[ThePermiePagan]

Time is not just a framework of perception, but a real process that occurs in the Universe. You are born and you will die, as you said. Both things do not happen simultaneously. As I said in my post, time is the linear progression of events in the Universe. Action and reaction may be intrinsic, but they aren't the same event. What differentiates them? Why is there a gap between event A and event B?





I wholeheartedly disagree that reality is "created" by consciousness; I cannot consciously choose to hear a sound or perceive a color. This again suggests that there is something that exists outside of the conscious, and that we are interpreting it with our senses.

I don't think I want to discuss with you any more. If you truly WANT to know the answers to these things, look for them yourself, they are there. There is no gap between point A and point B. The gap is an illusory perception. Action and reaction ARE the same event, one cannot exist without the other, and, to quote MacTaggart, each will be past, present, and future at some point in perception. So, if all events are Past, Present, and Future, how does time exist?

IT MAKES NO SENSE MON! ::flails arms::

And, you are confusing consciousness with perception.

[ThePermiePagan]

Sorry to have to put it that way, but you aren't really arguing anything other than judgements. You're an INTP , man! Drop those judgements like a sack of bricks and try again from scratch.

Every action has a reaction, yes. That is the law. It functions outside of the confines of time. It does not need time to still be a law. It doesn't say "Every action, given enough time, will provide a reaction". No. Every action at it's conception has a reaction present already! It does not require time. Time is just a measurement that we have created through perception to relate.

At birth, you will die. There is no function of time that can change that. It is ONLY a measurement, it has NO properties.

[Svensenberg]

I don't think I want to discuss with you any more. If you truly WANT to know the answers to these things, look for them yourself, they are there. There is no gap between point A and point B. The gap is an illusory perception. Action and reaction ARE the same event, one cannot exist without the other, and, to quote MacTaggart, each will be past, present, and future at some point in perception. So, if all events are Past, Present, and Future, how does time exist?

IT MAKES NO SENSE MON! ::flails arms::

And, you are confusing consciousness with perception.

I'll use your own tactics against you.. how can you say I'm confusing them when they are intrinsic? There could be no consciousness without perception.

But if you really don't want to discuss with me anymore, that's fine. Although if you are so set in your beliefs, why did you even start this thread? You won't like it very much in the INTP forum if you don't like your premises and questions being subjected to scrutiny.

[ThePermiePagan]

You aren't responding in a manner which shows any interest or understanding of the premise! Consciousness does not require perception, it is the precursor to it! I went through this. Already.

They aren't intrinsic to one another, only polarities are intrinsic to one another, things I have already stated. Birth, Death, Bright, Dark, Hot, Cold. One cannot exist without the other as a point of reference.

You just said "If I am confusing the apple with the orange, how can I be confusing them if they are intrinsic?" Is an apple the reaction of the orange? No. Are they polarities? No.

[ThePermiePagan]

You are free to post whatever you like to scrutinize my premises! I simply will not digress to argue with you any more. The answers to your questions are in my previous posts.

I'd give you a fucking hug If I could. You are free to think what you like, of course. That is not the point... Your arguments are off base and that, admittedly, is throwing me a little off.

So I apologize for any assholeness I may be emitting. However, as I said, you are not showing any understanding or interest in the premise.

[Svensenberg]

You aren't responding in a manner which shows any interest or understanding of the premise! Consciousness does not require perception, it is the precursor to it! I went through this. Already.

From Merriam Webster, definition of precursor:

1
a : one that precedes and indicates the approach of anotherb : predecessor

They aren't intrinsic to one another, only polarities are intrinsic to one another, things I have already stated. Birth, Death, Bright, Dark, Hot, Cold. One cannot exist without the other as a point of reference.

You just said "If I am confusing the apple with the orange, how can I be confusing them if they are intrinsic?" Is an apple the reaction of the orange? No. Are they polarities? No.

Again, I must go with semantics. Merriam Webster again, definition of intrinsic:

1
a : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing <the intrinsic worth of a gem> <the intrinsic brightness of a star>


Sounds like consciousness and perception are intrinsic to me.

[ThePermiePagan]

On the definition of precursor: This could go both ways. Definitely semantics. Does being a precursor to something mean that whatever comes afterwards requires the precursor to exist? I would say no, but I suppose it is debatable. It reminds one of the idea of action and reaction, but precursor and action are not the same. Precursor is a perception that indicates a possibility. It could go both ways, but I should find a better word.

On the definition of intrinsic: I should try to find a more suitable word here as well, however, note that while perception requires consciousness, consciousness does not require perception. One can be conscious without actively perceiving, at least in theory. Perception is analysis, Consciousness is the framework in which the analysis takes place. So while it could be said that "Consciousness is intrinsic to perception", the opposite is not always true. The ideas are not polarities.

[CosmicJalapeno]

Nothing new, interesting none the less.

So, if all events are Past, Present, and Future, how does time exist?

It's called change. Makes perfect sense. You can play all the linguistic games you want, but it logically makes sense.

[ThePermiePagan]

Nothing new, interesting none the less.



It's called change. Makes perfect sense. You can play all the linguistic games you want, but it logically makes sense.

It was MacTaggart's argument, not mine, so I am not prepared to defend it. He did, however, make a good case for it, if you care to delve into the link I posted.

I don't really understand your argument, though.

You are saying that if change exists within the framework of time that time is therefor not capable of being an illusion?

[Life.Is.A.Game]

Everything is an illusion. Life is an illusion.