Indeed
Consciousness is a result of a specific arrangement of neurons that has evolved over 2bn years to provide a fitness advantage. Sadly as of yet, neither Rocks or Toasters are conscious.
I dont know why people have trouble with this I mean it’s not brain science 
Our universe is temporal, so different states of affairs lie at different points in time. A simultaneous process is, however, a metaphysical possibility.
Change and time are different things. Why bother and talk about time if change and time are the same thing? Time is a real thing and is different from change.
Yes, that is how I treat the time.
No. The proof does not depend on this.
We have two sorts of time, so-called psychological and physical time. Psychological time accommodates different mental states of affairs in it, whereas physical time accommodates different physical states of affairs in it. We couldn’t experience motion without psychological time, and motion was not possible without physical time.
So what? Neurons are made of elementary particles.
That is a huge claim. A brain is made of elementary particles. There are physical processes in the brain. The physical process in the brain is different from the physical process in a stone, but the physical process is all there is in the brain. So, either the experience is the result of the physical process or not. Different types of physical processes lead to different forms of experience in the first case, and we have to look for different things that make experience possible in the second case.
You can’t define what you mean by a “timeless point”, and you can’t give an example of a single point accommodating different states of affairs. And yet you claim it’s metaphysically possible. You’ve provided no reason why I should accept that.
I didn’t mean that time and change are synonyms, I meant that they are an inextricable pair: you can’t have one without the other. If there is change, then there has been an elapse of time. If there is an elapse of time, there has been a change.
I don’t accept it. Your “proof” of God depends on a number of debatable assumptions. Such is the case with all proofs of God: make some metaphysical assumptions that entail God and declare God’s existence as proven. It’s a fruitless exercise.
That doesn’t answer my question. If the past and future all exist, why do we directly perceive the present, but not the past or future?
Seriously, this is the weakness of block-time, and the strength of presentism. Presentism is consistent with our experience and intuition. Block time is not.
Structured into highly complex cells involved in the most complex chemistry we know of in existence
A mind is produced by a brain through electro-chemical processes, not physical processes.
Electro-chemicals are physical, just very tiny. It’s a bit of body-matter, that creates mind in brain-space.
I suppose the end-effect of electro-chemicals is mental, but they’re also a physical cause.
But they are not only physical.
Yes I agree with that… Physical and mental.
I already defined it several times. A timeless point is an instant that accommodates different states of affairs. You keep asking a point of what? And I keep answering that it is a singleton object, so that is all about it.
You ask for a real example. Our universe is temporal, so I cannot give you an example of a simultaneous process. That, however, does not mean that it is an impossibility.
You can have an elapse of time but no change. But that point aside, why do we need an elapse of time for a change? In my framework, we need a time elapse because we need to substitute a state of affairs with another one temporarily, and because the present can accommodate one state of affairs at any time.
We don’t experience past and future events because only present events are objectively real.
Correct.
Saying that it is complex does not help. At the end, you only have a set of moving particles. You need to explain how experience arises from a set of moving particles.
Electrochemical processes are reducible to physical processes.
I don’t believe you’ve previously referred to it as an “instant”, or that it is a “singleton object”.
Referring to it as an “instant” suggests you mean an “instant of time”. So your answer suggests you’re referring to a “point in time”.
Any state of affairs could be considered a “singleton object” do you agree? The universe itself is a singleton object. So we could be referring to the universe at a point of time.
We’re debating whether or not there are other points of time, but even if there are not, I suggest that we can still label this a point of time. With this proposed common ground, we can then discuss the possibility of there being additional points of time.
If a process entails change over time, then it is absolutely impossible. Provide an alternative definition for “process” that would apply to a static, unchanging state.
[quote=“MoK, post:290, topic:1217”]
You can have an elapse of time but no change. [/quote]
Whatever is observing or measuring time is changing. The system that includes this observer or measurement device is changing. A component of the system could be static, but it’s static within a changing environment.
I could accept that description, although I’d disagree with some potential connotations. It’s simply the case that an system that evolves, does so over time. Its state a each point of time is a state of affairs that is distinct from each prior and future state. So in a sense, the later state “substitutes for” the prior state. But the change (and hence time) is being caused from within the state of affairs.
I agree! But that’s contrary to block time.
Your complete lack of understanding of the chemistry that goes on in brain makes this line of discussion futile.
