The quale of time, ...?

[James S Saint]

James S Saint

Psychologically, a loss of time is felt due to the loss of memory, "a sense of time is the first thing to go" [when neurology has been corrupted].

Ah, so can we say there is a quale of time ~ as we have a subjective sense of it?

I'm suspicious of what you mean when you say, "quale of time". Time is merely a measurement, a measurement of relative change.
Measurements have all sorts of dependencies and nuances.

[Amorphos]

I'm suspicious of what you mean when you say, "quale of time". Time is merely a measurement, a measurement of relative change.
Measurements have all sorts of dependencies and nuances.

Well its something we sense subjectively, and I had assumed that time was something making an effect as others had said. I had stated that relativity was just ‘some things going faster than other things’ and gave the example of two clocks at different heights give different result due to the different gravitational forces, but liz seemed to think that relativity was making particles go faster whilst making time move slower [at the edge of a black hole] ~ if I quote her correctly. Thus there is something duel going on here and time is something, not just a measure of objects moving in their own frame of reference.

[James S Saint]

It is a measure (or "sense") of how fast one thing is changing relative to something else. Close to the black hole, things don't change relative to other things close to a black hole, thus time (the relative changing) is low. Most people merely sense how much things are changing relative to their own thoughts and "body clock", thus they have a "sense" of time. That sense is still merely a subjective measure of how much things are changing relative to the person.

[Amorphos]

Ok that makes sense.

That sense is still merely a subjective measure of how much things are changing relative to the person.

Can be purely internal though, no? I am tempted to think/agree that the measure in our minds is more a process than a quale, but perhaps that’s only because it’s a less tangible sense than say colour.

[James S Saint]

Ok that makes sense.

That sense is still merely a subjective measure of how much things are changing relative to the person.

Can be purely internal though, no? I am tempted to think/agree that the measure in our minds is more a process than a quale, but perhaps that’s only because it’s a less tangible sense than say colour.

I think the issue is that you can't visually see time and thus have to think about what your instincts already surmise for you. Your mind is used to dealing with physical disturbances in sensory form from which it constructs an understanding. Time passage is so passive, the very idea of it has to be triggered. Many thousands of years ago, I'm sure the very notion of time was unknown and unconsidered, subconsciously handled.

For time to be sensed, two things have to be involved. Both of those can be internal, but there absolutely must always be two things perceived to be changing.

[lizbethrose]

I'm suspicious of what you mean when you say, "quale of time". Time is merely a measurement, a measurement of relative change.
Measurements have all sorts of dependencies and nuances.

Well its something we sense subjectively, and I had assumed that time was something making an effect as others had said. I had stated that relativity was just ‘some things going faster than other things’ and gave the example of two clocks at different heights give different result due to the different gravitational forces, but liz seemed to think that relativity was making particles go faster whilst making time move slower [at the edge of a black hole] ~ if I quote her correctly. Thus there is something duel going on here and time is something, not just a measure of objects moving in their own frame of reference.

Sorta, kinda, Amo. Relativity doesn't make particles go faster while time slows down--Einstein's TSR posits, in part, that as particles approach the speed of light, 'time' slows. James said that there are particles that travel faster than the speed of light. They're called neutrinos, but whether or not they travel faster than light remains unproven (as of Nov. 2011). A black hole is something different. A black hole apparently has a point of high gravitational pull that draws matter from the universe into it, supposedly at very high speeds. As the particles reach max acceleration, time stops. Is that what happened during the BB? IDK--but it's a theory.

The duality I see is a duality in definition. We experience the passage of time--it's something we can measure. Spacetime is also a measurement but it's mainly a part of the mathematical equation the makes up a part of the model of Special Relativity. If a neutrino travels faster than light (and it can be proven to do so,) that will change physics completely. The idea is that if spacetime can be stopped, we'll be free to travel back and forth in time.

Now, of course, we can't. We're stuck here in our measurable time as if we were standing in a stream. We can see the water coming and going, but we really don't 'see' the water molecules as they hit our ankles--it just happens faster than we can see or feel it happening. Okay? Time, for us, is much slower than it is for the water molecules.

If 'quale' means 'a quality' of something, then one of the qualities of time is that it can be measured, as I've said earlier. I might understand you more easily if you used every-day language instead of philosophy language. I usually don't understand philosophical language.

[James S Saint]

I wasn't referring to neutrinos. I was referring to a growing particle.
If a particle is moving close to the speed of light but is growing, the center of the particle can exceed the speed of light.
That is something that I witnessed in my metaspace.

[finishedman]

I don’t think the whole thing is occurring in within the context of the experiencer or the perception.

... but it is happening in the neurons. and is not what makes you think also happenning in the neurons?

[Amorphos]

Thanks liz and james

I am just trying to see if time is something rather than just a measure, because then our experience of it is something which then means I can classify it as a quale ~ instead of the brain simply processing and external quality.

finishedman

... but it is happening in the neurons. and is not what makes you think also happenning in the neurons?

I meant that the experiencer could be thought of as the person looking at the view screen on the camcorder - in the analogy. We don’t necessarily consciously notice what the brain [camcorder] is viewing.

[finishedman]

I meant that the experiencer could be thought of as the person looking at the view screen on the camcorder - in the analogy. We don’t necessarily consciously notice what the brain [camcorder] is viewing.

If thought doesn’t notice, then at that time (of not being consciously aware of) there would be no experiencing what is happening. That’s part of the way I explain what it is to experience: if there is no translation (by means of activating memory cells) of sensory neuronal signals, then there would be no ‘seeing’ of what is being brought into the area that is stimulating the retina or any other sense receptors. Yet, like you say there is still the activity of sensory flow going on whether being aware of it or not.

Whereas, you make a suggestion that a kind of experience takes place when it comes to time …

I am just trying to see if time is something rather than just a measure, because then our experience of it is something which then means I can classify it as a quale ~ instead of the brain simply processing and external quality.

Does this mean that there has to be an experiencer coupled together with a quale to say it is a quale? IOW there would be no questions about qualia if one area of neurons is not analyzing another area of neurons which takes place in a brain.

[Amorphos]

Does this mean that there has to be an experiencer coupled together with a quale to say it is a quale?

I am unsure [if quale are other than expereinced, that would make them something other than mind or physics imho], I think that quale say of colour occurs when information hits perception and is hence experienced. Indeed I think quale are the very thing between physical informations [like fractals scaling up, or like zooming out of Google earth] and perception by which the entire process is communicated.

[finishedman]

When it comes to wanting something we put thought in motion and set up a series of events to achieve whatever it is we’re after. There are small objectives with spaces in between linked together to get us where we want to go. So we have a continuity of events. Is this where time is?

[Amorphos]

Probably imho yes, it’s the entire process, in us its particular to us, in the world there’s a mass of particular/relative time events ~ all of which interact and hence there is an overall movement of time.

I’m probably going to go with time being the process rather than a quale of mind, its something mind notices. hmm...

If however time is a quale of universal mind, that flips the whole thing over, then time is possibly ‘only a quale of mind’. if quale of colour etc are the top end of the mental infrastructure - so to speak [like when you have zoomed out of Google earth as far as it will go x that end of the fractal pattern], and they communicate with informations on a downwards movement through all the scales of patterns and calibrations of mind, then they can especially on a universal scale be affecting.

Its plausible then that the universal quale of time is a motivating aspect of existence. Then it is that which is the thing we experience from our subjective perspective.

?