[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 30 KB, 600x600, present moment.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15184750 No.15184750 [Reply] [Original]

>The past by definition doesn't exist anymore. The future by definition doesn't exist yet. Therefore only the present moment exists, always.
Discuss.

>> No.15184792

>>15184750
i always imagine drinking a 40 ounce bottle is like a checkpoint in a video game. think about where I been, where I'm at now. and imagine how much better things can get. fuck men that are cowards and slaves to the establishment

>> No.15184794

>>15184750
>>The past by definition doesn't exist anymore. The future by definition doesn't exist ye
the game don't change though

>> No.15184795

>>15184750
The present doesn't exist, either.

>> No.15184803

>>15184750
Take it to history and philosophy wiseguy.

>> No.15184837

>>15184795
Why?

>> No.15184892

>>15184837
Tell me one thing about this "present" that isn't a smeared aggregation from the past you said doesn't exist.

>> No.15184914

>>15184892
You're talking about perception, yes that which you are perceiving might already be in the past, doesn't mean there is no present. The perceiving is taking place in the present moment even if the stuff contained in it is a reflection of something past. You don't even know whether anything exists beyond your perception, but your perception/consciousness is always in the present moment.

>> No.15184917

>>15184914
>doesn't mean there is no present
Then tell me something true about this "present".

>> No.15184920

The present is already in the past, or in the future... So what's the point of this discussion?

>> No.15184942

>>15184917
The present moment is >that which is<, the past is a memory, the future is imagination.

>> No.15184957

>>15184942
>The present moment is >that which is<
Okay. I'm still waiting for you to tell me something true about "that which is", as opposed to "that which appears to have been".

>> No.15185045

>>15184957
Imagine a big box. On the outside is camera. On the inside is a monitor which is connected to the camera. You are sitting inside the box watching the monitor. Doesn't matter if what is shown on the monitor is already in the past, the watching of the monitor is taking place in the present moment. Perception and that which is being perceived are two different things. The former is always in the present moment, the latter you don't even know it exists at all.

>> No.15185050

>>15185045
I'm still waiting for you to tell me something true about this "present". Are there any knowable aspects to it besides "it just heckin' is"?

>> No.15185058

>>15185050
By definition the present moment is that which is, your perception is irrelevant.

>> No.15185059

>>15185058
Still waiting for you to tell me something true about "that which is".

>> No.15185060

>>15185059
Make an actual point

>> No.15185066

>>15185060
I did: you keep screeching that something "is", but when I ask you to tell me something true about that thing, you deflect. How come?

>> No.15185072

>>15185066
He didn't deflect, he answered you several times. You just want to troll him.

>> No.15185078

>>15185066
If anything is true at all it's the content of your consciousness which is in the present moment regardless if it's having a memory or imagining the future or just observing whatever is floating by in it regardless of what time that thing is associated with. That perception is distinct from whatever it may or may not be perceiving outside of it as I said.

>> No.15185084

>>15185078
>If anything is true at all it's the content of your consciousness
None of the content of my consciousness concerns any of your unknowable metaphysical "present". All of it concerns stuff that you said doesn't exist.

>> No.15185091

>>15185084
So? I just said the matter your consciousness concerns itself with and your consciousness are two different things.

>> No.15185095

hedonistic shit

>> No.15185097

>>15185091
You said the content of my consciousness it "true". What current, actual reality does that content correspond to?

>> No.15185199

>>15185097
You don't know that it corresponds to anything. Your consciousness and whatever it may or may not correspond to are two different things.

>> No.15185223
File: 22 KB, 400x400, pepe buddah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15185223

>>15184750
>>The past by definition doesn't exist anymore. The future by definition doesn't exist yet. Therefore only the present moment exists, always.
>Discuss.
Even "the present" doesn't exist.
Try to pinpoint what is "the present", and before you even get a word out, it has already become "the past", so in reality-
Since "the past" doesn't exist
And "the present" doesn't exist
And "the future" doesn't exist
TIME itself doesn't exist.

If time itself does not exist, then you are in a simulation that doesn't exist as well.

>> No.15185226

>>15185223
That idea has already been presented, with zero substance to back it up.

