Bloody good final question you ask. What difference does the 'concept' of time make in our lives? The concept of no time cannot be experienced in the reality of the here and now for any length of time. Even when experiencing no time, you still are, even when you know time is a construct.
Maybe the differing view points are from percieving time either as a construct or an illusion? I don't believe it to be an illusion. I only wish it were, the mirror would be lying to me every morning. Maybe the 'time' as we know it is a part of the whole illusion but I'm not dead yet, so I wouldn't know.
The only life I know of is this one. As far as I can know, it is the only one, and I know I have a past based in time and change. I am who I am because of that past. Any attempt to dispense with time would bring the world crashing around our ears.
Time may be crude and not based in truth of anything, but it works to bring organisation and identification to the human race. So I reckon it's here to stay and we can argue til the cows come home and it won't make any difference at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre  Interesting stuff ethereal, but as with any attempt to study perception using the faculties of perception, you're possibly subject to distortion, even while it appears as if distortion is being removed.
Still, I'm curious. How was it found that 'the ego/mind mechanism is based on the 1/10000th second "editing" of all incoming data'? And how does a sense of timelessness not contradict the perception of reality as a succession of stop-frames? Shouldn't timelessness remove the appearance of any sequence (i.e., succession?) Or is that not the case, and it's a matter of difficulty in communicating a counterintuitive concept within a language framework built up around a very different worldview?
And in the end, what effect might this different worldview have on our lives? |