What is the relationship between time and perception?

[MooMansun]

When we refer to time, what exactly are we talking about?

a. An experience: the ability to objectively relate the change between a memory and the current environment.

Is time a hypothetical substance drawn from perception?

Is there only motion?

If space alters depending on your velocity, how can we eliminate ourselves as a factor of uncertainity?

 

[moving finger]

When we refer to time, what exactly are we talking about?
Is time a hypothetical substance drawn from perception?

arguably, everything (including the concept of time) is drawn from perception.

Is there only motion?

without motion there would be no perception, thus motion is necessary for perception (anthropically : if there was no motion we would not be here to question why there is no motion)
motion implies a four-dimensional perspective (3 space and one time)

If space alters depending on your velocity, how can we eliminate ourselves as a factor of uncertainity?

we cannot. the observer is always a part of the measurement - it is for this reason that we can never know objective reality
MF

 

[Rade]

.. the observer is always a part of the measurement - it is for this reason that we can never know objective reality

I do not agree. The observer can "know" objective reality [O] as the entanglement of { [O] + [M] }, where [M] is the quantum state of the mind of the observer that collaspes the probability function of [O] during the measurement process. Of course, we can never know all the attributes of {[O] + [M]} completely, that is, without error, because this would violate the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. Yet even HUP tells us that we can in fact know with 100 % certainty any single attribute of [O], say position, if that is all the information we look for. Thus, what each human "knows" about {[O]+[M]} it really does "know", since knowledge is defined as a "mental grasp [M] of objects [O] of reality [R]"--nowhere in the definition is "completeness" implied--and thus herein lies the error of the idealists, they search for the unsearchable--for science to provide "knowledge with certainty" (= folly). Science = knowledge with uncertainty.

 

[sameandnot]

I do not agree. The observer can "know" objective reality [O] as the entanglement of { [O] + [M] }, where [M] is the quantum state of the mind of the observer that collaspes the probability function of [O] during the measurement process. Of course, we can never know all the attributes of {[O] + [M]} completely, that is, without error, because this would violate the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. Yet even HUP tells us that we can in fact know with 100 % certainty any single attribute of [O], say position, if that is all the information we look for. Thus, what each human "knows" about {[O]+[M]} it really does "know", since knowledge is defined as a "mental grasp [M] of objects [O] of reality [R]"--nowhere in the definition is "completeness" implied--and thus herein lies the error of the idealists, they search for the unsearchable--for science to provide "knowledge with certainty" (= folly). Science = knowledge with uncertainty.

isn't it all founded on a conjecture, if there is not completeness? a hope, that the basic belief, of it's foundation, is in accord with Reality/Truth?
if there is absolutely uncertainty, does that mean that there is a fundamental flaw in the basic pre-conception/cognition of what It is that is being examined?

 

[Rade]

if there is absolutely uncertainty, does that mean that there is a fundamental flaw in the basic pre-conception/cognition of what It is that is being examined?

No, not at all. The "absolute uncertainty" is limited to that which "observes", as opposed to that which is "observed". From the perspective of that which is observed there is absolute certainty that it exists as an object with identity. In summary, that which exists, exists with absolute certainty, but our knowledge of that which exists must always be with absolute uncertainty.

 

[sameandnot]

No, not at all. The "absolute uncertainty" is limited to that which "observes", as opposed to that which is "observed". From the perspective of that which is observed there is absolute certainty that it exists as an object with identity. In summary, that which exists, exists with absolute certainty, but our knowledge of that which exists must always be with absolute uncertainty.

certainly, rade, you are correct, i think.
and please continue reading to the end where, i believe, i clarify quite well.
the point that was being made, was not over the existence of the "thing" as a certainty. Rather, the point was, that the knowledge we are accustomed to having and like to have (our philosophy of knowledge, in this case), is fundamentally flawed; there is a fundamental ignorance that has not been examined fully, or at all.
this is something that is apparent to me, though maybe not so for many.

do not get me wrong.
we can do some really nifty things with this kind of knowledge, that's for sure, and i do not suggest stopping, by any means. but, if we are looking for Knowledge and Understanding (and this my point), and it appears that we will not find it in this type of enquiry.

maybe i will need to clarify the difference between "knowledge" and "Knowledge", which will shed light onto the difference between "understanding" and "Understanding".

