Time an illusion?

Gary L

If only the present is materially real, are the past and the future just ideas?
Is focus on them a delusion in itself? Is there wisdom in the live in the moment philosophy? Maybe Buddhism?

Some questions raised in the final scene of waking life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqAKK9zcB7w

Joe1919

I would answer your question by saying that we do in reality live only in the present in a particular time and space but we do also have an ability to transcend this immediacy.

This manifests itself in our ability to plan. The farmer must sow his crops in order to reap a 'future' harvest. We also to some extent 'reap what we sow' in terms of our own lives. We often know this from 'past' experience. For example, we may have suffered a very bad hangover in the past. Although this hangover no longer exists in reality, the memory of the 'past' pain and discomfort still exists in our mind and we know 'presently' that if we drink too much alcohol 'now', we will suffer a near 'future' hangover.

It is the human imagination (imo) that allows us to mentally 'travel in time'. It is a great facility or gift. But we can also be objective by projecting ourselves (mentally) out of our own bodies. We can take an 'objective' view, a view from nowhere. We can also mentally project ourselves into someone else's position. This is what empathy is all about. We can feel their feelings.

Hence, in my view, our imagination plays an important role in our ability to transcend our immediacy and this helps us plan, learn and empathise.

But we can also use this imagination to fantasise, to deny and to escape our present miserable space and time.

So imo, we are immediately and materially grounded in our own space and time. There is no other material reality. But we can mentally transcend this. We can see 'beyond the real' in terms of viewing our potentiality, what 'ought' to be rather than what 'is'. We can go beyond science so to speak. Science is limited in that it can only describe the material 'reality', what 'is'. However, the facility of imagination allows us to pursue questions about what 'could' be or what 'ought' to be and indeed what 'must' be. i.e. We can look at possible worlds.

So (imo), ideas are very important. As such, ideas have no reality and could be described as illusionary. But many ideas become incarnated and grow. Think of our political and economic systems, our money and house and stock prices. They all rely on ideas and what Keynes called 'animal spirits'. The present problem is said to be a 'lack of confidence' in the governments, markets etc. But what do we mean by 'confidence'.
Confidence means 'faith' and so it appears to me that our whole present economic and political system is based on a certain amount of 'blind faith' and illusion. In this way, there is indeed a large part of our lives and how we live illusory and imaginatively created but there is also an underlying reality.

So, imo, we have to live with this duality of the 'real' and the 'ideal'. The 'ideal' is that which is created and imagined but can become incarnated and 'real' in a sense.
Its like money. Money in reality, is just a little bit of paper and some ink. That's all it 'really' is.

extrinzic

That’s interesting. Another way of looking at it might be that we live in a constant present. There is no past and future, but we infer this to be the case because things move about in space, and we understand this movement as time. If we are moving in space unconsciously, as when we are performing a task that we are utterly involved in, we do not consider the past, or the future, just the job.

I think Heidegger is right when he put to us that we only analyse the world after our work has been interrupted. We reflect on the problem, and by this we reflect on the component issues that we identify in the problem (i.e., the “tool” is broken, because the “hammer” has no “head”). If the tool had continued to be of service to our work, we wouldn’t even consider its component parts, never mind its categorisation as a particular type of tool. Because we can intellectually observe and analyse our existence, or step back intellectually, we intellectually reflect on what we have done (the past), and what we are going to do (the future). This intellectual reflection is a step removed from being immersed in our world through work. Though the job may be considered temporal, it is only temporal upon reflection. The job itself is only part of a much bigger job that runs the course of our lives; we could spend our whole lives without much reflection at all, if only for the fact that our work is very intricate, and subject to much upheaval.

Heidegger believed that modern technology removes us from the world, as it does the work that we should be doing, thereby removing man from his immersion in the world. This makes us overly reflective, or intellectualised, and creates in us the condition of being overly abstract to the point of absurdity, a common theme in existentialism.

Gary L

I'm talking about the benefit of letting go of the sense of time and directly experiencing the present. I certainly agree that we have the ability to build imaginary models of the past and future in our minds.

edit: this was in response to post #2

extrinzic

The thing is that, for Heidegger, you can only do this unconsciously, through work. You cant think your way into the present.

