to speak. Thus the internal reflection must be a way human mind is built to articulate what is going on around it, the change. Because human mind needs to form thoughts and this thought process needs a cause-and-effect structure to enable a response mechanism. You can respond to this by saying these response mechanisms are built into our DNA thus there is no tabula rasa, but then I would counter that even the observation of DNA is an experience or a knowledge gained afterwards the existence thus it is not prior but posterior.

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is a reflection, not just time. Only the observer is a given.

>>14989119
I don't see how this really difers with Kant's position of time. As an intuition or an "a priori" form time is the expressed faculty of subject to determine the phenomena manifest, or showing itself, in relation with the different manifestations of said phenoma. There's alway a presence, represented as an object, that has temporal intervals of change based on the possibilities of subject's experience. In a way, it comes to the same exposition by Kant affirming the retain of succession based on the intuition of time and the aperception of subject.

If you niggers are going to talk time, at least learn a few basic concepts first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

>>14989167
You are confusing the intuition of time with the concept of time. Experience has the faculty to, well, experience the successions of the modes of a being in relation to the process of said changes without afirming a past or a present, that is to intuit its sole movement or prescence. The awareness of past and present as concepts are by products of the essential capacity of intuition to hold the phenomenon in intuition and to "produce" an object for understanding.

Combine the possibility that time is not really passing and that your conciousness may be a static occurence containing the memory of previous moments with solipsism and it gets hard to sleep at night

>>14990614
>DNA is an experience or a knowledge gained afterwards the existence thus it is not prior but posterior.
Bitch, how does that refute mine or Kant’s claim. Without experience, there’s nothing to analyzed. However supplied in a posteori knowledge are the a priori conditions for it.

>>14989271
IQ doesn't determine anything because it's a comparative measurement

>>14989119
>To see an object change, one must recall its former state for comparison to its present state, and to do that, one must recall one’s former perception of it
How is this any different to Hume's notion of causality, which Kant already has a sufficient response to?

The rest isn't much more than a load of meaningless horseshit about "multiple selves", which is just another subjectivisation of time that stands in stark contradiction with his assertion of "the universal template".

Kant already talked about universality and necessity in relation to change, and he did it in a far more abstracted and nuanced way than any of this nonsense. This dude literally got BTFO by Kant centuries before he was even born

>>14991067
Wouldn't that apply so the knowledge of 'time' is posteori knowledge to the condition of self?

Why are people still trying to "refute" or "argue against" Kant when Kant was, to put it simply and succinctly, right about everything he said?

>>14991454
>Can't refute 300 year old autistic virgin philosopher

The state of /lit/

>>14989119
>>14989126
>>14989147
>>14989139
>>14990385
>>14990515
>>14990961
Nobody here understands time. This is because they concieve of time in the Leibnizian fashion (as an order of existing for possibles that exist successively). This effecting and seeping into the brains of everyone for years in years has exposed them all to a faulty conception of time. Time cannot be understood just by the difference of two different moments. By concieving of time as a collection of moments you destroy time, just as concieving of space as a collection of instants destroys space. A moment is a timeless thing, just as an instant is a spaceless thing. This causes idiots, like i.e Julian Barbour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Barbour)), and a few of the people in this thread, to think time doesn't exist. There is one problem with their theory: it doesn't explain change. When explaining change, you cannot just explain it with two differences (two orders of space, in OP's example, a "past" space and a "present" space), you have to explain also the propensity to change. Julian Barbour, and the anons in this thread, cannot explain this propensity to change because they concieve of time as a series of spaces, forgetting that a series requires a propensity to change, which time is.
Basically, what people in this thread are doing is confusing our ability to conceptualize and use time in the form of memory, with time / the propensity to change itself. Just because something lives without memory doesn't mean it doesn't experience time. It just means that it cannot mentally take advantage of time. If those without memory didn't have time, they wouldn't change. Lacking the ability to use time does not mean you are not in time.

>>14991636
autistic manlet virgin philosopher*

>>14989167
You're missing the nuance that the sensibilities are subordinated by pure a priori intuitions of space and time. Sure, the sensibilities can only be enlivened by some empirical, a posteriori input. However, what the sensibilities do with this input is predetermined due to the pure intuitions. It's somewhat similar to how Kant argued the Categories are a priori but only come into action once they receive something from the sensibilities.

Re-read the Transcendental Aesthetic anon.

>>14989119
Time is what allows the sensing of change, which must occur first before one can say something is different 'now' than it was 'then'.

>>14990024
>ripped
c'mon

>>14991646
>When explaining change, you cannot just explain it with two differences (two orders of space, in OP's example, a "past" space and a "present" space)
This is correct, and its particularly relevant to someone like Kant who would've argued that notions of "before" and "after" are still reliant on empirical/synthetic judgements of sequentiality. Even Langan is still falling into the Humean trap of thinking that we only come to know causality/time through force of habit ("To see an object change, one must recall its former state for comparison to its present state, and to do that, one must recall one’s former perception of it"), and therefore, cannot gain an understanding of the "pure" concept of time or causality at all.

