4 ms·

Another way to think of it is, can you really define time without lenth? So the idea of space is required for the idea of time. It might well be possible that

Another way to think of it is, can you really define time without lenth? So the idea of space is required for the idea of time. It might well be possible that the idea of space is sufficient and time is just a derived perception.

tsimionescu 4y ago
> It might well be possible that the idea of space is sufficient and time is just a derived perception. Not really, since the observed behaviors of physics require an extra dimension that is different in nature to the three spatial dimensions. You can't explain the behavior of light in a universe with 4 space-like dimensions, for example.
skissane 4y ago
> So the idea of space is required for the idea of time I can conceive of the idea of a disembodied mind who exists in time, who experiences auditory qualia without any directional component, but does not experience other kinds of qualia such as visual or tactile qualia. I don't think such a scenario requires any space – some might say that auditory qualia require sound waves which require space, but a disembodied mind by definition does not have physical sense organs and their auditory qualia cannot be directly produced by physical sound waves–otherwise, they would not be disembodied (their auditory qualia would have to be hallucinations, dreams, direct telepathic communication with other minds, divine revelations, etc.) So, if I can conceive of a mind existing in time but not space, who naturally could have an idea of time but would struggle to have any idea of space (since it has never experienced it), and if conceivability is prima facie evidence of possibility, it is reasonable to conclude that it is possible for such a being to exist, and hence possible to have an idea of time without having any idea of space. Therefore, the idea of space is not required for the idea of time.
- raattgift 4y ago
  Where does this mind store its memories and thoughts? If you were to ask this mind to answer that question (or it were to spontaneously put the question to itself, whether the auditory qualia is "your" voice or its own), what do you expect its answer would be?
  - skissane 4y ago
    > Where does this mind store its memories and thoughts? Why do memories and thoughts require "storage"? Why would such a being think that they do? Even for us humans, if that question seems natural to us, it may be because our ideas about the mind have been heavily influenced by materialist/physicalist/computationalist assumptions, which people at other times in human history (and even people in radically different cultures today) would not necessarily share. If you asked an educated person in mediaeval Europe or classical antiquity "where are memories and thoughts stored", the majority would probably have objected that your question makes no sense: "Memories and thoughts are immaterial, only material objects can be 'stored' in containers" > If you were to ask this mind to answer that question (or it were to spontaneously put the question to itself, whether the auditory qualia is "your" voice or its own), what do you expect its answer would be? Since it has no idea of "space", why would it have any idea of "storage", or that memories and thoughts are or ought to be stored "somewhere"? Your question assumes the idea of space, when that is an idea it lacks.
    - raattgift 4y ago
      My question does indeed assume the existence of space, and was meant to investigate your own thinking, because that is what interests me (you're obviously smart, but our backgrounds are very different), rather than some thoroughly-specified model. Are you going to stand firm on the claim that your disembodied's friend's answer to the question "where are your memories held?" is only ever going to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative) ? I don't buy your claim that an educated (implying literate) person would not understand the idea of storage of information. Indeed, even less educated humans scratched out what we now call graffiti, or counting marks, on surfaces that have endured for millennia, or even longer (paleolithic cave art, petroglyphs, and so on). How do you help yourself remember some number of items that you need to account for? You write it down. Ancient Egyptians did that. > heavily influenced by materialist/physicalist/computationalist assumptions Guilty/guilty/guilty, sure. But I also have the dubious advantage of -- for abstruse reasons -- having worked with metric signature (++++...+), 1+1, and n+2 spacetimes, and know just how weird they are compared to the one we inhabit. So here I am stuck thinking of a brain that has some spatial extent but does not realize it, while avoiding pressing a claim that no remotely brain-like process can exist without at least two spatial dimensions. Brains that have some feature but don't realize it pop up in cosmology (and real life) with some aplomb. The most popular example from cosmology is Boltzmann brains, which exist only extremely momentarily, but have encoded within them false memories and perceptions. Keeping BBs from appearing practically everywhere in the universe turns out to strongly limit a number of features of the not-full-of-false-brains universe we appear to inhabit, if we also want to keep thermodynamics. Amusingly, Boltzmann brains are the opposite of what you are proposing: they have extent (and spatial structure) but vanishingly short duration. They can "remember" having an extensive dialogue with you in which they answer in great detail where their memories are kept, but the memory is false.