>> No.15185247

>>15184750
congrats,the kind of thoughts even a toddler has

>> No.15185258

>>15185226
>substance
Define "substance", and how there can be "zero of something". Zero of something is something, not nothing, and if it is nothing, then the original "time doesn't exist" also holds true.

>> No.15185271

>>15185258
Come back when you know basic logic

>> No.15185285

>>15185271
>basic logic
Define that. You cannot even do something as simple as define "basic logic" or exhibit any meaninful dialogue when confronted with the simplest of questions.

>> No.15185337

>>15185285
>t. pseud

>> No.15186709

>>15185258
Nothing is something which is why we have a word for it that we can keep using to discuss it and a number that represents its value, so we can model it.

>> No.15188275

didn't think /sci/ were this dumb

>> No.15188370

>>15185285
lmfao

>> No.15188429

>>15184750
That is not true. Everytime you look at the stars you are seeing their past and so if you can see their past it exists.

Q. E. D.

>> No.15188430

>>15184792
You are a slave to the establishment. We all are. All of us are slaves who participate in and reinforce an international system of violent exploitation. The food we eat, the media we consume, the clothes we wear and the things we buy, even the education we received (private or public) have all been either directly shaped by or heavily influenced by the establishment. Everything you and I are as people has been affected by the establishment. That is the truth.

There is no getting around it, there is no denying it. Even if you run to the woods and live like Ted Kaczynski you are still participating indirectly by allowing it to continue.

All we can do is organize the people, work on the logistics of providing for our communities directly, articulate who the real enemy of all of us is, and fight the violent, pedophilic, moloch-worshipping, neoliberal death cult that runs our society. All of us who are aware of the truth of our society have a responsibility to organize our local community, no matter how awkward, how painful, how difficult it will be. No matter how much you agree or disagree, we absolutely must work through our differences and unite around our similarities, we are at the bottom and they are at the top.

>> No.15188431

>>15188429
you're not seeing the past, you're seeing the light which is currently at your eyes

>> No.15189078

>>15184750
Sort of. Time has to exist into some extent because if not, how would the universe define when an object is anywhere in space?

The way we define time (days, hours, minutes, etc) is totally made up and can vary based on many things, but that doesn't really mean much of anything.

From this point, the whole discussion becomes a little too abstract, making pretty sketchy to understand. If anything, our definition of time is flawed, that is all.

>> No.15189091

>>15184750
[eqn]t = t'(some \space factor)[/eqn]
Therefore all time exists.
Q.E.D.

>> No.15189106

>>15184750
i think the entirety of the timeline, start to finish, exists simultaneously from a higher perspective as a static block of information, mindful creator or not. everything is causal, probably even radioactivity, we just don't see how yet

>> No.15189128
File: 378 KB, 624x642, ff5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15189128

>>15184750
>implying things can't exist at different times

>> No.15189407

>>15188431
Fuck off retarde

>> No.15189422

>>15188430
Nice totalitarianism there, my friend.

>> No.15189943

>>15189407
Great argument

>> No.15191399

>>15189407
Still waiting for an actual argument. If the light takes 100 years to travel from the star to your eyes then you're not watching the star 100 years ago, you're watching the light which is presently at your eyes, even though it was emitted from the star 100 years ago, the light emitted from the star is not the star.

>> No.15191886

>>15184750
Deterministically, the future is set in stone, so it completely "exists".

>> No.15191964

>>15184750
The past determines the present, so for the present to exist the past must exist.

>> No.15191967

>>15185199
>You don't know that it corresponds to anything
Then why did you say its content is "true"? Do you understand what "true" means?

>> No.15191971

>>15191964
>The past determines the present, so for the present to exist the past must exist.
The premise is dubious and the conclusion is a total nonsequitur.

>> No.15192005

>>15191967
The content of your consciousness IS WHAT IT IS. Whether there exists something outside of your consciousness a) you don't know b) is irrelevant. You don't seem to understand that the act of perception and the thing which is being perceived are two differerent things. >>15185045

https://youtu.be/0drT_L4G8w8

https://youtu.be/h73PsFKtIck

>> No.15192010

>>15192005
>The content of your consciousness IS WHAT IT IS
So what? I asked you to tell me something true about your imaginary, metaphysical, unknowable "present". Let's see how many times I can make you loop. It's a funny game to play with the nonsentient, qualialess hordes.

