Good lord, man, is that what science has concluded? That we cannot actually experience the present? Because it is already past when we experience it?
Perceptually, that may be true, but who says we have to exist as merely perceptual beings? Ever practiced meditation? That has nothing to do with perception. It has everything to do with the present. Perhaps that is our only way to truly experience the present, but we can maintain that meditative state while in perceptual mode. Or pretty darned close. We can knock out of our minds all thought of the future and the past and just BE. Without any judgment upon what we see. It just is, until it is gone and we see something else in its place. This minimizes the interpretative aspect of perception. It is pretty darned close to the present.
And it is a funny thing, in my experience, but we really do not need interpretation and judgment. If we get into this river, as I think of it, of the present, it just carries us along. We go where we are supposed to go. We meet who we are supposed to me. We hear and we say what we are supposed to hear and say. Etc.
I thought Cecil would abstain from discussing such a philosophical issue in his question/answer blog, but this is as philosophical as it gets.
The present is the distillation of the past and the fount of the future. It is what is, is. There is a branch of philosophy called ontology that discusses being.
The present (or now) is the time that is associated with the events perceived directly and in the first time, not as a recollection (perceived more than once) or a speculation (predicted, hypothesis, uncertain). It is a period of time between the past and the future, and can vary in meaning from being an instant to a day or longer.
If an event has not yet been encoded into long term memory, but is still in working memory, we can say that event is in the present.
Any action you take on an event that’s still in short term memory is the present.
A bear is suddenly lunges towards you, and you climb a tree to escape. That’s the present because that’s in working memory. You climb down the tree, head back to your village, and say “Hey, you won’t believe what happened! I got attacked by a bear”. That is now in your long term memory and is in the past.
You can discuss the issue with science or you can discuss the issue with mystical hoo-hah. If you do the latter, you wind up saying things like “we really do not need interpretation and judgment.”
Perhaps ‘science’ thinks it’s being parsimonious here, but science is really just being human-centric doodie heads. There’s no reason the null hypothesis should ever be, ‘only humans do this.’
As a counter-argument, I submit strong evidence that dogs have dreams - REM, and sometimes muffled barks and movement of the legs. Dreams are fanciful, but they are clearly constructed based on past experience. The difference between that and ‘reconstructed knowledge’ is a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Well I would respectfully argue (still on the level of “mystical hoo-hah”) that interpretation and judgment interfere with the mind’s ability to function as a knower.
I knew what you meant. Judging from what you think of this thread, I think you will be less than impressed with a great many threads that many members (myself included) find fascinating.
