The Credible Present.


35 views
Uploaded on:
Category: Sales / Marketing
Description
Time. Cognizance. SpeciousPresent. = time as it most straightforwardly and particularly shows in experience. . . Be that as it may, speciouspresent: particularlycontroversial (
Transcripts
Slide 1

The Specious Present \'the brief term of which we are quickly and relentlessly sensible\' James

Slide 2

Consciousness Time Specious Present = time as it most specifically and unmistakably shows in experience

Slide 3

BUT: presumptive present : especially dubious (& confusing) Does it truly exist? Is it safe to say that it isn\'t dumbfounding?

Slide 4

My points: Survey the primary choices + remark on James\' position Isolate some key presumptions spurring the diverse positions Defend a neo-Jamesian origination Counter some late reactions of Sean Kelly\'s Explore a couple of suggestions

Slide 5

Specious Present: why accept? Essential reason: to comprehend our experience

Slide 6

"change itself is something promptly experienced ." (James,WPE) Some progressions = too ease back to ever be seen (development of oak tree). Some are too quick (speeding shot). Some are simply right : we straightforwardly capture them.

Slide 7

Seeing movement:

Slide 8

Enter SP: \'every one of the adjustments set up of a meteor appear … to be contained in the present.\' (Clay) 1 sec t 2 t 1 So: our direct perceptual mindfulness can\'t be restricted to a durationless moment

Slide 9

Further information: \'incredible profundity\' Most basic sensations have some transient profundity Strictly durationless tone = difficult to imagine

Slide 10

More by and large: (common) continuous flows are ceaseless every stage is experienced as offering route to the following

Slide 11

A riddle about length: \'a center of around twelve seconds, up to a moment\' (James) We\'re not specifically mindful of what we encountered a moment prior Or even a few moments!

Slide 12

(Partially) conceivable finding: James: \'the for all intents and purposes cognized present is no blade edge, however a saddleback\' SP legitimate (e.g. 1sec) Vivid expectations Vivid fleeting recollections

Slide 13

Retentionalist quick experience of progress happens in a solitary minute presumptive present does not by any stretch of the imagination reach out through time Extensionalist prompt experience of progress is not bound to a solitary minute credible present is spread through time Making feeling of SP: two fundamental models

Slide 14

Extensionalism: 1 SP probable present B C genuine (clock) time

Slide 15

Extensionalism: surges of SPs progression of tones Pulse rendition (Whitehead, Sprigge) progression of tones Overlap form (Russell, Foster)

Slide 16

Retentionalist Model: 1 SP more past B less past Specious present C D E clock time B C D E

Slide 17

B C D C D E D E F E F G Retentionalist Model: 3 SPs progression of tones continuously

Slide 18

Retentionalist Model: full radiance progression of tones progressively

Slide 19

James: Retentionalist or Extentionalist??

Slide 20

\'Plausible present\' = what James was focused on James = Extensionalist So: recognize \'credible present\' hypotheses from Retentionalist approaches Sean Kelly (late suggestion):

Slide 21

James = Extensionalist? stream convention \'span pieces\'

Slide 22

James\' Stream teaching encounters brought together by soul-substance (logic) encounters not bound together (induction) REJECT Experience brings together itself, synchronically & diachronically by means of " conjunctive relations\'

Slide 23

Conjunctive relations: \'The conjunctive connection that has given most inconvenience to theory is the co-cognizant move , so to call it, by which one experience goes into another when both have a place with the same self. … this feeling of congruity in that most close of every conjunctive connection\'s (WPE)

Slide 24

But: James = Retentionalist! \'The information of some other part of the stream, past or future, close or remote, is constantly blended in with learning of the present thing\' Volkmann has communicated the matter splendidly: \'if An and B are to be spoken to as happening in progression they should be at the same time spoke to\'

Slide 25

James\' SP chart: immaculate Retentionalism! \'The sentiment past time is a present feeling\' presumptive present B C D E clock time B C D E

Slide 26

Diagnosis: In Principles James is pulled in various bearings: Retentionalist when in logical mode Extentionalist when in phenomenological/philosophical mode

Slide 27

Terminological Recommendation: \'Plausible Present\' – for any record which ascribes clear transient profundity to encounter E.g. Retentionalism E.g. Extensionalism

Slide 28

Retentionalism: primary supporters Kant Ward James(/2) Lockwood Brentano Broad (L) Husserl Dobbs

Slide 29

Retentionalism: inspiration (i) Avoid! mindfulness Can we truly be specifically mindful of what lies before? (Then again the future?) Or is hyper vision ordinary? Past Present Future

Slide 30

Retentionalism: inspiration (ii) Simultaneous Unity Thesis (SUT) : to be captured as progressive, substance must be exhibited together in awareness at the same minute viewed as aphoristic by Volkmann, Ward, James, Husserl, Dobbs

Slide 31

SUT involves Retentionalism

Slide 32

Objections to Retention 1: Why aren\'t these accomplished as a harmony, as opposed to a progression? B presumptive present C D E time B C D E

Slide 33

Main arrangements: Broad\'s "presentedness" Dobbs\' "gravitas" Husserl\'s maintenances indistinct impossible No matter: regardless it might be feasible for transitory experience to have obvious fleeting profundity

Slide 34

Objection 2: phenomenologically questionable Are we truly mindful, at every minute , of a transient spread of substance? I\'m just mindful of what\'s going on now!