Yes, I didn’t mention them before.
No, I don’t mean an instant/point of time. We have different geometrical objects, such as a point, a line, a surface, etc. By timeless point, I mean the simplest form of time which contain only one instant, similar to geometrical point. Then you have the usual time, which is a set of instants.
Google understands the definition of a simultaneous process. We can use a simultaneous set if you are not happy with the process.
Good. What is left is to accept that time changes as well.
Correct. I have been thinking about special relativity, which indicates a block universe, for a long time.
You have no explanation whatsoever for why experience happens in the brain as a result of particles moving. Instead, you claim that I don’t have a complete understanding of what is going on in the brain. I know that the brain is a complex thing, but at the end, it is a set of moving particles.
What you describe is a state of affairs in a context in which time does not elapse. It appears you don’t wish to call this a “point of time” because time is not elapsing in this scenario. Calling it a “point” has been misleading because it only makes sense to call it a “point” in the context of time.
I had said: “We’re debating whether or not there are other points of time”. I’ll revise the wording: we’re debating whether or not there there are multiple states of affairs that are temporally connected.
Under block time: yes. Under my theory: yes, but that’s because there is a truthmaker for states of affairs in the past and future. Those states of affairs don’t currently exist. However, the present state of affairs has the potential to change (due to laws of nature). The potential to change is the engine of time; time “passes” as change occurs.
Google gave me definitions like this:
a series of actions that produce something or that lead to a particular result
a series of changes that happen naturally
a systematic series of actions directed to some end.
So please post what you see in google that agrees with your usage.
Define the members of the set.
I reject that, because time isn’t a thing (IOW, it’s not a state of affairs). Time doesn’t change, rather - an elapse of time occurs when a state of affairs (something that exists) changes.
Consider a possible world consisting of a single particle, with two intrinsic properties: color(white) and the capacity to change. The particle’s color than changes to black, and the capacity to change is no longer present. A change has occurred, and thus an elapse of time has occurred. It’s meaningless to quantify the amount of time, because quantification entails a clock that is concurrently changing, and no clock exists in this world. Never the less, the changeable white particle no longer exists, but instead, an unchangeable black particle exists.
Under block-time, both the original particle and final particle exist, but are separated through the time dimension, and there is a one-way causal relation between them. The only real difference under presentism is that time is not truly an ontological dimension, so the initial state has been replaced with the final state.
The important thing is that you agree there’s an issue with block time. There is also an issue with presentism - the fact that the present has an ontological relation to the past and present, despite the fact that these don’t exist. But IMO, that is just the nature or reality, and it’s consistent with intuition and observation. We observe change in things. The prior state doesn’t exist, because it has changed. We can abstractly consider the state across time (measured by a clock), recording its properties - and this constitutes a 4-dimensional analysis that maps to B-theory, but denies it reflects ontological reality.
There’s another issue with block time: the arrow of time. If all times exist in the block, then why can’t we traverse the dimension of time in both directions? How do you account for this?
No, I am talking about a timeless point that can accommodate one or more states of affairs.
Yes, it is a single point, so we don’t have a time passage.
No, I didn’t mean a point in time.
What is your theory?
Different states of affairs are elements of the set.
What you are describing, the elapse of time, is what philosophers call a change in time.
Correct. The list of problems that the block universe has is not short.
All the states of affairs that exist at this “point” constitute a state of affairs. I’m referring to the state of affairs that constitutes the totality of reality.
Labeling it a “set” adds vagueness, because a set can be any abstract collection of objects, that may or may not have any relations with one another. I think you’re just referring to the totality state of affairs, that exist at one point [of time].
I could construct a “proof” that block time is false, based on any of the major problems. This is the way you constructed your “proof” of God- by identifying a problem with an interpretation of presentism. That’s really all I’m trying to get you to see.
That is not how I define things. Consider a state of affairs that contains only one object. Two states of affairs at the same timeless point, then, represent the object in different positions, for example.
How about sequence?
No, I mean at least two states of affairs at the same timeless point.
We know that the block universe has several problems. What do you want to prove?
I don’t see any relation between presentism and the block universe.
Here’s another article that summarizes a ‘beginningless universe’ model which renders a creationist argument like the OP moot (as well as unsound):
I prefer a more soundly reasoned metaphysics (as a categorical-paradigmatic generalization) informed – constrained – by contemporary physics.