Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

dida: on 8/6/14 at 13:21pm UTC, wrote Could you please provide some reference to the following claim:...

Darius M: on 6/22/14 at 18:39pm UTC, wrote Time is what Kant called the act of spontaneity which generates the...

Jason Wolfe: on 6/26/13 at 5:13am UTC, wrote What is consciousness? I was reading a website of people who talk about...

amrit: on 6/25/13 at 10:24am UTC, wrote NOW OF PHYSICS - time is real but it has only a mathematical existence.... ...

Jim George Snowdon: on 1/29/13 at 23:29pm UTC, wrote Paul, Thank you! Thanks again for reading my essay!

Paul Reed: on 1/28/13 at 5:52am UTC, wrote Georgina Much as it is an area of interest, like many aspects of the...

Georgina Parry: on 1/27/13 at 10:04am UTC, wrote Paul, you asked what is consciousness? Interesting question....

Paul Reed: on 1/27/13 at 5:54am UTC, wrote John And what is consciousness then? Anything associated wiuth the...



FQXi FORUM
October 26, 2014

ARTICLE: The Brain's Time Illusion [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

John Merryman wrote on Dec. 9, 2012 @ 17:03 GMT
More proof that time is an effect of activity, like temperature . It is simply that we experience it as a sequence from past to future, but the underlying dynamic is potential condensing into actual events and being replaced; Future becoming past. Each action is then its own clock. When it is only treated as a measure of interval, this only. emphasizesthe past to future effect, rather than the physical dynamic.

report post as inappropriate

Tim Buttrum replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 00:14 GMT
John your perspective on time is due to having a split mind. When you think with duality mind. By that I mean you see good and bad, white and black, male and female. I will explain it with an example I hope is not offense to this sight.Let's say you are making mad passionate love to your wife or girl friend when you both come to the point of climax. At this moment are you making love as a man or women? The answer is neither. The reason is at the moment of climax you are both in the immediate present where duality of mind does not exist. No past, future, only here and now in the immediate present. THANK YOU

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 04:08 GMT
Tim,

Are we a node, or a network? Is your brain a bunch of neurons, or the connections between them? It's not just friends and lovers. You make connections with everyone you meet. Attraction, repulsion, complimentary, cancelling, etc. You affect your world as your world affects you. We are neurons in the larger mind. Like fingers on a hand.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 08:39 GMT
John

What the brain does, or indeed any other function associated with the subsequent processing of what was physically received, is irrelevant to physics. The physical circumstance is extrinsic and independent of brains, eyes, etc, etc. To put it simply, if the entirety of sentient organisms was extermintated, physical existence would still continue, there would just be no entity to be aware of it.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Dec. 23, 2012 @ 17:48 GMT
I told all that already few years ago

but nobody was ready to listen......

because I'm an independent researcher ?!

In the universe time exists,

time is what we measure with clocks.........

They are two attached files

in one is a review article on time published in FOOP

in other are my comments

attachments: 10.1007_s107010119591y_TIME.pdf, Comments_on_the_article_What_We_Dont_Know_About_Time.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Dec. 24, 2012 @ 17:19 GMT
Hi Amrit,

I must respectfully disagree. In our Universe neither time, the future, or the past, exist as real things. As I said in the thread of your essay in the second essay contest, entry dated May 10th, 2,010, "We are permanently in the present. Everything that has ever happened, happened in the present. Remnants of all those happenings are still here with us, in the present."

Our Universe endures. Duration elapsing is what our clocks measure. Duration elapsing is what we consciously experience. We only assume that time is somehow real, and passing.

As I explain in my essay in the first essay contest, the Earth`s rotational motion is the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 25, 2012 @ 06:04 GMT
Jim

Correct. Although you do not say it explicitly, what is being measured is rate of change. And one of the sources of confusion is the fossilised language used to describe units of timing. But then it would be even more confusing if someone said 'well that took 9,567 crystal oscillations' to which someone else responded 'no, the flywell rotated 54 times'. Remnants is an important word, because we see with the receipt of a photon based representation of what occurred, which takes time to travel.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Jim George Snowdon replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 23:29 GMT
Paul,

Thank you!

Thanks again for reading my essay!

