Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/4/2/16#:~...r%20qualia.

Abstract

"Time is one of the greatest subjects of interest to the disciplines of both Science and Philosophy, being seen to have a greater importance in the workings of reality than other entities. In this paper, a phenomenological analysis of time based on the general workings of the emergent structure of consciousness will be done, and time will be shown to be no different than any other qualia. It will be shown that, like any other qualia, time is an emergent level of consciousness, manifesting all the properties of emergence: inheritance of qualities from the previous levels, top-down influence in levels received from the higher levels and top-down influence in levels impressed on the lower levels."

Keywords: time; qualia; emergence; inheritance; top-down; phenomenology

Introduction

Because of the importance given to time by the disciplines of both Science and Philosophy, a detailed phenomenological analysis of time is fitting. The analysis that will be done in this paper is based on the general ideas presented in my previous paper “The Emergent Structure of Consciousness” [1]. An analysis of time is already presented there, but because the purpose of that paper was to present the general workings of the emergent structure of consciousness, the analysis of time was incomplete. This paper will thus undertake the task of exposing all the details of time as they derive from direct phenomenological experience, and as they are then framed by the more general theoretical framework of the emergent structure. Thus, no new fundamental ideas will be presented in this paper. However, the details of time that will be presented will benefit both the understanding of time as such, and exemplify even better the workings of the emergent structure that has been exposed in the previous paper. A reading of the previous paper might help the reader grasp some general ideas. But in order to make the current exposition self-contained, all the required concepts will also be presented here.

The easiest element of the phenomenology of time, the one that has also been taken by physics, is the succession. Interestingly enough, this proved so successful that physics didn’t make the effort to investigate more into the nature of time. But there is more to time than succession. Actually, there is so much more that the succession part is only a minor aspect of what time is. A proper investigation of the phenomenology of time will even show that there cannot even be a physical time, the only time that exist being the time of consciousness. The investigation will also show how the time of consciousness is no different in its properties from any other qualia, displaying properties such as inheritance of qualities from the lower levels of the emergent structure of consciousness, receiving of top-down influence in levels from the higher levels and impressing its own top-down influence on the lower levels. In what follows, by “time” I will only refer to the time of consciousness. If the need for the physical time will appear, it would be called specifically the “physical time”.

Because the analysis that follows is based directly upon the experience of time as it appears in consciousness, the analysis is intended to be independent of any other phenomenological analyses of time that are present in literature. We will mention Husserl’s account of time in the next section, but this is only for convenience, in order to make a quick start. We could have equally started from zero, but the most important part of the current paper is to show how time is one of the emergent levels of consciousness, no different than any other qualia, so we can make a quick start from Husserl’s analysis of time, and then analyze the emergent aspects of time. This paper hopes to offer a unified coherent way of looking at consciousness. If time, which traditionally was given more consideration than other aspects of consciousness, is shown to be no different than any other qualia, then this will offer a perspective from which the entire consciousness can be studied in a unitary way and thus open the doors for a systematization of consciousness and ultimately for a science of consciousness. Historically, time was so differently perceived than other qualia that an entire science of physics was developed from this one single aspect of consciousness. If time is understood to be just one of the many qualia present in consciousness, then physics might benefit from a rethinking that will push it in new and unexpected directions. So, let’s start our detailed analysis of time..."

OP Wrote:.. time is an emergent level of consciousness

The speed the Moon goes round the Earth is an emergent property of consciousness? Any entity with Newtonian level physics can calculate how fast the Moon rotates. If you were a fly you might find the Moon goes round maybe twice in a lifetime so really really slowly .. but no, I'm not with the OP.

And now for something completely different --er-- similar(?) or crossing paths or something...

Randwolf posted this for Write4U in the other forum:

For the time being
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...TIME_BEING

ABSTRACT: In the evolving landscape of theoretical physics and consciousness studies, the concept of time has transcended its traditional, linear confines, revealing a more intricate interplay with the human consciousness and the quantum realm.

This white paper embarks on an interdisciplinary journey to explore the hypothesis that Time is not merely a passive dimension but a conscious entity, intricately intertwined with the volume of the universe and the essence of consciousness.

Drawing upon principles from quantum mechanics, neurobiology, and philosophical inquiry, this paper proposes a notion of Time as a dynamic, high-frequency waveform influenced by gravity and observable through its interactions with consciousness.

The paper further investigates the role of biological processes, specifically within brain neurons' microtubules, in mirroring Time's complex nature. The concept of Temporal Entanglement is introduced, suggesting a perception of Time akin to depth perception in hearing and vision, facilitated by the brain's dual processing of Time's temporal elements and resulting in that inner-life feeling we all know, a sort of 'Dual Chronoesthesia'.

This exploration is not only a quest to understand Time's true nature but also an endeavor to unravel the profound implications such an understanding holds for our perception of reality, consciousness, and our existential story within the cosmos.

Quote:The Quale of Time
https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/4/2/16#:~...r%20qualia

[...] The first extra element of the phenomenology of time beyond succession starts from looking critically at the nature of succession itself. Succession implies the existence of infinitesimal moments of time that follow one after the other.

But if we look carefully at our experiences, they don’t seem to be made up of infinitesimal parts. Words, sentences, listening to music are not just successions of infinitesimal parts, but are entities that are experiences in a holistic way. Time in consciousness seems to be structured differently than the way physical time is used in our physical theories.

Compared to events in the physical time that can be ordered point by point on an axis, events in consciousness being holistic entities cannot be reduced to infinitesimal points on an axis. This aspect of time was characterized by Bergson in his writings about duration as being a continuous, immeasurable and unquantifiable flow, and then Husserl identified time as being made out of primal impressions, retentions and protentions.

More recently, Susan Blackmore argues for the fact that there is no stream of consciousness, offering some revealing examples of how time should not be viewed in a linear manner.

In terms of the "physical time" referenced and the "point by point on an axis"... While the zeptosecond is the shortest time unit ever measured, in theory Planck time is the smallest meaningful unit that physics can use. But outside of quantum gravity pursuits (where some efforts make both space and time discrete or grainy at the Planck scale), "physical time" is often regarded as continuous rather than literally divided into or constituted of temporal units.

The idea that time might not be personally experienced in a perfectly linear fashion is certainly possible, given all the erratic states and clinical conditions of the mind, and the dependency upon memory just to know that a change has taken place. Oliver Sacks once described the case of a woman who experienced frozen stills of consciousness, like a movie stopped on a particular frame by the pause button.

If there was such a thing as a special physical increment called "Now" (which would also be the smallest unit of time), then the subjective Now that humans speciously entertain would actually always be a past representation of the physical Now (the real current one). Just as a so-called "live" video feed one is watching on television of a news event is lagging behind where the action is taking place. Not to mention that our specious subjective Now is several milliseconds in duration, which is a gigantic "elephant" that wouldn't even fit into the absurdly tiny measure of a physical or objective Now. The subjective Now would extend over a vast multitude of the latter.

The so-called "flow" of time is incoherent in just about any conception of time. In Presentism, no past or future moment exists to "flow" to. And in the Growing Block Universe there is likewise no "next moment or state" to transit to (it is instead "magically" created, a new addition to the block). And in Eternalism, the inconsistency of a "flow" is as Paul Davies describes below.

That Mysterious Flow
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...w-2006-02/

Physicists prefer to think of time as laid out in its entirety -- a timescape, analogous to a landscape -- with all past and future events located there together. It is a notion sometimes referred to as block time. Completely absent from this description of nature is anything that singles out a privileged special moment as the present or any process that would systematically turn future events into present, then past, events. In short, the time of the physicist does not pass or flow.

A number of philosophers over the years have arrived at the same conclusion by examining what we normally mean by the passage of time. They argue that the notion is internally inconsistent. The concept of flux, after all, refers to motion. It makes sense to talk about the movement of a physical object, such as an arrow through space, by gauging how its location varies with time. But what meaning can be attached to the movement of time itself? Relative to what does it move? Whereas other types of motion relate one physical process to another, the putative flow of time relates time to itself. Posing the simple question How fast does time pass exposes the absurdity of the very idea. The trivial answer One second per second tells us nothing at all.

Although we find it convenient to refer to time's passage in everyday affairs, the notion imparts no new information that cannot be conveyed without it...

If there was something "flowing" in block-time, it would have to be the consciousness of the perceiving organisms themselves.

Hermann Weyl: "The objective world simply is, it does not happen. Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling upward along the life line of my body, does a section of this world come to life as a fleeting image in space which continuously changes in time."

H.G. Wells: “Clearly,” the Time Traveller proceeded, “any real body must have extension in four directions: it must have Length, Breadth, Thickness, and—Duration. But through a natural infirmity of the flesh, which I will explain to you in a moment, we incline to overlook this fact. There are really four dimensions, three which we call the three planes of Space, and a fourth, Time. There is, however, a tendency to draw an unreal distinction between the former three dimensions and the latter, because it happens that our consciousness moves intermittently in one direction along the latter from the beginning to the end of our lives."

But consciousness is not a substance, much less a migrating one. So the above is like one of the simpler (but incorrect) answers you give to people at large because it's easier for them to grasp that than the actual situation. If they can't even apprehend how their cognition is dependent upon memory (especially limited to the memory and other neural configuration of a particular brain state of a single "frame" or chunk-sequence in a block-time scenario), then there's no immediate hope of them grasping why they seem to only be experiencing a single moment of their life, rather than their whole life all at once.