tsimionescu 4y ago

> It might well be possible that the idea of space is sufficient and time is just a derived perception. Not really, since the observed behaviors of physics require an extra dimension that is different in nature to the three spatial dimensions. You can't explain the behavior of light in a universe with 4 space-like dimensions, for example.

skissane 4y ago

> So the idea of space is required for the idea of time I can conceive of the idea of a disembodied mind who exists in time, who experiences auditory qualia without any directional component, but does not experience other kinds of qualia such as visual or tactile qualia. I don't think such a scenario requires any space – some might say that auditory qualia require sound waves which require space, but a disembodied mind by definition does not have physical sense organs and their auditory qualia cannot be directly produced by physical sound waves–otherwise, they would not be disembodied (their auditory qualia would have to be hallucinations, dreams, direct telepathic communication with other minds, divine revelations, etc.) So, if I can conceive of a mind existing in time but not space, who naturally could have an idea of time but would struggle to have any idea of space (since it has never experienced it), and if conceivability is prima facie evidence of possibility, it is reasonable to conclude that it is possible for such a being to exist, and hence possible to have an idea of time without having any idea of space. Therefore, the idea of space is not required for the idea of time.

raattgift 4y ago
Where does this mind store its memories and thoughts? If you were to ask this mind to answer that question (or it were to spontaneously put the question to itself, whether the auditory qualia is "your" voice or its own), what do you expect its answer would be?
- skissane 4y ago
  > Where does this mind store its memories and thoughts? Why do memories and thoughts require "storage"? Why would such a being think that they do? Even for us humans, if that question seems natural to us, it may be because our ideas about the mind have been heavily influenced by materialist/physicalist/computationalist assumptions, which people at other times in human history (and even people in radically different cultures today) would not necessarily share. If you asked an educated person in mediaeval Europe or classical antiquity "where are memories and thoughts stored", the majority would probably have objected that your question makes no sense: "Memories and thoughts are immaterial, only material objects can be 'stored' in containers" > If you were to ask this mind to answer that question (or it were to spontaneously put the question to itself, whether the auditory qualia is "your" voice or its own), what do you expect its answer would be? Since it has no idea of "space", why would it have any idea of "storage", or that memories and thoughts are or ought to be stored "somewhere"? Your question assumes the idea of space, when that is an idea it lacks.
  - raattgift 4y ago
    My question does indeed assume the existence of space, and was meant to investigate your own thinking, because that is what interests me (you're obviously smart, but our backgrounds are very different), rather than some thoroughly-specified model. Are you going to stand firm on the claim that your disembodied's friend's answer to the question "where are your memories held?" is only ever going to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative) ? I don't buy your claim that an educated (implying literate) person would not understand the idea of storage of information. Indeed, even less educated humans scratched out what we now call graffiti, or counting marks, on surfaces that have endured for millennia, or even longer (paleolithic cave art, petroglyphs, and so on). How do you help yourself remember some number of items that you need to account for? You write it down. Ancient Egyptians did that. > heavily influenced by materialist/physicalist/computationalist assumptions Guilty/guilty/guilty, sure. But I also have the dubious advantage of -- for abstruse reasons -- having worked with metric signature (++++...+), 1+1, and n+2 spacetimes, and know just how weird they are compared to the one we inhabit. So here I am stuck thinking of a brain that has some spatial extent but does not realize it, while avoiding pressing a claim that no remotely brain-like process can exist without at least two spatial dimensions. Brains that have some feature but don't realize it pop up in cosmology (and real life) with some aplomb. The most popular example from cosmology is Boltzmann brains, which exist only extremely momentarily, but have encoded within them false memories and perceptions. Keeping BBs from appearing practically everywhere in the universe turns out to strongly limit a number of features of the not-full-of-false-brains universe we appear to inhabit, if we also want to keep thermodynamics. Amusingly, Boltzmann brains are the opposite of what you are proposing: they have extent (and spatial structure) but vanishingly short duration. They can "remember" having an extensive dialogue with you in which they answer in great detail where their memories are kept, but the memory is false.