Page 39 of 39 FirstFirst ... 29373839
Results 381 to 387 of 387

Thread: B Theory Of Time...

  1. #381
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,678
    Amen (Given)
    5604
    Amen (Received)
    23895
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    And the future you is just as wrong about it as the past you is.
    You just can't grasp the futility of your argument, but you were destined to make it anyway.

  2. #382
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,051
    Amen (Given)
    2253
    Amen (Received)
    1751
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    You just can't grasp the futility of your argument, but you were destined to make it anyway.
    That's what's called irony, Sparko. Perhaps the future you knows better,

  3. #383
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,678
    Amen (Given)
    5604
    Amen (Received)
    23895
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    That's what's called irony, Sparko. Perhaps the future you knows better,
    He says you are still/always full of crap.

  4. #384
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,051
    Amen (Given)
    2253
    Amen (Received)
    1751
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    He says you are still/always full of crap.

  5. #385
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,272
    Amen (Given)
    2624
    Amen (Received)
    1922
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    Once again, there is no way to assess the objective reality of empirical data, if by objective is meant the correspondence of that data to a reality independent of the sense data.
    There is no way to assess the reality of subjective “independent sense data”. Whereas empirical data can be successfully acted upon as if it was “objectively real” - as indicated by ever growing body of scientific knowledge and technology.

    We cannot step outside of our sense data to check its 'objectivity.' We can only check its internal coherence and then assume, based on inference to the best explanation, a sense-independent world causing the data.
    Practical judgement in perceiving and understanding others is shared by most people. Those that do not conform to what the majority perceive can reasonably be assumed to be delusional.

    the fact that I am conscious does not depend on any attitude, feeling, etc of any subject. It is the most certain possible datum that I can have. If "I" were to be wrong about it, then there would be no "I" there to be wrong. How can I possibly be mistaken about it when the conditions of 'wrongness' assume it? It's not something I infer causally, as with empirical inferences, but a datum given directly.
    A man’s belief that he is Napoleon is based upon subjective “datum given directly” to him. He can’t believe he can “possibly be mistaken about it”. Similarly, those refuting the well attested B-Theory of time et al.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "live corresponding to a metaphysical commitment." We "live corresponding to a methodological commitment," although some of us also profess a metaphysical commitment, vis a vis metaphysical naturalism.
    You raised the term, not I. So, what “corresponding methodological commitment” do YOU live by if not metaphysical naturalism?

    The contents of my subjective states can be wrong, but the fact that I am conscious cannot be.
    The “contents of your subjective states” are merely who and what you believe yourself to be.

    My point is that there has to be a subject of an illusion, a mechanism, and an underlying reality, all three of which satisfactorily explain the existence and generation of the 'illusion.' Just restricting ourselves to the first term, if "I" am the subject of the illusion, then the question becomes "What am I"? How can I be defined in such a way as to still retain my identity as "me"?
    So, how will you answer the question “What am I", if the “underlying reality” is the B-Theory of time - as seems more likely than not according to physicists and many philosophers?
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  6. #386
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    919
    Amen (Given)
    30
    Amen (Received)
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    There is no way to assess the reality of subjective “independent sense data”. Whereas empirical data can be successfully acted upon as if it was “objectively real” - as indicated by ever growing body of scientific knowledge and technology.
    The judgement that "I am conscious" cannot possibly be disproven under any scenario, unlike any empirical judgement. I don't act on it "as if" it was objectively real. It's objective reality CONSTITUTES my knowledge that I am conscious. The "growing body of scientific knowledge and technology" begs the question,of course, because that body is still part of the assumed reality under discussion.



    Practical judgement in perceiving and understanding others is shared by most people. Those that do not conform to what the majority perceive can reasonably be assumed to be delusional.
    This begs the question again for the same reason as just mentioned.



    A man’s belief that he is Napoleon is based upon subjective “datum given directly” to him. He can’t believe he can “possibly be mistaken about it”. Similarly, those refuting the well attested B-Theory of time et al.
    I'm talking about objective criteria for belief. The delusional man may subjectively believe that the datum is given directly to him, just as he may believe that there are 9 days in a week. What I'm referring to are objective criteria for believing in subjectivity itself, not in the particular contents of some subjective state or other.



    You raised the term, not I. So, what “corresponding methodological commitment” do YOU live by if not metaphysical naturalism?
    You're getting terms mixed up. Metaphysical naturalism wouldn't be a kind of methodological commitment. It depends on the context.



    The “contents of your subjective states” are merely who and what you believe yourself to be.
    Right. I'm talking about the fact that you are conscious at all, which is an objectively real fact about you, even if it can only be accessed directly by you.



    So, how will you answer the question “What am I", if the “underlying reality” is the B-Theory of time - as seems more likely than not according to physicists and many philosophers?
    If "I" am the kind of being who is temporally constituted in a certain way, then I'm not sure that I could know that fact.

  7. #387
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,272
    Amen (Given)
    2624
    Amen (Received)
    1922
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    The judgement that "I am conscious" cannot possibly be disproven under any scenario, unlike any empirical judgement. I don't act on it "as if" it was objectively real. It's objective reality CONSTITUTES my knowledge that I am conscious.
    The fact that you are aware of being “conscious” is not the argument. The man who believes he is Napoleon is conscious. But is he really Napoleon is the question? He thinks he is.

    The "growing body of scientific knowledge and technology" begs the question,of course, because that body is still part of the assumed reality under discussion.
    Yet, unlike “Napoleon”, scientific empirical knowledge can be and is productively acted upon as if it is objectively real. Our technological civilization is built on it.

    This begs the question again for the same reason as just mentioned.
    Except that demonstrably, those that do not conform to what the majority perceive can reasonably be assumed to be delusional.

    I'm talking about objective criteria for belief. The delusional man may subjectively believe that the datum is given directly to him, just as he may believe that there are 9 days in a week. What I'm referring to are objective criteria for believing in subjectivity itself, not in the particular contents of some subjective state or other.
    You referred to “subjective “datum given directly to him.” So how, in your opinion, does such a person obtain “objective criteria for believing in subjectivity itself” other than merely being aware of his own subjectivity.

    Right. I'm talking about the fact that you are conscious at all, which is an objectively real fact about you, even if it can only be accessed directly by you.
    Trivially true. But unless the contents of one’s consciousness can be determined to be “objectively real” it is a meaningless exercise.

    If "I" am the kind of being who is temporally constituted in a certain way, then I'm not sure that I could know that fact.
    What you would know is that in a B-Theory universe you have the illusion of time passing when in fact, if the theory is correct, that it is not passing in actuality. B-theory says that your entire life span, every point in time from your birth to your death, already exists in its entirety. It can’t be changed because it always is what it is.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •