Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

We never see the present only the past.

Heathen
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 11:12:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'v been thinking about this for some time now, everything takes time, it takes time for a picture of an image to get to your eyes and then to your brain. Even though it only takes miniscule fractions of a second for all this to happen, we still see the past. Like staring into space, it takes thousands of years for the light from a star to reach Earth, just like it takes time for images to enter our brains and be deciphered.

What do you think?
"Once an object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it." - Thomas Paine
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 11:14:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 11:12:12 AM, Heathen wrote:
I'v been thinking about this for some time now, everything takes time, it takes time for a picture of an image to get to your eyes and then to your brain. Even though it only takes miniscule fractions of a second for all this to happen, we still see the past. Like staring into space, it takes thousands of years for the light from a star to reach Earth, just like it takes time for images to enter our brains and be deciphered.

What do you think?

technically, yes, but that doesn't really mean anything. The "present" includes that tiny bit of time it takes for things to process.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Heathen
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 11:23:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 11:14:11 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:12:12 AM, Heathen wrote:
I'v been thinking about this for some time now, everything takes time, it takes time for a picture of an image to get to your eyes and then to your brain. Even though it only takes miniscule fractions of a second for all this to happen, we still see the past. Like staring into space, it takes thousands of years for the light from a star to reach Earth, just like it takes time for images to enter our brains and be deciphered.

What do you think?

technically, yes, but that doesn't really mean anything. The "present" includes that tiny bit of time it takes for things to process.



Touche.
"Once an object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it." - Thomas Paine
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 11:31:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 11:14:11 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:12:12 AM, Heathen wrote:
I'v been thinking about this for some time now, everything takes time, it takes time for a picture of an image to get to your eyes and then to your brain. Even though it only takes miniscule fractions of a second for all this to happen, we still see the past. Like staring into space, it takes thousands of years for the light from a star to reach Earth, just like it takes time for images to enter our brains and be deciphered.

What do you think?

technically, yes, but that doesn't really mean anything. The "present" includes that tiny bit of time it takes for things to process.



You bring up an interesting point here Heathen, and OreEle. Heathen seems to have the correct knowledge however. Let me explain why.

Alright, let us get some definitions across first, shall we?

Definition of "present" (according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Present: A moment or period in time perceptible as intermediate between past and future; now.

Definition of "past" (according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Past: No longer current; gone by; over.

Given those definitions, past and present are clearly two different things, also you should note that current and present are the same state of time.

If what Heathen stated is true about the time it takes for us to process information to our eyes, then yes we are technically looking at the past. Since it takes time for our eyes to process the information, we only ever view the past, and not the present. However, on the other hand, we perceive to view the present.

I guess it all depends if you believe what the present is according to you, or what the present is according to all else?
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 11:33:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 11:31:30 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:14:11 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:12:12 AM, Heathen wrote:
I'v been thinking about this for some time now, everything takes time, it takes time for a picture of an image to get to your eyes and then to your brain. Even though it only takes miniscule fractions of a second for all this to happen, we still see the past. Like staring into space, it takes thousands of years for the light from a star to reach Earth, just like it takes time for images to enter our brains and be deciphered.

What do you think?

technically, yes, but that doesn't really mean anything. The "present" includes that tiny bit of time it takes for things to process.



You bring up an interesting point here Heathen, and OreEle. Heathen seems to have the correct knowledge however. Let me explain why.

Alright, let us get some definitions across first, shall we?

Definition of "present" (according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Present: A moment or period in time perceptible as intermediate between past and future; now.

Definition of "past" (according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Past: No longer current; gone by; over.

Given those definitions, past and present are clearly two different things, also you should note that current and present are the same state of time.

If what Heathen stated is true about the time it takes for us to process information to our eyes, then yes we are technically looking at the past. Since it takes time for our eyes to process the information, we only ever view the past, and not the present. However, on the other hand, we perceive to view the present.

I guess it all depends if you believe what the present is according to you, or what the present is according to all else?

Correction: "all else" in the last sentence meaning what the definition of present means.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 11:44:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 11:31:30 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:14:11 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:12:12 AM, Heathen wrote:
I'v been thinking about this for some time now, everything takes time, it takes time for a picture of an image to get to your eyes and then to your brain. Even though it only takes miniscule fractions of a second for all this to happen, we still see the past. Like staring into space, it takes thousands of years for the light from a star to reach Earth, just like it takes time for images to enter our brains and be deciphered.