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Dec. 24, 2012 @ 00:21 GMT
This article has nothing to do with time other than that time passes while all events occur. Time and space are the companions to all changes of velocity. No revelation there. The subject of the article is duration and perceptions of duration, both sometimes misrepresented as if they were the property of time, simalarly to what has ocurred in theoretical physics.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 24, 2012 @ 00:46 GMT
In theoretical physics it appears to me to be preferred to represent clocks and the variations that clocks undergo as if clocks controlled the evolution of the universe. Of course they don't. They are a part of the evolution of the universe. Clocks, in whatever form they appear including individual atomic interactions, are just the process of changes of velocity occuring. For velocity to actually include time in its mathematical representation of (dx)/(dt), it would require something that has not yet occurred in empirical discovery. That something, at a minimum, is a universally constant measure of the passage of time. Even that will not be the property of time. It will instead be evidence that there is a clock of the universe.

James putnam

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 24, 2012 @ 01:48 GMT
Neither Einstein nor anyone else, expert or amatuer, told us or tells us about time except in their internal perceptions. I think that it was unfortunate that Einstein should have allowed, or worse proselytized that the 't' in his equations should be understood as representing the actual property of time. I find that this occurrence and its continuence, specifically its involvement as physics knowledge and physics' lesser part 'physics theory', to be scientifically unjustifiable.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 20:31 GMT
In defense of time:

All physics knowledge consists of changes of velocity of objects. The standards of length and duration that are used to approach common references by which to compare rates of changes of velocity are themselves only chosen changes of velocity of objects. The point being that: Changes of velocity of objects is measured in all cases with respect to changes of velocity of objects. We establish nothing physical nor empirical about the nature of time nor space. We can know that time exists because changes of velocity require time. We can know that space exists because changes of velocity require space. However, there are no known changes of velocity that give us access to data of either time or space.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Dec. 24, 2012 @ 06:23 GMT
Physical existence alters. We know this because when we compare physical input received, that reveals difference. The rate at which any given physically existent state alters to the next in the sequence can be timed, the unit of this measuring system (timing) being known as time, a duration. Either that can be effected directly, ie by comparing one change sequence with another. Or it can be...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 26, 2012 @ 00:33 GMT
The brain is not thought. The visual experience of the brain is not thought. Thought is integrated and interactive with bodily experience and feeling.

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 22:39 GMT
Paul,

Your metaphysical belief system along with your version of historical accounts and your interpretations of quotes are not of use to me. You are certainly welcome to have your own thoughts. There seem to be others who have interest in discussing those with you. I don't. Happy New Year to you and all others.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 1, 2013 @ 06:16 GMT
James

What metaphysical belief system? And while what I say may be of no use to you, the real question is whether it is correct or not. If you have any factual comments thereon, I will of course respond to them.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 1, 2013 @ 08:05 GMT
Paul,

This is metaphysics:

"The problem with t is if it is presumed to be present in any given physically existent state, rather than being associated only with changes between physically existent states. And apart from that being a common human assumption, t is reified through the misuse of x=vt. Distance has no duration, it is the spatial difference between existent states at any given time, ie there is only distance when the existent states involved exist at the same time. Conceptually, distance can be measured in terms of the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But it must be understood that there is no duration as such, this is just an alternative to, and the equivalent of, a spatial measure, ie a singular quantity. Because, existentially, it must be presumed that as at any other given time, some alteration has occurred to the existent states involved what could have affected the distance, ie in physical existence there is no time during which the hypothetical travelling could occur."

James putnam

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jan. 2, 2013 @ 07:54 GMT
James

What is metaphysical, and why? All you have done is reproduced a quote.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 15:39 GMT
I do not want to be stubborn, but after reading all your productive posts where I searched for the quintessence of consciousness, I did not find it.

Each critic was touched, but we did not get further, just try another way of thinking and interpretation ogf consciousness... pls read "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION", here I deduct that our consciousness is acting in the "future" of our causal life line to make observations "reality".

The basis is scientific but the results are metaphysical, just because of the fact the what cannot be "proven" is always meta...

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 10:24 GMT
NOW OF PHYSICS - time is real but it has only a mathematical existence....

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241279
328_NOW_OF_PHYSICS?ev=prf_pub

attachments: NOW_OF_PHYSICS.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Darius M wrote on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 18:39 GMT
Time is what Kant called the act of spontaneity which generates the representation 'I think'. This act performs synthesis. I.e. time is mind processing information. Space is the medium where information is processed.

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Fra


mework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_K


ants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

report post as inappropriate


dida wrote on Aug. 6, 2014 @ 13:21 GMT
Could you please provide some reference to the following claim: "Disturbances in timing processes can contribute to the symptoms of a number of major disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, and depression." I'm especially interesting in connection with the latest one: depression.

Many thanks in advance.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.