7
posts
His ideas are interesting, however I did not find his arguments for them to be very convincing. Speaking of the relationship between light and the time it takes to travel he brings to the fore the crux of his hypothesis: "It is our specific speed of light because time has created a life in response to our gravity." In saying that he is committing the logical fallacy called "the false cause." Time creating a life in response to our gravity (a very ambiguous statement in itself) does not preclude that what we observe is "our specific speed of light."
The speaker follows this up with a far out-of-context quote from Heidegger, "being and time determine each other reciprocally." There is a modern critique of Heidegger which sums up quite well what he thought about time (and what he meant by that quote).
"Heidegger believes that the tradition of philosophy was mistaken in interpreting time as a moveable image of eternity. We are told that this definition of time is intelligible only if we have eternity as a point of departure to understand the meaning of time. Yet, Heidegger believes that we are barred from such a viewpoint. We can only understand the phenomenon of time from our mortal or finite vantage point. Contrary to the tradition of philosophy, Heidegger argues that time does not find its meaning in eternity, time finds its meaning in death. The article takes Heidegger's position to task. It argues that it is not evident why Heidegger's account of time should in any way be superior to the traditional conception of time. Drawing on the criticism raised by Lévinas and Blanchot, that death — like eternity — is never at our disposal to understand the phenomenon of time, it shows that although Heidegger is aware that death is never an event in our life, he nonetheless claims that it is the awareness of our finitude that informs our understanding of time. Yet if Heidegger does not see it as a problem that death is never at our disposal, then it becomes questionable whether Heidegger's initial critique launched against the tradition of philosophy still holds, because it is no longer evident why it matters that eternity, as a point of departure, is never at our disposal to understand the phenomenon of time."
The idea that time as a constant exists relative to human consciousness is of ontological interest, but I do not believe that the speaker's ideas were well formulated.
I think it's fairly obvious that time is a concept that exists seperate from our exerience of it. However, the experience of time is subjective. Still, humans can interact with each other, even if the experince of time must be different for each living individual.
Connect your brain with electrodes and a computer they can calculate what you are going to do 6 seconds before you are consciously aware of it
our consciousness lives in the past while our subconcious is more closely living in the present though not completely since the subconcious still takes some time to process information
7
posts