What do you think?

technically, yes, but that doesn't really mean anything. The "present" includes that tiny bit of time it takes for things to process.



You bring up an interesting point here Heathen, and OreEle. Heathen seems to have the correct knowledge however. Let me explain why.

Alright, let us get some definitions across first, shall we?

Definition of "present" (according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Present: A moment or period in time perceptible as intermediate between past and future; now.

Definition of "past" (according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Past: No longer current; gone by; over.

Given those definitions, past and present are clearly two different things, also you should note that current and present are the same state of time.

If what Heathen stated is true about the time it takes for us to process information to our eyes, then yes we are technically looking at the past. Since it takes time for our eyes to process the information, we only ever view the past, and not the present. However, on the other hand, we perceive to view the present.

I guess it all depends if you believe what the present is according to you, or what the present is according to all else?

As I said "technicall correct." However, for all practical purpose and using the real definitions (as in what people mean when communicating), the present inculdes that tiny speck of time it takes for light to reach your eyes, and for air pressure waves to reach your ears and for your brain to process the entire thing.

Really, present means anything currently going on.

If planes were dropping bombing on your house (like good ol' fashion WW2 carpet bombings) and some bombs had landed and exploded and some were still in the air. The bombing would still be considered in the present as it is still occuring.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 11:48:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 11:44:27 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:31:30 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:14:11 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:12:12 AM, Heathen wrote:
I'v been thinking about this for some time now, everything takes time, it takes time for a picture of an image to get to your eyes and then to your brain. Even though it only takes miniscule fractions of a second for all this to happen, we still see the past. Like staring into space, it takes thousands of years for the light from a star to reach Earth, just like it takes time for images to enter our brains and be deciphered.

What do you think?

technically, yes, but that doesn't really mean anything. The "present" includes that tiny bit of time it takes for things to process.



You bring up an interesting point here Heathen, and OreEle. Heathen seems to have the correct knowledge however. Let me explain why.

Alright, let us get some definitions across first, shall we?

Definition of "present" (according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Present: A moment or period in time perceptible as intermediate between past and future; now.

Definition of "past" (according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Past: No longer current; gone by; over.

Given those definitions, past and present are clearly two different things, also you should note that current and present are the same state of time.

If what Heathen stated is true about the time it takes for us to process information to our eyes, then yes we are technically looking at the past. Since it takes time for our eyes to process the information, we only ever view the past, and not the present. However, on the other hand, we perceive to view the present.

I guess it all depends if you believe what the present is according to you, or what the present is according to all else?

As I said "technicall correct." However, for all practical purpose and using the real definitions (as in what people mean when communicating), the present inculdes that tiny speck of time it takes for light to reach your eyes, and for air pressure waves to reach your ears and for your brain to process the entire thing.

Really, present means anything currently going on.

If planes were dropping bombing on your house (like good ol' fashion WW2 carpet bombings) and some bombs had landed and exploded and some were still in the air. The bombing would still be considered in the present as it is still occuring.

If we are really far away from an object it makes a difference. The stars you see in the sky could already have been blown up and you wouldn't even know it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 11:56:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 11:48:39 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:44:27 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:31:30 AM, Extremely-Far-Right wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:14:11 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:12:12 AM, Heathen wrote:
I'v been thinking about this for some time now, everything takes time, it takes time for a picture of an image to get to your eyes and then to your brain. Even though it only takes miniscule fractions of a second for all this to happen, we still see the past. Like staring into space, it takes thousands of years for the light from a star to reach Earth, just like it takes time for images to enter our brains and be deciphered.

What do you think?

technically, yes, but that doesn't really mean anything. The "present" includes that tiny bit of time it takes for things to process.



You bring up an interesting point here Heathen, and OreEle. Heathen seems to have the correct knowledge however. Let me explain why.

Alright, let us get some definitions across first, shall we?

Definition of "present" (according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Present: A moment or period in time perceptible as intermediate between past and future; now.

Definition of "past" (according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Past: No longer current; gone by; over.

Given those definitions, past and present are clearly two different things, also you should note that current and present are the same state of time.

If what Heathen stated is true about the time it takes for us to process information to our eyes, then yes we are technically looking at the past. Since it takes time for our eyes to process the information, we only ever view the past, and not the present. However, on the other hand, we perceive to view the present.

I guess it all depends if you believe what the present is according to you, or what the present is according to all else?