>> No.15192024

>>15192010
Watch the videos, you didn't because that takes 14 minutes in total and you replied after 3 minutes. You consciousness IS WHAT IT IS, and it is in the present moment, doesn't matter if you're watching a star and the light took 100 years to travel to your eyes, you're seeing the light which is at your eyes in the present moment. Doesn't matter if the nerve signal takes 1/50 second to travel from the eye to where it's presented to your consciousness, that perception is still taking place in the present moment, because the present moment IS WHAT IT IS. You are not the only one who cannot distinguish between the act of perception and the thing which is perceived. It's interesting how that is similar to how people can't distinguish between a word and the thing the word is describing. Bible literalists being a good example. They don't understand the concept of metaphor. They don't understand that it's the word which is the metaphor, not the thing, it's the Jesus story which is a metaphor, not Jesus. A metaphor is like an image. Your consciousness is also just an image, so it's very much like a word.

>> No.15192029

>>15192024
>Watch the videos
No.

>You consciousness IS WHAT IT IS,
Ok.

>it is in the present moment
Tell me something true about the "present moment".

>> No.15192031

>>15192029
>No.
then I'm not talking to you anymore

>> No.15192032

>>15192031
I accept your full and direct concession. I asked you to tell me something true about this "present moment". I didn't ask you to post youtube links. Notice how you've failed at this simple request about a dozen times already.

>> No.15192093

this is the most low iq /sci/ thread I’ve come across holy shit

>> No.15192131

We can never know how time truly works because our way of processing information literally depends on time/causation itself and grasping the change/flow of time (if there’s any) is physically impossible. those who claim presentism or eternalism with such confidence can fuck right off

>> No.15192153
File: 809 KB, 2732x2048, EJNWJBaWsAA4cXs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15192153

>>15184750

>> No.15193425

bump

>> No.15193926

>>15184750
Wrong because simultaneity isn't absolute

\thread

>> No.15193954

present moment is kinda like a xenos paradox type thing where if you keep halfing the distance you never quite get there. at highest conceptual levels the sages say there is no motion and no time, causality is a myth

>> No.15194289

>>15193926
So? That's about observation. There is still only the present moment.

>> No.15194295
File: 45 KB, 666x667, literally-you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15194295

>>15194289
>There is still only the present moment.
Tell me something true about the "present moment".

>> No.15194298

>>15194295
you keep repeating yourself, present an actual argument

>> No.15194307

>>15194298
You keep repeating yourself, but you will never make one demonstrably true and meaningful statement about this mysterious "present moment". You will shit out dozens of posts trying to avoid this question, proving me right without any arguments.

>> No.15194321

>>15194307
>You keep repeating yourself
>avoid this question
No, I have addressed your posts from various angles, you however haven't addressed any of my points but just repeat the same shit over and over. See >>15185072

>> No.15194324

>>15194321
>I have addressed your posts
Then quote the answer to my question in your next post. Notice how you are forced to deflect once again.

>> No.15194326

>>15194324
no I won't, go back and read it yourself lazy nigger, you also didn't watch the two videos I posted which explain the concept lazy fucking nigger

>> No.15194331

>>15194326
>no I won't
Because you can't. Tell me something true about this "present moment" in your next post. You will reply again, like a dumb animal, but you will not address this simple request.

>> No.15194333

>>15194331
fuck off low iq nigger

>> No.15194335

>>15194333
Notice how your primitive animal impulses keep forcing you to reply, but you will never be able to answer my simple question. Qualialess drone.

