Semantics?
People talk about a moment of time, as if it was a duration of time. Is a moment of time 1 minute? 1 day? 1 Year? What is the duration of “a moment of time?”
There is no such animal as a moment of time. That is semantics, playing word games about time in order to justify a religious belief in their imaginary friend in the sky that looks out for them. Can you get more mentally ill than that???
No it does not!
In the past things happened (shit happened, not shit happens) , and you can order them on a timeline of the past. Nothing happens now, and nothing happens in the future.
That’s true. We can only try, through historical accounts (through memoirs, pictures, etc.) to get an an objective view of what that period was like.
Our subjective experience of the change between moments (changes and moments we process from our perspective subject to time… if we were not subject to time, we would process them within a frame where immanence…bla bla bla need coffee) will be similar because we are the same sort of …. operating system. But… it would not be completely objective because subjective experiences involve meaning and interpretation (even our objective attempts are colored by subjective interpretations even if we try to bracket them out)… There is no order without personhood anyway, so objectivity is kind of a myth (not objective truth… subjectivity is truth… there are objective truths about subjectivity, and any truth that claims to be completely objective without reference to any subject is not telling the whole story… it is a story told in bad faith) (this is absolutely not the same as saying the highest — most widely applicable/meaningful — truth is relative or subjective to a particular person, as if they just made it up).
The fact that we can talk about the sheet music (order) of time while acknowledging that we may play or hear the music a little bit differently (history) should help ground the conversation.
You are missing the point, Pedro Sanchez. I don’t blame you though, you haven’t been following our discussion from the very beginning. It does not matter whether they exist or not. I am not claiming they do. But if you’re going to claim that nothing can severe the mind-body connection, you have to rule that out, you have to show that such a chip is impossible to develop and implant.
Don’t need a chip. But anywhays.
or rational emotive therapy
Fuck Off sematic puftah
WRONG.
A moment is like a zero on a scale leading backwards in negative and forwards in positive.
You are just too stupid to see that.
A moment is an instant.
That’s not what follows from the definition. We do participate.
Think of dominos. Suppose you have 3 dominos. Suppose they are in standing position. Suppose they are arranged in such a way that it’s possible to create the domino effect by pushing the first domino. And suppose that, contrary to what’s usually the case, each domino takes 1 day to fall. It’s Monday 9AM. You pushed the first domino on Sunday 9AM. Right now, the second domino is starting to fall. In other words, what happened on Sunday at 9AM ( past ) caused the second domino to start falling on Monday at 9AM ( present. ) And the second domino falling will cause the third domino to start falling on Tuesday at 9AM. In other words, what happened today ( present ) will cause what’s going to happen tomorrow ( future. ) Moreover, the first domino starting to follow on Sunday ( yesterday, past ) will cause, albeit indirectly, the third domino to start falling on Tuestday ( tomorrow, future. ) In other words, what happened yesterday ( past ) will indirectly cause what will happen tomorrow ( future. )
The second domino, as you can see, participates in the process of causation even though its fall was caused by something that occurred in the past. It participates because what it does determines what will happen.
Again, it’s important for a statement to be correctly interpreted before it is criticized. When people say “The past causes the future” they do not mean “The past directly causes the future”. They simply mean that it causes it, whether directly or indirectly.
That’s the common misconception.
The second domino is directly responsible for the third domino falling. By falling on the third domino, the second domino caused the third domino to fall. You can’t say “Oh, you little domino, you’re completely innocent, it was the first domino that caused it all!” because if the second domino was heavier than it was, the crime wouldn’t have been committed, the third domino wouldn’t have fallen. That means that you can prevent future crimes by making the second domino heavier.
The first domino is indirectly responsible for the third domino falling. By falling on the second domino, the third domino was indirectly caused to fall, because neither the second nor the third domino were heavy enough to resist falling. You can’t really say it’s innocent. If the first domino didn’t start falling, the crime wouldn’t have happened. By making sure that it does not fall in the future, you can prevent the crime from reoccurring.
And finally, the third domino is passively responsible because if it were heavy enough it wouldn’t have fallen.
In order to prevent the event from happening in the future, you will have to choose what to do, i.e. what to change, based on a number of parameters including what can be changed. If you can only change the first domino, you will make the first domino stop falling. If you can only change the second domino, you will make the second domino heavier. And so on.
That’s a different thing. “The past causes the future” does not necessarily mean that the past will cause you to do the opposite of what you make up your mind not to do. No such thing is implied.
I’d say you missed the point. I am not sure how to make it more clear.
So you choosing to eat eggs on Monday 8AM didn’t cause you to cook some eggs on 8:10AM and to eat them on 8:30AM?
You can’t say that all these things happened in the present because 8AM, 8:10AM and 8:30AM are three different points in time.
But the light bulb turned on a couple of milliseconds later. It didn’t turn on the moment I pressed the light switch. How do you explain that?
We need a poll based on the above.
A Theory
B Theory
C Theory
D OTHER 
(please describe)
A moment is an instant?? Like a zero duration of time? Like when the clock strikes 1:26 that is an instant from the time 1:26 to 1:26?
I presume you agree that 1 hour is from 1:26-2:26??
I presume you agree that 1 minute is from 1:26-1:27??
I presume you agree that a tenth of a second is from 1:26-1:26:00:10??
So you are saying a “moment” is an “instant” which is what 1:26-1:26???
Explain yourself you illiterate fuck!
regarding dominoes
Rewatching this morning:
Regarding fore/middle knowledge of freely willed intentions… Last week: facebook.com/RFDefenders/vi … 051527538/ Concurrence (permission) is explained starting at about 14:40. How it applies to free will is explained starting at about 18:15. How it applies to a tensed universe is explained (with Molina’s simultaneous concurrence) starting at about 21:00.
A tenseless b-theory universe & abstract objects are explained (as sustenance of b-theory rather than conservation over time of a-theory) starting at the beginning, but it starts getting good at about 6 minutes in. Would we talk about foreknowledge or middle knowledge of libertarian freedom …and divine intervention & miracles, for that matter… much differently within the framework of a tenseless universe? In other words: Can human freedom & divine intervention play a part in a tenseless universe?
What you said is “Nothing can make us do anything against our will.” You were talking about what we do. And you were saying that what we do is always determined by what we choose to do. In other words, if your mind says “No, I don’t want to date that guy”, you will not date that guy. But if a chip was implanted right next to your mind, without removing your mind, and if it was instructing your body to date that guy, you’d be in a situation where you do things that you’re consciously aware are against your will; in other words, you’d be dating that guy even though you’re aware you’re willfully against it.
You keep saying “If a chip is controlling your actions, it’s no longer you.” But that’s missing the point.