As I said "technicall correct." However, for all practical purpose and using the real definitions (as in what people mean when communicating), the present inculdes that tiny speck of time it takes for light to reach your eyes, and for air pressure waves to reach your ears and for your brain to process the entire thing.

Really, present means anything currently going on.

If planes were dropping bombing on your house (like good ol' fashion WW2 carpet bombings) and some bombs had landed and exploded and some were still in the air. The bombing would still be considered in the present as it is still occuring.

If we are really far away from an object it makes a difference. The stars you see in the sky could already have been blown up and you wouldn't even know it.

I had a drunk conversation in a hot tub with my wife about that once.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 12:46:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 11:12:12 AM, Heathen wrote:
I'v been thinking about this for some time now, everything takes time, it takes time for a picture of an image to get to your eyes and then to your brain. Even though it only takes miniscule fractions of a second for all this to happen, we still see the past. Like staring into space, it takes thousands of years for the light from a star to reach Earth, just like it takes time for images to enter our brains and be deciphered.

What do you think?

Yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that what affects us "now" is the present, irrespective of when it originated.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:52:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 12:46:12 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/26/2011 11:12:12 AM, Heathen wrote:
I'v been thinking about this for some time now, everything takes time, it takes time for a picture of an image to get to your eyes and then to your brain. Even though it only takes miniscule fractions of a second for all this to happen, we still see the past. Like staring into space, it takes thousands of years for the light from a star to reach Earth, just like it takes time for images to enter our brains and be deciphered.

What do you think?

Yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that what affects us "now" is the present, irrespective of when it originated.

If the sun blew up, it would effect us now. However, we wouldn't see it until 8 minutes. Although we would be dead anyways, so we'd never see it :)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:56:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's perfectly true that we're always technically living in the past, but the amount of time between an event and our perception of it is almost unfailingly so negligible that to consider ourselves as in any other time than the present is to burden ourselves with an unnecessary inconvenience.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 7:56:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We view the present as accurately as to the degree of how fast light travels.

And that's pretty darn fast.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 10:26:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 11:12:12 AM, Heathen wrote:
I'v been thinking about this for some time now, everything takes time, it takes time for a picture of an image to get to your eyes and then to your brain. Even though it only takes miniscule fractions of a second for all this to happen, we still see the past. Like staring into space, it takes thousands of years for the light from a star to reach Earth, just like it takes time for images to enter our brains and be deciphered.

What do you think?

Your not seeing the past. Your just seeing light. Just because light takes time to get too your eyes doesn't mean your seeing the past.

And if you think about it that way that means there is no present really. Only a past and future.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 4:55:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 6:56:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It's perfectly true that we're always technically living in the past, but the amount of time between an event and our perception of it is almost unfailingly so negligible that to consider ourselves as in any other time than the present is to burden ourselves with an unnecessary inconvenience.

Yes, but it is still technically true, and should be something worth noting none the less.
Hopeliveson
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 11:59:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/27/2011 5:01:00 AM, FREEDO wrote:
The very concept of time is a construct of our imaginations.

Gonna agree with Freedo here. We made up the concept of time based on our senses. We measure one second as an amount of time we can gauge with our available senses.

The past is something that has already occurred, and no longer exists no matter how we try to touch it.

The future is something that will occur later, so also doesn't exist cause it didn't even happen at all yet, at best we can try to predict it, but that tends to fail often.

The present, well, that is suppose to be what is in the 'now'. However, we can never pinpoint it. When you say 'right now is the present', the 'now' you have indicated has already faded into the nothingness of the past. You can say 'the present will be three seconds after I finish this sentence.', but that is in the future and when you try to touch that present in three seconds it will have already been blasted into the past.

You can say 'The present is constantly occurring', which should be more accurate. However the present itself is nothing, I personally just call the present 'the ongoing process where the nonexistent future becomes the nonexistent past'. Sure, something's happening right now as I type, but that thing is constant change and transition. The past from three seconds before I type this sentence doesn't exist, because the me back then never thought about or typed this sentence. Every constant moment there is a new 'us', a 'us' that is just the slightest bit different from the 'us' just bits before.

A rock will not 'feel' 50 years passing, the 50 years will just past for it, and every infinite moment of that time will have an infinite amount of different rocks, maybe a rock with just a particle more of dust, an electron less of charge, something different.