Slide 35

Objection 3: costly and intriguing Multiplies complete amount of involvement in universe maintenances

Slide 36

Exotic: Dobbs (& Broad): legitimately saw, maintenance model = two-dimensional time Specious present Experiential (broad) time Ordinary (move) time

Slide 37

2-D time understanding = completely legitimized more past B less past worldly interim C D E clock time B C D E

Slide 38

2-d time view: powerless Phenomenal time standard time Surprising & vital disclosure? On the other hand unnecessary place?

Slide 39

Objection 4: James\' understanding lost? Stream: divided Stream: nearby stages UNIFIED

Slide 40

Extensionalist Alternative?

Slide 41

Two Extensionalisms stream Pulse rendition stream Overlap variant

Slide 42

Fragments stream … progression of tones BETTER: secures congruity of cognizance progression of tones

Slide 43

Overlap Model: fundamental fixings = Jamesian length square single plausible present Parts spread crosswise over time AND experienced together as a progression

Slide 44

Diachronic co-awareness = straightforwardly experienced progression/tirelessness A B A B Does mean: specifically listening to A-being-trailed by-B Doesn\'t mean: listening to An and at the same time listening to B (i.e. before it has happened !)

Slide 45

Diachronic co-awareness: In cognizance together, however as a progression (not all the while = retentional model)

Slide 46

Overlap model: from pieces to streams Stream of awareness

Slide 47

Overlap: no (undesirable) duplications D C SP1 D E SP2 F E SP3 Overlapping SPs have basic parts (D in SP1 = D in SP2, and so on)

Slide 48

The deviated character of diachronic co-awareness relationship? The inborn character of incredible substance? What clarifies the obvious course of experience? More conservative alternative

Slide 49

Duration-pieces innately changing: movement! movement!

Slide 50

Overlap however no \'worldly modes\' (= stark) Jamesian saddleback more past simply past present "we have a steady feeling sui generis of pastness, to which each one of our encounters falls prey" James \'qualities\'/natural properties

Slide 51

B C D C D E D E F E F G Modes are understandable in Retentionalist Model progression of tones progressively 3 numerically unmistakable encounters - changing properties not an issue

Slide 52

Not in Overlap Model: present SP1 D C SP2 D E simply past A solitary affair, at a specific time, can\'t have distinctive and inconsistent inborn properties around then!

Slide 53

But: with element substance, worldly modes aren\'t expected to represent saw entry: movement! movement!

Slide 54

Extension + (certain structures) of Retention Realistic probable present foresights Fringe emotions & pictures tactile center transient recollections (echoes)

Slide 55

Was James an Overlap Extensionalist? On occasion … .

Slide 56

A B C D E F G B C D E F G H C D E F G H I \'lingerings of the past dropping progressively away, and the approaches without bounds making up the misfortune\'s

Slide 57

Extension/Overlap v. Retentionalism KEY ISSUE Simultaneous Unity Thesis

Slide 58

Accepting Overlap = dismissing SUT Non-synchronous D C But bound together: experienced together

Slide 59

Why acknowledge SUT? James: oblige Kantian knowledge A specific origination of time A magical presumption

Slide 60

James: \'A progression of emotions, all by itself, is not a sentiment progression\' True! Yet, Diachronic co-cognizance CDE C D E C D E Difference can be clarified in Extensional way additionally…

Slide 61

second Motivation: a Neo-Rationalist Assumption? Eg: solidarity of awareness requires something SIMPLE (non-developed, sans part) - so a transient spread of substance must be bound together by a non-broadened encountering Question: why trust this?

Slide 62

Antidote: a significant spatial simple PHENOMENAL EXPANSE ALL SPATIAL PARTS EXPERIENCED TOGETHER

Slide 63

If we dismiss purpose of mindfulness then: Unity a result of between experiential relations (in Jamesian style)

Slide 64

IF CO-CONSCIOUSESS CAN CROSS SPACE, WHY NOT TIME? plausible present

Slide 65

Why SUT? 3 nd inspiration Tacit responsibility to presentism?

Slide 66

If the truth is this way: No past No future time then Extensionalism ca

Recommended
View more...