>> No.15194352

>>15193926
Do you know a lot about "relativity of simultaneity"? Can you elaborate? Someone brought it up in another thread I made about this topic but they didn't elaborate at all and didn't participate in discussion. It's the only interesting point I've seen brought up when discussing this topic, among hundreds of posts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
I still don't think the concept of "relativity of simultaneity" contradicts my thesis. Furthermore the whole concept seems bogus:
>For example, a car crash in London and another in New York appearing to happen at the same time to an observer on Earth, will appear to have occurred at slightly different times to an observer on an airplane flying between London and New York. Furthermore, if the two events cannot be causally connected, depending on the state of motion, the crash in London may appear to occur first in a given frame, and the New York crash may appear to occur first in another. However, if the events are causally connected, precedence order is preserved in all frames of reference.
The last sentence of that quote is very suspicious. Also my counterpoint is that regardless the consciousness of yourself is all you are sure of and from that perspective the present moment is what it is, regardless of the time associated with the stuff outside it.

>> No.15194355

>>15194335
I've answered your questions dozens of times lazy nigger, I'm not engaging with your lazy nigger ass anymore, fuck off

>> No.15194357

>>15188275
All the pseuds on 4chan have to go somewhere now that /lit/ is on the decline

>> No.15194360

>>15194357
present an argument or fuck off

>> No.15194365

>>15194357
Also for your information it was I, OP, who made that post, referring to all the dumbasses who have replied, so yes you are right they're all pseuds.

>> No.15194380

>>15194360
The argument is that if you posit that X exists, but you can't make any demonstrably true statement about X, X is undefinable metaphysical woo.

>> No.15194395
File: 50 KB, 539x364, perception.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15194395

>>15194380
your consciousness =/= the stuff outside of it, as I've already said, you keep referring to the consciousness as being synonymous with the stuff outside of it
https://youtu.be/0drT_L4G8w8?t=134

>> No.15194401

>>15194395
>you keep referring to the consciousness as being synonymous with the stuff outside of it
Quote it. You can't. Why are you lying, qualialess animal?

>> No.15194458

>>15194401
You said "what's true about the present moment" and by true you said the stuff outside your consciousness is not actually happening in the present moment because there's a delay due to the speed of light, speed of a nerve signal etc, so you are talking about the stuff outside of your consciousness, I've said from different angles that it's two different things, yet you keep harping on about "what's TRUE about it" always referring to proof from outside the consciousness, always harping on about the stuff outside your consciousness. Enough of you, I won't repeat this anymore which I've already elaborated on from 20 different angles and to which you just reply with the same one sentence every time. Troll or intellectually disabled, can't tell which. Fuck off.

>> No.15194469

>>15194458
>you said the stuff outside your consciousness is not actually happening in the present moment
That's not what I actually said and it's a separate point in any case. For now I'm just asking you to state something true about this "present moment" of yours and you can't. lol

>always referring to proof from outside the consciousness,
I'm not referring to any proof outside of consciousness. You are losing your mind because there is nothing true you can say about your metaphysical and undefined woo.

>> No.15194472

>>15194469
I've already addressed that lazy nigger. Your idea of "true" is proof from outside the consciousness. There is no need for any proof that consciousness/present moment IS WHAT IT IS. It just is. What IS, IS.
>I think therefore I am
Say something new, you are very repetitive and simplistic, one sentence ad nauseum, make an actual point, elaborate, but you can't because you don't actually have any fucking ideas in your head at all. You're basically just saying "I'm dumb, I don't get it". Well I've addressed your point in 20 different ways, and you've only said one sentence, so fuck off and don't come back until you have something to bring to the table.

>> No.15194480

>>15194472
>Your idea of "true" is proof from outside the consciousness
No, it isn't. My idea of truth is correspondence to reality. Now tell me something true about the "present moment". Notice how you devolve into animalistic rage every time I ask this.

>> No.15194499

>>15194480
I told you to fuck off one-sentence-person, bring something of substance or don't speak at all

>> No.15194502

>>15194499
The reason for your impotent rage is that I've brought the only point of actual substance in this discussion: that you cannot tell me a single thing that's true about your mystical "present moment". This shuts you down so naturally, you are losing your mind over it and begging me to stop.