Bringing in the concept of infinity, at one point, a rock will be exactly the same as a different rock from the past, or a different rock in the future that will occur. Same position in the universe, same particles, same charge, same force, same everything. Yet at that one moment it will still be a different rock, because the other rocks to compare to it have ceased to exist or have not existed yet. Or, if you take infinity in another viewpoint, you can have two rocks that are exactly alike at the same 'present', but they will be different still because their location is not the same within this universe of ours, because they can not share that position.

Outside our universe, where not a single bit of even our light particles have reached, where there is pure nothingness, that is a type of future. There is nothing there, but there will be at some point of existence as a whole. However, for now, it is nothingness, and not even time has touched it.

For nothingness is the only thing that can exist totally as the same exact nothingness no matter it be the nonexistent past, nonexistent future, of process of present. Nothingness only fades from existence when something that is propelled by time is moved there, when that something is gone, the nothingness that replaces it will be exactly the same as before.

Nothingness is perfect, time is a nonexistent process. If nothing exists there to sense the 'time' that passes, who are you to say everything won't happen at the same time? With nothing to sense the time, either the absolute end of perfect nothingness will be reached, or infinity will exist constantly with nothing to know it's there.

Or something.

Heavy stuff, you know.

Much more fun just to enjoy life stead of finding absolute truth.

But hey, if you're like me and find joy in just trying to find that answer, let's debate and have more fun about it, eh? :)
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 12:10:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
since when do you guys use the word "present" so narrowly? commonly it can be used to indicate a stretch of time anywhere from several seconds to several days or even years... its simply used to encompass and isolate the relatively near past and near future into a package for discussion. why make it a huge philosophical issue when you could be debating about something interesting like the nature of consciousness? i mean i suppose the nature of time has potential, but... not when you're trying to pinpoint the exact present. if anything that would have to be the planck time (the smallest possible unit of time) and thats so tiny (smth like 10^-43) that its pretty much impossible for people to conceptualize. any chunk of time bigger than that would be made up of multiple smaller units and thus not a single "present moment" the way ya'll are talking about it. thats not useful and interesting unless we're doing some serious physics, soooo... meh. agree with ore ele. who cares...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 12:16:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A better question is to ask why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is all of a sudden a new thing? Don't call it a come back, it's been here for years.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 12:18:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 12:10:04 AM, belle wrote:
since when do you guys use the word "present" so narrowly? commonly it can be used to indicate a stretch of time anywhere from several seconds to several days or even years... its simply used to encompass and isolate the relatively near past and near future into a package for discussion. why make it a huge philosophical issue when you could be debating about something interesting like the nature of consciousness? i mean i suppose the nature of time has potential, but... not when you're trying to pinpoint the exact present. if anything that would have to be the planck time (the smallest possible unit of time) and thats so tiny (smth like 10^-43) that its pretty much impossible for people to conceptualize. any chunk of time bigger than that would be made up of multiple smaller units and thus not a single "present moment" the way ya'll are talking about it. thats not useful and interesting unless we're doing some serious physics, soooo... meh. agree with ore ele. who cares...

Yeah like I said earlier if you think about it like that then there is no present only a past and a future.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 12:20:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 12:16:26 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
A better question is to ask why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is all of a sudden a new thing? Don't call it a come back, it's been here for years.

eh? no one mentioned it as far as i know...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Hopeliveson
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 12:23:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 12:10:04 AM, belle wrote:
since when do you guys use the word "present" so narrowly? commonly it can be used to indicate a stretch of time anywhere from several seconds to several days or even years... its simply used to encompass and isolate the relatively near past and near future into a package for discussion. why make it a huge philosophical issue when you could be debating about something interesting like the nature of consciousness? i mean i suppose the nature of time has potential, but... not when you're trying to pinpoint the exact present. if anything that would have to be the planck time (the smallest possible unit of time) and thats so tiny (smth like 10^-43) that its pretty much impossible for people to conceptualize. any chunk of time bigger than that would be made up of multiple smaller units and thus not a single "present moment" the way ya'll are talking about it. thats not useful and interesting unless we're doing some serious physics, soooo... meh. agree with ore ele. who cares...

Hey, it's fun to some people, just like how some people love water balloon fights and some people avoid water like the plague~ Consciousness sounds pretty fun too actually, but that's just me, and that's another topic
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 12:28:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 12:20:50 AM, belle wrote:
At 5/2/2011 12:16:26 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
A better question is to ask why the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is all of a sudden a new thing? Don't call it a come back, it's been here for years.

eh? no one mentioned it as far as i know...

Crap, my brain must be fried.