However, I don't quite understand what you mean by the idea that time is the "propensity to change". Are you talking about entropy? Because scientists have actually proven that the arrow of time is unidirectional, and not necessarily asymmetric, as we would intuitively assume.

>>14989955
No dear retardino only the present now really exists

>>14991746
No, not entropy. There needs to be some propensity for one state / order of space to transform into another state / order of space. That is what time is, after all. That is what I mean by "propensity to change".

Do not be confused about the arrow of time. There is no forwards or backwards in time, nor is there time travel: travel is itself imminent to time/change (time and change are the same thing, as previous posters pointed out. They were just concieving of change as not needing some propensity to transform.)

>>14991848
But even then it doesn't really because it is subject to memory and anticipation of past and future

>>14991855
>some propensity for one state / order of space to transform into another state / order of space. That is what time is, after all.
Still not making much sense to me. "some propensity" feels like a vague placeholder, or a rhetorical tautology. The tendency for things to change is not time in of itself, because things change "in" time. "propensity to change" is in no way an adequate definition for the necessary conditions (IE. time) within which change can occur.

>>14989119
Wait since when has Langan attained an IQ of 230? Last time I heard of him he had an IQ 195-200.

>>14991646
Why did you tag me in these when I’ve basically just said what you did but 60 posts earlier?

>>14991908
>The tendency for things to change is not time in of itself, because things change "in" time
yes, it is. If nothing changed, there would be no time, just as if there was no length, there would be no space.

>>14992369
You did not basically say what I said. You touched upon one of the dozen points I made, then generalized across my own post because my agression made you feel attacked, which made you immediately go on the defensive.

>>14991444
checked and nailed it.
>>14991674
I understand where you're going with this and ultimately this is linked to the programmed instincts and I agree with that. What I'm arguing is far more different. An observer, whether in control of its behaviors or not, is still in the act of observation.

Consider this scenario: You are a caveman and you are being attacked by a wild beast. Your fight-or-flight kicks in. Your legs start running but are you in control of them? No. Your brain simply can't let you waste precious seconds and the limbic system takes over. Your conscious brain is able to process what is going on once the threat is averted. That is being an observer. Similar to hearbeat. Your cerebellum keeps the heart beating and your cerebral cortex keeps track of it. Again, an observer.

You want to move your arm? Activate neural system and muscular system. Are they part of your cerebral cortex? No.

Your arms and your every extension is mapped into your brain as parts of your body but you might have heard of people trying to cut their limbs off because they don't feel like it belongs to them. These people are diagnosed with a disorder, but what if it's not a disorder but actually a lack of preprogramming that comes with being a human, which leaves the person under naked exposure to the observer? Note that person and observer are distinct if one is able to distinguish between them in their mind - the interacting brain and the evaluating brain.

I've tried to conceptualize above in terms of common biology so it would make my point clearer, but in reality this only makes things more clouded. Again, in simplest sense there is no pure intuition because you are observing what is going around and taking things for granted. This is what I call living live in autopilot and we all (have to) do it, to some extent - depending on your attachment to life.
>Re-read the Transcendental Aesthetic anon.
I know this will get me killed here, but I don't read philosophy because it pollutes my own thinking.

>>14992715
You probably shouldn't engage in discussion with others about philosophy then if you don't want to pollute your own thinking.

>>14992772
Who is saying I'm taking your thoughts into consideration?

Consider my act as a honing on my mental blade.

It may sound egotistic, but it is not. It is the terminal station of the solipsist train.

In "reality", as absurd a word that is, my chat with you is essentially a samefagging in the best scenario and two bots chatting in the absolute worst, although the goodness and the badness of the situation at this point is moot.

Excuse me if I have caused any inconveniences.

>>14992816
Kek. It's not the same anon.

>>14992873
I tried my best for my response not to be condescending, but in order to maintain cohesion in my arguments it had to be blunt as it is.

People will have a hard time understanding that I have evolved from comparing my thoughts with them because essentially they are all from the same source.

>>14992918
God? Artificial Intelligence? I guess we'll find out

>>14991636
>>14991662
It's not /lit/ it's everyone

>>14992816
>While you were reading the Greeks... I studied the (mental) blade.

