Atheists and metaphysics

[bernee51]

The question of atheist metaphysics arose inanother thread . Rather than drag that one of topic I have continued the conversation here...

The word metaphysics, going by its etymology, means "beyond the physical". It can also mean "after the Physics", referring to its location in the corpus of Aristotelian writings, but even so, the first definition seems more apt.

No disagreement there.

Are there any atheists or agnostics who believe that 1) the universe exists independently of their own minds (i.e. there is actually a physical world to which the mind conforms when it knows),

This ‘begs the question’ – where does the mind exist. It is clearly not ‘in’ the physical but, I suggest, is dependent on it. I think the mind does not conform to the physical but rather conforms what it observes of the physical into a ‘perception’.

At the risk if repeating myself....I have a particular view of the ‘whole’…

In Ghost in the Machine Koestler coined the term ‘holon’ – a whole part. For example, the letter ‘a’ is a whole in and of itself. It is also part of another ‘whole’, known as a word – ‘am’. It is also part of a phrase “I am…� or a sentence, a paragraph, a book and so on. If you were to destroy the letter ‘a’ it would severely compromise those other ‘wholes’ which depend on the existence of ‘a’.

We tend to see ‘existence’ as a whole when it is really a holon, made up of other holons. As physical entities, we, our physical ‘selves’, are made up of atoms and molecules. These nuts and bolts of existence ‘inhabit’ what has been called the physiosphere. From the perspective of the physiosphere we are no different from any other ‘inhabitant’ made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc. We are ‘one with the universe’. According to one view of modern cosmology, the physiosphere started out as simple sub-atomic particles which over a long period of time underwent a ‘complexification’ – it evolved into more complex structures.

At some point this complexification led to the emergence of ‘life’. Life brought about the emergence of the next holon – the biosphere. All living matter – or those aspects that make it ‘living’ are inhabitants of the biosphere. From the perspective of the biosphere we are no different from any other ‘inhabitant’ with a biomechanical system supporting it. Again we are ‘one with the universe’.

This biomechanical system evolved a neural network which laid the ground for the emergence of consciousness which on becoming more complex emerged as a self-awareness – a consciousness that not only knows but knows that it knows. Perhaps the very first question that arose on the emergence of this phenomenon was “Who am I?� This sphere of mental activity is the noosphere – from wiki… “For Teilhard [de Chandon], the noosphere is best described as a sort of 'collective consciousness' of human-beings. It emerges from the interaction of human minds. The noosphere has grown in step with the organization of the human mass in relation to itself as it populates the earth. As mankind organizes itself in more complex social networks, the higher the noosphere will grow in awareness.� Think of the connectivity of thought we have access to in comparison to our previous generations and it is easy to see the continued evolution of this sphere.

and 2) there is a reality beyond the physical that is also independent of the human mind, and to which the mind conforms when it knows?

I am not aware of a ‘reality’ beyond the physical that is also independent of the human mind.

I would qualify this somewhat by commenting that the sense of an individual human mind is a construct in consciousness. That consciousness, however, is dependent on the physical/biological for its ability to emerge.

An analogy I have used before is consciousness is like a movie screen on which the story that is the individual human mind is projected.

[bernee51]

When you say "qualia", do you also include things like the color of an object, its size, its weight, its shape, its taste, its texture, and any other thing that could factor into an empirical description of what a thing is like physically? Or are you restricting yourself to the emotions that a person feels about an object or person?

Qualia would include colour and taste - these are subjective. Weight can be judged independently - it is objective in that a method to standardize exists.

I’m pretty firm on the idea that time is a human concept – a way we measure between ‘nows’. Does the universe keep time? Or is it eternally emergent? If ther is only an emergent now, past and future too are concepts – constructs. One based in memory the other based in anticipations which are, in turn, themselves based on memories.

When you say "time", do you distinguish between time as perceived and measured by the mind, and time as an objective "stream" in which changes happen? I mean, if you set an egg timer for five minutes, are you saying that the change that you perceive as the dial moves toward "0" exists purely in your mind, and that there is no objective change happening?

The passage of time as measured by the egg timer is a physical standard by which an agreed upon concept can be quantified. Like scales that measure weight. My dog, however, (I tend to assume) has no idea as to the passage of time. It exists in 'presentational immediacy'.

Of course a change happens as we observe the constant and eternal emergence on 'nows'. The sun 'moves' in the sky, from this we observe the apparent passing of time and give names to it. But it only has names because we have given them and agreed upon them. We call this year 2009. The Hebrew name for it is 5769.