>> No.15194558

>>15184750
100% wrong
the "present" is just as much a construction of the mind as the "past" and the "future"
all three are equally "real", and are only mental constructs

>> No.15194592

>>15194502
since you love repeating the word "true" and did so 40 times, define "true"
>impotent rage
>animalistic
say something of substance or fuck off, the only one impotent here is you, copypasting one word over and over is the height of impotence, the height of being animalistic is being a lazy one-word-nigger like you

>> No.15194593

>>15194558
no, that's been said a few times already, with zero argument, present an actual argument, not just a thesis

>> No.15194595

>>15194592
>define "true"
See >>15194480
>My idea of truth is correspondence to reality
Notice how your impotent, animalistic rage forces you to keep replying, even though you cannot make a single true statement about your imaginary "present".

>> No.15194598

>>15194595
define "reality"

>> No.15194599

>>15194593
doesn't matter how many times the truth is stated, it's still true
when you "remember" the "past", all you're doing is constructing it in your mind
when you "imagine" the "future", all you're doing is constructing it in the mind
and in the exact same way, when you "know" the "present", all you're doing is constructing it in the mind
in the mind there's ultimately no difference between any of these, they're all equally "real"

>> No.15194604

>>15194598
That which is.

>> No.15194610

The laws of logic, mathematics and physics, I view them as emergent properties of consciousness

>> No.15194622

>>15194599
Wrong, as I said before, the construction of the mind happens in the present moment, regardless of what the content of your consciousness is and what time is associated with it, the consciousness IS WHAT IT IS, "I think therefore I am", insofar as you are aware/conscious at all it is in the present moment, the only time you might be beyond that is when you're totally unconscious. To say that the present moment is a mental construct is a baseless assertion. Again, I'm not talking about the content of your consciousness, what may or may not lie beyond your consciousness, you don't know whether that exists at all, all you really know is that the consciousness exists, that is not a "construct", that's like saying the construct is a construct, that's redundancy, consciousness is not the thing constructed, it's the construction itself, you're one of these many people who can't distinguish between the two.

>> No.15194625

>>15194604
your consciousness is all you're sure IS

>> No.15194628

>>15194625
>your consciousness is all you're sure IS
Okay, and? Tell me something true about the "present moment".

>> No.15194634

>>15194628
the present moment is consciousness >>15194622

>> No.15194639

>>15194622
not wrong at all, that is the truth, no matter how much you try to deny it because of your misconceptions about what "past", "present", and "future" really is, and the incorrect special treatment you give to the "present"
>the construction of the mind happens in the present moment
wrong
the "present" is a construction in the mind
you've literally got it completely backwards, the truth is the diametric opposite of what you think it is
>To say that the present moment is a mental construct is a baseless assertion.
no, that's simply an undeniable fact
to "know" the "present" is no different from "remembering" the "past" or "imagining" the "future"
all constructions are completely equal, and all equally "real"
>all you really know
again, the very act of "knowing" is just a mental construct
see, you're making the mistake many people make when they're just getting started with metaphysics, which is to give special treatment to "knowing" despite how it's just as much an artificial construct of the mind as everything else

>> No.15194644

>>15194634
>the present moment is consciousness
How do I know it's true?

>> No.15194649

This discussion would be so much worse if this universe had even another temporal dimension ; -)

>> No.15194666

>>15194639
by "knowing" I mean "being aware/conscious"=the definition of consciousness, as I said insofar as you are conscious at all, as I said you can't say the construct is a construct, consciousness is not a construct

>> No.15194668

>>15194639
I've heard people troll saying time is a mental construct but I've never seen someone so stupid that they take it literally.

This thread is neither science or math. Take your meds.

>> No.15194673

>>15194668
He's right and you're absolutely seething.

>> No.15194685

https://youtu.be/0drT_L4G8w8?t=172
>the program doesn't tell us what the outer objective reality actually is

https://youtu.be/0drT_L4G8w8?t=211
>the input, a formless unknown that gets processed through an inner program, and the output of the machine is our reality

See here how he uses the word REALITY in two different ways. You are all talking about the former usage, I'm talking about the latter usage.

>> No.15194689

>>15194644
true and real are synonymous, see >>15194685

>> No.15194690 [DELETED] 

>>15194634
>>15194644
Looks like a broke the bot. It can't tell me how it knows the "present moment" is consciousness so it stopped replying.

>> No.15194692

>>15194689
That's not what I asked. How do I know the "present moment" is consciousness?