Edit: I think the video game is a good example of what Heidegger might consider to be the modern condition. We can get immersed in the work the video game requires of us, but we are removed from creativity, in that the video game has a fairly ridged structure that we must stay within. Indeed the whole affair may cause us to lose ourselves, and forget time, but we have nothing to show at the end of our work. We have nothing to build on when it is done, and as a consequence, it is tempting to turn to another game to lose oneself again. We can become trapped in a cycle of false work, and intellectualised pastimes. Not that I haven’t enjoyed a video game myself now and again.

Gary L

Meditation? from what I've heard its focus is to directly experience the moment with no attempt to put it into conceptual boxes based on past experience.

extrinzic

I have tried it before. I found it relaxing, but I could never totally let go. I guess that if it does work, it takes a lot of practice. I don't know what Heidegger would have to say about meditation though. Btw, Waking Life is a good flick.

Gary L

Its worth looking into I think. The secular Buddhism emerging in America seems largely vindicated by scientific evidence.

I'd suggest checking out this lecture; Buddhism in a global age of technology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYFF6fUrIsA&feature=related

Or if you can, read Steve Hagen's short book Buddhism plain and simple.

Joe1919

Gary L wrote: »

I'm talking about the benefit of letting go of the sense of time and directly experiencing the present. I certainly agree that we have the ability to build imaginary models of the past and future in our minds.
edit: this was in response to post #2

extrinzic wrote: »

... removing man from his immersion in the world. This makes us overly reflective, or intellectualised, and creates in us the condition of being overly abstract to the point of absurdity, a common theme in existentialism..

There are a number of views on this. It could be argued that we are by nature a 'goal directed animal'. We are always facing choices, wondering and thinking and worrying about our future choices. (We also reflect and internalise our past). This is our freedom.
There is a good side to this. Our deliberations on the possible future can give us a goal and purpose in life. The existentialist Viktor Frankl, who survived the holocaust, argued that those prisoners that psychologically survived had a 'will to meaning'. The inner hold a prisoner has on his spiritual self relies on having a faith in the future and that once a prisoner loses that faith, he is doomed.

On the other hand, these choices cause us pain and anxiety and there may be time when we need to escape this. I have never mediated so I can not comment on Buddhist meditation. But it's possible to temporarily escape from yourself so to speak. I have experienced this listening to music and often helped with a few drinks. One totally lets go of past memories and future worries and becomes absorbed in the present. But unfortunately, for me anyhow, this beautiful experience is only temporary and I eventually return to the world which contains past memories and future concerns.

Perhaps it all depends on one present mood and beliefs. I would imagine that a very spirited or purpose driven person would benefit by escaping from the present (e.g.prison camp) by having strong beliefs and goals. On the other hand, there are times when we feel apathetic and miserable about our own future and we need to escape from this future by concentrating on the present.

Perhaps true despair is when we have neither past nor present nor future to feel good about. But then, perhaps there are extreme forms of meditation that allow people to totally 'switch off' or deal with this.
Perhaps another way is to delude yourself or even go mad.

Gary L

Perception of time may be both a condition of our being and the cause of our confusion. Peace might come with accepting the present as all that really 'is'.

Joe1919

Gary L wrote: »

Perception of time may be both a condition of our being and the cause of our confusion. Peace might come with accepting the present as all that really 'is'.

I disagree in your case. Keep fighting for your ideals. Don't settle for a 'negative' peace.

'I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.....'
Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King.

Nate--IRL--

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect

Nate

di11on

What does "illusion" mean? Something that is perceived, but not real?

To a human, perception is reality and there will always be some disconnect between absolute reality (assuming this exists) and what we percieve.

While the reality we inhabit influences us and has an impact on our lives, our experience of it is determined by our senses, limited as they are.

Thus, everything is an idea, and nothing is real.

But if perception is reality, everything is real, it all depends on where you're looking from.

To the extent that time affects us and influences us and that we perceive it to be, it is real. However, from an absolute point of view, does it exist in its own right, without humans to interpret it? I believe it does, it's a dimension of our universe, just like matter and space.