>>14992975

>>14992975
Okay this deserves an extra (You). Kudos anon, made me keking for 5 minutes

this is a clusterfuck thread. Time is real, for how can anything happen. We know something, we, are happening from experience, impossible with some sort of ordering, time. Time obviously is infinite, with stretches of time being larger infinities than other infinities. Our perception of time in minutes and hours is based on how fast our brains move. this is the answer, I skipped like the lsat 50 posts of the thread though. It's simple. Also Langan is kind of weird, I think he might be a little dumb, but he is smart, I think he has some points, his work makes sense, just cus you dont understand it doesn't discredit it. Also I'd think he would be smart with such a high iq, though I wouldn't judge him just by iq, but also I'm judging him by this thread which I realize now doesn't reflect him at all, hence I assume he is intelligent.

>>14993930
>Hey guys, wanna hear my stream of consciousness?

>>14992709
The armchair psychologist has arrived.

>>14995544
incredibly based triple dubs

>>14995534
>to down too down to
???

>>14992668
>just as if there was no length, there would be no space.
But the equivalence you're making here implies that length is space, which it isn't. Length is reliant on an empirical understanding of distance, hence that isn't an adequate definition of space, either

If time was simply a "propensity", that would allow for the potential for time to be some other way, or exist in some other form, because inclination or tendency is not the same thing as necessity. And if time is a necessary condition of the universe, then It is difficult to say whether your point can even be determined to be true or false, as your choice of wording is messy and makes the concept indistinct.

>>14993930
>Our perception of time in minutes and hours is based on how fast our brains move. this is the answer, I skipped like the lsat 50 posts of the thread though
Sounds like you skipped through most of the history of philosophy, too.

>>14995660
>length is space
apologies, I should clarify– the equivalence you're making between time/change and space/length suggests that space is the propensity for things to be long, which just sounds silly.

>>14989229
/thread

Kant is irrefutable.

>>14989119
coof

>>14989119
If there's anything Chris Langan has taught me its that you can have an IQ of >200 and still be a loser

>>14995660
>>14995683
I do not mean by "propensity" as a "potential", apologies for inadequate word choice. I do not believe I will be able to make this too much clearer, though. Basically, it is a necessity, but only under certain conditions, and under these conditions, it has this "propensity to change". The universe, for instance, is timeless, since it has nothing to change into because it is everything. Things only have this "propensity to change" when they are limited, and can then transform.

>>14995713
>germans are insufferable
Ftfy

>>14997553
>german idealists were right about everything but scat porn is not okay
ftfy

Can someone explain Kants argument or this debate in language someone as retarded as myself could understand? What should I read to understand it?

>>14995713
Wrong. Quine refuted him sufficiently.

>>14998304
Hume, Leibniz for particular. You may also want other empiricists and rationalists. And even better if you have an understanding of the Phil Greeks, but not necessary.

If you are particularly adapt, Kant does try to line out his argument and terminology in his books.

>>14995670
nah, I didn't. Also explain. What's up with all you guys just name dropping, unable to explain anything with your lack of understanding, just quoting Wittgenstein, a mean who was against such RHETORIC.
>Sounds like you're wrong because you didn't read books I'm not going to even mention. Im a philosophy student, I know everything about Kant. I know when he was born, I'm basically him, he has possessed my body.
this lack of understanding, always being offended, always assuming shit is a plague here. Why can't you be socratic, just be open, not offensive with no back up just to be squashed like an empty can, you cockaroach bugman

>>14999372
Chill nigga lmao, I was mocking you because your post was a load of rambling nonsense. If you had any sort of argument I would try to respond to it, but all you've said is
>time is real and we experience it with our brains
It's a total non-statement that doesn't do anything with defining time in abstraction from what we can derive from empirical observation or subjective experience. You want me to treat you with respect, don't act like you have the answer and its all oh so simple, when really you don't have a clue.

>>14999445
that's why you're infected faggot. Yeah laugh it off, cope faggot, hold onto your shitty personality. And nah, I explain it through a cartesian lense, I've read Kant and shit, fucko. You actually suck. Nice job quoting something I didnt say to

>>14999531
>faggot
>faggot
>fucko
you are so sensitive its unreal. I made a widdle joke and now you're all crying about the fact that no one replied to your post except for two people, both calling it nonsense. Maybe you should take our crit on board and not type like you're in a semi-catatonic state.

> explain it through a cartesian lense, I've read Kant and shit
and now you're flexing? Jesus christ, dial back the insecurity dude. You literally just accused everyone else in the thread of "namedropping". I'm not even sure why I'm still replying to you, you seem mentally unstable, I apologise, I shouldn't pick on the handicapped.