>> No.15194709

>>15194692
present=what's there, all you know is there is that which is in your consciousness, it's there, hence it's present, it's in the definition of "present", if it weren't present it would be absent, i.e. absent from your consciousness/awareness, which could be something which may or may not lie beyond your consciousness/awareness, you know zero about what may or may not lie beyond your consciousness/awareness, but you do know what is in your consciousness because know=be aware/conscious, to be conscious=consciousness, if you're not conscious of it it's not in your consciousness, consciousness means being conscious

>> No.15194712

>>15194709
>present=what's there
How do you know?

>all you know is there is that which is in your consciousness
It's all I know but that doens't mean it's all there is.

>> No.15194715

>>15194712
read what I said and think about it instead of blurting out nonsense just for the sake of it, I literally already addressed those points in the post you replied to

>> No.15194718

>>15194668

Pretty much every single thing in existence might be a mental construct, there is a famous quote by russell when asked about the nature of the universe: for all he knows it could have been created 5 minutes ago along with all the evidence suggesting it is older

>> No.15194720

>>15194715
I accept your full and direct concession that you can't explain the connection between the "present moment" and "all there is".

>> No.15194727

>>15194720
It's all there is in your consciousness, what may or may not exist outside your consciousness you know zero about.
https://youtu.be/h73PsFKtIck

>> No.15194731

>>15194726
What's the connection between my consciousness and this "present moment" you keep talking about? You keep equating this "present moment" with consciousness and all of reality, but you can't justify this beyond your moronic attempt to imply that 'present' in the past/present/future sense is the same as 'present' in the 'is here' sense.

>> No.15194733

>>15194727
See >>15194731

>> No.15194734

>>15194731
>moronic attempt to imply that 'present' in the past/present/future sense is the same as 'present' in the 'is here' sense.
not an argument

>> No.15194735

>>15194734
Prove that they are the same. You can't.

>> No.15194741

>>15194735
Prove that they are not the same, burden of proof, you're the one that said it was moronic without any counterargument. Semantics, despite the misleading notion of the phrase "arguing semantics" is actually of great importance.

>> No.15194744

>>15194741
>Prove that they are not the same, burden of proof
The burden of proof is on the seething animal who makes retarded statements and then spends days trying to back out of justifying them. lol

>> No.15194747

>>15194744
prove that it's two different meanings of "present" and that it's not the same word with the same meaning, that was your assertion

>> No.15194755

>>15194747
One usage is with reference to time and the other is pretty much synonymous with "is", so it's just a restatement of what I asked you to prove in the first place using low IQ label thinking.

>> No.15194760

>>15194755
As I said semantics is key, it's called "present time" and "the present moment" because of the implication of the word "present" in your latter sense, which refers back to the statement in the OP.

>> No.15194767

>>15194760
>hurrr it's called the present because it's present
Again, that's just a mongoloidal reiteration of your initial statement, which you can't prove. Notice how your animalistic urges will force you to reply again without addressing this problem. You have zero impulse control so you can neither admit a mistake nor try to engage with the argument.

>> No.15194773

>>15194767
define "prove"
>you can not try to engage with the argument
is what you can't and haven't done

>> No.15194777

>>15194666
just making the exact same mistake outlined above

>> No.15194780

>>15194668
>time is a mental construct
correct
this has been known for millennia, made extremely explicit by Kant for morons like you to understand more easily

>> No.15194788

>>15194777
make an argument instead of simply saying everything others say is wrong all the time, that's not how intellectual discussion is done

>> No.15194795

>>15194773
Anyway, I no longer regard you as human, so here's the final say on this matter, ignoring anything you said or will say: talking about "the present" in the normal sense implies some relationships with the past/future that aren't encapsulated by the notion of "is"; your mongoloidal rhetoric relies on implicitly redefining "present" as a vacuous synonym for "whatever there is", even though we already have a term for it ('reality'); you are forced to do this because without this kike rat trick with labels, your statement is exposed as the completely vacuous one that "whatever is, is".