As Einstein showed, though, it's not absolute. If you're moving relative to another object or person, time is different for both people.

Gary L

Lately I'm thinking that the influence the past has on us does more harm than good.

extrinzic

Joe1919 wrote: »

There are a number of views on this. It could be argued that we are by nature a 'goal directed animal'. We are always facing choices, wondering and thinking and worrying about our future choices. (We also reflect and internalise our past). This is our freedom.
There is a good side to this. Our deliberations on the possible future can give us a goal and purpose in life. The existentialist Viktor Frankl, who survived the holocaust, argued that those prisoners that psychologically survived had a 'will to meaning'. The inner hold a prisoner has on his spiritual self relies on having a faith in the future and that once a prisoner loses that faith, he is doomed....

I think we are on the same page, more or less.
Thanks for that, I hadn’t gotten around to reading anything by Frankl. Obviously I don’t know what he has to say about where this will to meaning comes from. Though, as I’m sure you are aware, other takes on this idea are different/similar? The Outsider, for example, paints an individual that is introduced to social beliefs through coercion, but ultimately, when he is imprisoned by the world he rejects social norms and embraces the absurdity or meaninglessness of existence. Similarly, Camus Myth of Sisyphus creates meaning out of our despair, if only that it rallies from spite against nature/the gods, and love of the intricacies of his punishment. Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground portrays a man so wholly versed in modern science that he loses all belief in his ability to choose, yet in a perverse retaliation against the laws of nature, destroys the only chance for true meaning he ever had. Some existentialist may wonder what one would hope to accomplish by escaping from the prisoner camp. I think a common idea here is of a man who reflects too much, who becomes too conscious of his predicament, ultimately becomes ever more imprisoned by it.

di11on wrote: »

What does "illusion" mean? Something that is perceived, but not real?

To a human, perception is reality and there will always be some disconnect between absolute reality (assuming this exists) and what we percieve.

While the reality we inhabit influences us and has an impact on our lives, our experience of it is determined by our senses, limited as they are.

Thus, everything is an idea, and nothing is real.

But if perception is reality, everything is real, it all depends on where you're looking from.

To the extent that time affects us and influences us and that we perceive it to be, it is real. However, from an absolute point of view, does it exist in its own right, without humans to interpret it? I believe it does, it's a dimension of our universe, just like matter and space.

I would agree with the idea that there is such a thing as perception, and like Nietzsche, I think it does not make sense to talk of the truth behind perception, for we can say nothing of this truth, and so it should be dismissed as pointless. However, perhaps it is there all the same, but to say anything of it... well.

Illusion, aside from mirages and other optical or hallucinogenic phenomena, is, I believe, the oversimplification of our experiences, an imposed order of the will. What is clear to me is that we all do it to an extent, explaining away the absurdity of it all with neat explanations. Be it religion, or socialism, or libertarianism, or theoretical cosmology, etc. All models are a striving to comprehend the incomprehensible. Should we reject illusion? No (edit: indeed this view suggests that to do so would simply be the adoption of another illusion), but imo we are better off with a sceptical respect for our fallibility.

As Einstein showed, though, it's not absolute. If you're moving relative to another object or person, time is different for both people.

Wouldn’t this suggest to us that time is a completely subjective experience?

However, I can see the flip side of this is that if it is physically subjective, then it could be scientifically verified. If I get in a spaceship, I think I’ll have aged slower than everyone on earth, but I may be wrong about this.

Greyham

Gary L wrote: »

Meditation? from what I've heard its focus is to directly experience the moment with no attempt to put it into conceptual boxes based on past experience.

It is , and it is incredibly relaxing when done properly. Really cathartic.

theghost

If time is an illusion, then how does one account for time slips (the most notable of which is that experienced by Moberley and Jourdain in Versailles, but many others have been recorded)? Are they hallucinations? And why has no-one reported slipping into a future rather than a past time?

Gary L

Don't wait for an answer from me I only have the question. It's fun to think about this. The way I'm looking at it, the past is a record and the future is a prediction but whatever time it is its the present. Matter and energy exist in motion, flux, constant change. Its previous and future states don't exist, they have and will exist but when they do it will be the present.