"Knowledge" is complete, whereas "knowledge" is incomplete. my intention is only to examine this honestly/objectively, and if there is uncertainty of knowledge, then it cannot be said to be complete. nor can the understanding that it claims be complete. this follows logically, as it appears.

so, since we were talking about "know"ing objective reality, it seemed logical to mention that this "know"ledge was not really and accurate representation of what we mean when we say "knowledge". the idea behind "knowledge" is that it is somehow firm and unshakable, but we have found, time and time again that the kind of knowledge, we have been after, is anything but firm and unshaken. so it is probably better to call it something more like "speculating" or "hypothesizing". see my point?

Knowledge is of a different kind than how we have been thinking that we can find it.

ok, ok, like i said, our knowledge is pretty damn good! we can do many awesome things with things, and we have a knowing of what is happening, but we do not what "What It Is" that is happening. this "Knowledge" is of a different nature and it seems an invaluable realm of exploration. it might help us prevent making a lot of problems (some we can "patch up or "fix" and most others that we can't "fix") for ourselves by acting without Knowing. see?
We should be acting responsibly, based on a fundamental Knowing and also speaking responsibly, so as to not mislead those who believe that we already are. this seems apparent. we are not being responsible or acting responsibly when we act from the knowings that we get from this flawed kind of enquiry. no?

there is a knowledge that does not have inherent uncertainty and that knowledge is subjective. subjective knowledge is something that all have and can have, about it, without uncertainty. see?

maybe I've gone too far. but. like i said, i am trying to examine this honestly and totally, and i think that this should not be overlooked, in our examination.

 

[sameandnot]

when does objective knowledge become wisdom?
shouldn't our actions procede from wisdom?
and can it be considered "knowledge" if we do not consider subjectivity as an essential element of that knowledge?
so in knowing Reality, we must also look "inward" as well as "outward". this we can say is knowledge. just looking outward is examination and speculation.

am i wrong?

 

[sameandnot]

i suggest it is highly relevant to consider Heisenburg's U.P., concurrently with the ideas of the followig thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103423

how are they alike? the same idea, even? (one expressed in objective context, and the other in the subjective context... if you will.)

please, provide your thoughts.

 

[Rade]

when does objective knowledge become wisdom?
shouldn't our actions procede from wisdom? and can it be considered "knowledge" if we do not consider subjectivity as an essential element of that knowledge? so in knowing Reality, we must also look "inward" as well as "outward". this we can say is knowledge. just looking outward is examination and speculation. am i wrong?

No, I see no error here. Objective knowledge becomes wisdom when concepts are formed and acted on using reason. And yes, subjectivity is needed to entangle objects which are then issued forth to objectivity, that is, we can only "know" the union of subjectivity+objective, and thus yes, inward <----> outward, for both are the monism of the "One" (existence).

 

[sameandnot]

as it seems:
"objectivity" is defined thusly, because reality is conceptualized as "objects", by a subject who has perceptions.
therefore, objectivity obtains its existence from subjectivity; the subjective conception of the perception of reality, thusly objectified, is objectivity.
objectivity is contained within subjectivity.
there is no difference between subject and object.

objective knowledge can not transcend itself and realize its source in subjective conceptualization. wisdom is not found in objective knowledge. but there is greater and greater developments of limited and incomplete (false) knowledge, which is the conception of reality as conceived by the subject.

reality is conceptualized as objects, though one cannot sufficiently define any such really existing objects of reality.

 

[Rade]

i suggest it is highly relevant to consider Heisenburg's U.P., concurrently with the ideas of the followig thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103423
how are they alike? the same idea, even? (one expressed in objective context, and the other in the subjective context... if you will.)
please, provide your thoughts.

Are you asking here how the concept of "the present" is related to the "HUP" ?

 

[sameandnot]

if we want to know what is present, then we are doomed to be living in the past.
if we intend to be present, we must give up the desire to know in the traditional way, for we cannot do/be both.

 

[Rade]

if we intend to be present, we must give up the desire to know in the traditional way, for we cannot do/be both.

But, if "present" is measured as a length of time [ a <-------> b] = present, then we can "know" within the bounds of that length. Your argument only seems to apply if "present" is a point in time [p]. Now, from research on neural physiology, the present has been shown experimentally to be a length of time ~ 3 sec, which allows more than enough time for knowing, that is perception leading to conception. The HUP of physics does not apply to two measurements separated by time, only to two measurements at the same time.