>> No.15194797

>>15194788
I've already made it very clear
you're making the mistake of thinking that "knowing"/"consciousness" is somehow more fundamentally "real" than "remembering" or "imagining"
that "knowing" or "being conscious of" the "present" is just another mental construct, just like "remembering" the "past" or "imagining" the "future"
it's a rookie mistake in metaphysics, and I can tell you've just barely dipped your foot in, but you'll get there eventually

>> No.15194808

>>15194795
not an argument
>>15194797
>that "knowing" or "being conscious of" the "present" is just another mental construct
no, that's not my assertion, that's yours

>> No.15194820

>>15194808
you're clearly not even reading the posts properly at this point
I never in that post said that what you just quoted was your assertion
what you just quoted is what I'm pointing out is the truth of the matter, as opposed to what you think, which is what I wrote in the line above that

>> No.15194828

>>15194820
No sense talking to this animal, but if you have to, at least sage its thread.

>> No.15194831

>>15194820
>>15194797
>you're making the mistake of thinking [...] that "knowing" or "being conscious of" the "present" is just another mental construct
Learn how to write coherently, including proper punctuation and capitalization.

>> No.15194834

>>15194828
one would think that someone dipping their toes into beginner's metaphysics about time would at least have the common decency to read Kant, and see that their view was already thoroughly refuted centuries ago (even though it was of course refuted millennia ago, but it's much more explicit in the works of Kant, since it becomes so blatantly obvious how space and time are mental constructions)
>>15194831
it's pretty hilarious how you try to say this now, when you weren't doing that yourself previously, and haven't done so at all
what I said was very obvious, so it's even more funny that you're trying to project your own failure to read something very simple onto me

>> No.15194836

>We dispute all claim of time to absolute reality [absolute Realität], namely where it would attach to things absolutely as a condition or property even without regard to the form of our sensible intuition. Such properties, which pertain to things in themselves, can also never be given to us through the senses. Therefore herein lies the transcendental ideality of time, according to which, if one abstracts from the subjective condition of our sensible intuition, it is nothing at all, and can be considered neither as subsisting nor as inhering in the objects in themselves (without their relation to our intuition).
this kills the presentist
/thread
bye

>> No.15194839

>>15194834
>it's pretty hilarious how you try to say this now, when you weren't doing that yourself previously, and haven't done so at all
>what I said was very obvious, so it's even more funny that you're trying to project your own failure to read something very simple onto me
I wrote properly when it made a difference to the understanding of what I wrote, you didn't.

>> No.15194908

>>15194836
It kills the notion of past and future, it doesn't kill the notion of the present moment.

>> No.15194910
File: 1.24 MB, 828x912, 352343.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15194910

>the present moment.
Is there a version of picrel for low-test "males"?

>> No.15194930

>>15194910
not an argument

>> No.15194967

>>15194930
if it's not an argumet how come he BTFO'd you?

>> No.15194984

>>15194967
>https://youtu.be/sIRDCR8xSO0

>> No.15194988

>>15184750
>past
>anymore
>future
>yet
>present
>always
What a fucking stupid post. I bet you think you're so fucking clever or deep for learning the definitions of words. Not science.

>> No.15194992

>>15194910
Most philosophy is just a cope for secularists who are spiritually dead and think the world is materialist.

>> No.15194997

>>15194992
You sound extremely low IQ but do you happen to be in possession of the required meme?

>> No.15195008

>>15194997
You sound like a proud fool.

>> No.15195036

>>15195008
You sound like a nonsentient drone slapping labels together mindlessly.

>> No.15195040

>>15194992
Kant and both Russells were contrarian pseuds grifting for clout. None of their philosophy holds today and is still not science or math.

>> No.15195200

OP here I'm trans btw I don't know if that matters

>> No.15195347

>>15194352
Wikipoodia probably explains the concept better than I can. Back in the time before Einstein it could be argued that time is not a legitimate dimension like the spatial dimensions, except in the dry sense that time is a coordinate used to describe a body's trajectory. But with relativity time is treated basically the same as space as part of a 4D spacetime, and its geometry determines simultaneity in different reference frames. So it makes sense to speak of different timepoints as equally real as different points in space.
>the consciousness of yourself is all you are sure of
That's a whole different proposition compared to "the present is all that exists", unless you espouse metaphysical solipsism.

>> No.15197110

bump