>>14999591
already fucked us
hemingway was a smoothbrain deviant and a shit writer

>>14999498
How do I learn to be seductive

>>14999618
Thanks for returning the favor.
You win this time, but just know I wasn't being sensitive, nor insecure, and I was glad to get a response. You sounded smart in your second reply. PLus have fun with your green border, retard

Time is related to change, and unthinkable without change. Picture a changeless world, consisting only of a uniform solid which fills the entirety of its space for all eternity. Each state of that universe can serve as a description of any other. There is no difference between a minute and an hour because there are no objects by which to compare relative rates of motion. In physics all time is measured in relation to the speed of light. It becomes the standard of reference by which all other relative rates of motion find their place. We also know that time slows for an object as it approaches the speed of light. What could this mean? If you were a "light being" and saw the world from the perspective of a photon, you would see a stationary, timeless universe without change, or rather, imperceptibly slow change. When thinking about time we are always thinking about the relative rate of change between two or more objects. The speed limit of the universe, light, is also where time as we intuitively think of it becomes complicated. But of course Events happening at the speed of light are just as real as events happening at small fractions of it, so what is the "real time" that can be thought of as the Ontologically Absolute frame of reference? There is none, which is where special relativity comes in. Time does not exist in an absolute frame of reference.

Here's the answer. It's retarded to think about time in any other way than empirically, all this cartesian shit is retarded. Time is infinitely dividable, if time stopped, everything would be dead for no movement, though from experience we see that things are alive and moving, hence time is real, though infinite, yeah. This is like the water is wet debate, just confusion of definitions, bad thread BAD. I roasted this guy>>14999618

>>14999204
Ymmv but I didn't get much out of it. It was the same when I tried to read Tim Leary, can't into these psychadelic thinkers.

>>14999204
am I infected?

>>14999790
>>14999698
>>14999618
>>14999531
>>14999445
>>14999372
>>14995670
I dont want this shitty thread to die though it be shitty. I roasted this guy and he actually got mad, he has the personality type predisposed to coping disbelief and taking offence, guy reads a lot of Kant but no NIetzsche. Im proud of this argument between us. I was posting retardedly because im anonomyous, Im writing for those likeminded to me, and this guy gets mad, tries to anger me with his reddit tactics, this guy actually sounds gay, seems like he takes himself too seriously. I want people to chronicle this event, it is what makes 4chan a great place.
>INB4 thanks for reading my blog

>>14997046
Are you saying that even though the universe represents everything inside it, when imposing a certain point of view on it, it seems as if there exists a tendency for things to change?
Doesn't that imply that time is simply an illusion created by beings with points of view on the universe?

>>14999372
This bad boy can fit over so many projections.

>>14999983
>>14999963
*coof*
ah, sorry

>Parambrahma, Spirit, or God is everlasting, complete, without beginning or end. It is one, indivisible Being.
The Eternal Father, God, Swami Parambrahma, is the only real substance, Sat, and is all in all in the universe. Man possesses eternal truth and believes intuitively in the existence of a Substance, of which the objects of sense are but properties. As man identifies himself with his material body, composed of these properties, he is able to comprehend by his imperfect organs these properties only, and not the Substance to which these properties belong. [...]

>Parambrahma causes creation, inert Nature (Prakriti), to emerge. From Aum (Pranava, the Word, the manifestation of the Omnipotent Force), come Kala, Time; Desa, Space; and Anu, the Atom (the vibratory structure of creation).
The Word, Amen (Aum) is the beginning of the Creation. The manifestation of Omnipotent Force (the Repulsion and its complementary expression, Omniscient Feeling or Love) is vibration, which appears as a peculiar sound. In its different aspects Aum presents the idea of change, which is Time, Kala, in the Ever-Unchangeable; and the idea of division, which is Space, Desa, in the Ever-Indivisible.

>Just as the objects seen in our dreams are found, when we awake, to be insubstantial, so our waking perceptions are likewise unreal -- a matter of inference only.

>Emancipation (Kaivalya) is obtained when one realizes the oneness of his Self with the Universal Self, the Supreme Reality.

>>14989119
>that they can intersect at any given moment to compare content means that the intersection is changeless

Is it? Or is your memory of it retroactively changed to make it appear similar to the present? You can't prove memory is unchanged based on memory, which means there is necessarily no time invariance at all.

>>15001404
The problem I have with this explanation is that due to being steeped with so much symbolism and requiring so much prior knowledge to understand the terms, it becomes impossible to understand without copious amounts of studying beforehand. You might be saying something true, but there is probably a simpler way to explain it without all these confusing terms and metaphors.

>Just as the objects seen in our dreams are found, when we awake, to be insubstantial, so our waking perceptions are likewise unreal -- a matter of inference only.
I did like this idea though, very interesting.

>>15003017
>prior knowledge
>literal first principles
It's very simple, Anon. Have you never heard of nondualism? Have you never heard of logos?

>>14999790
>>14999842
bing bong wahoo

>>15003176
I've heard about nondualism and logos, I haven't heard about:
Swami Parambrahma, Sat, Prakriti, Aum, Pranava, the Word, Kala, Desa, Anu, 'the Atom', 'the vibratory structure of creation', 'the Repulsion and its complementary expression', Emancipation (Kaivalya).
So I'm having a hard time attributing these terms to the things they're supposed to represent.