The great advaita vedantist Shankara is credited with saying something along the lines of “Only that is real which cannot be destroyed or changed�. The only thing that I can imagine which would fit this description is an emergent ‘now’

Does this mean that we who experience change and time do not exist at all, or do we have some sort of quasi-existence?

Of course 'we' exist. We are part of the physiosphere and the biosphere. How we perceive that existence is purely subjective - even though we may agree with others as to the nature of that subjectivity endowing it quasi-objectivity. We act 'as if' the experience is objective. A prime example is god belief. Many act 'as if' god is an objective reality - endowing that concept with a 'reality'

As indicated I don’t feel as if I am venturing down the path of solipsism assuming my understanding of the term is accurate. What I believe to be the case is indicated below. We perceive a ‘reality’ and act ‘as if’ this was indeed real. Just as those who believe in a god act ‘as if’ their god is real. The ‘acting ‘as if’ endows the concept with reality. We act ‘as if’ we have an individual self and thus endow that ‘self’ with reality. However, on close inspection, through self –inquiry, this self can be seen to be a construct.

I guess my question remains, what basis do you have for believing in the existence of anything outside the mind? You seem to be saying that what you know are not "things in themselves", but rather your perceptions of them.

As previously stated. I can look at a woman. If she is my lover I find her attractive. If she is not my lover she may be a distraction. If I am a 'predator' she may mean something else. That does not change the fact of her existence in the physical/biological world. What does change is her existence in the noological.

You may infer that there is something outside the mind that serves as a basis for these perceptions, but is not simply an assumption? If I grasp your position correctly, you are positing a cause which you cannot perceive in order to explain an effect that you do perceive.

The cause and effect of my perceptions, my thoughts and ideas about the woman, for example, are purely internal - they are mental constructs based on my previous relationships with 'woman'. The stimulus for that perception exists externally. i.e. 'woman' is a physical/biological reality external to my physical/biological reality.

As I asked before – think of jmac2112 from 10 years ago. Are you the same? From 5 years ago? Where is the cut of point for when jmac2112 becomes ‘real’? It can only be ‘now’ – in this moment.

Are you saying that there is no "I" distinct from my perception of myself?

What I am suggesting is that there is only consciousness, a Self. The 'I' we perceive ourselves to be is a construct built on that consciousness.

I exist now and at no other time.

You exist now, and now, and now and now.....

But I would not be who I am if not for the changes that have occurred as I have sailed down the stream.

This is the very point "who you are" is a concept which can and does change at with every 'now'.

[jmac2112]

[Forgive the obtuseness of some of what follows. I think my understanding of your views improved as I went along, but I did not go back and alter the text.]

Qualia would include colour and taste - these are subjective. Weight can be judged independently - it is objective in that a method to standardize exists.

We could also objectively categorize the light waves that we perceive as colors according to wavelength, and the substances that produce the different tastes according to their chemical makeup. In any case, if you are merely saying that our perceptions of things are not the things in themselves, then we are in full agreement.

To what degree do you think that the perceptions of each of us have enough in common that we can discuss them meaningfully? I mean, my wife loves brussel sprouts, while I think they taste putrid and poisonous, and in this way we disagree about something that is subjective. But our disagreement is only possible because we both agree on what it means for a food to taste good or taste nasty. It seems that there is something objective even when it comes to feelings, which by their nature are subjective. We grow up learning that when people say something "tastes good", they smile and keep on eating it and maybe go back for seconds. If they say it "tastes bad", they make a face and push the food away. We infer that what they are feeling is the same as the feelings we have when we want to eat more of something, or else slip it to the dog under the table.

So I guess the question is, when it comes to qualia, what do you think the conceptual and linguistic agreement is based on? We have to proceed by inference, but is that a good enough reason to deny that our feelings or perceptions are essentially the same from person to person, and that there are actual, objective "things" that we are referring to when we speak of them?

The passage of time as measured by the egg timer is a physical standard by which an agreed upon concept can be quantified. Like scales that measure weight. My dog, however, (I tend to assume) has no idea as to the passage of time. It exists in 'presentational immediacy'.

Of course a change happens as we observe the constant and eternal emergence on 'nows'. The sun 'moves' in the sky, from this we observe the apparent passing of time and give names to it. But it only has names because we have given them and agreed upon them. We call this year 2009. The Hebrew name for it is 5769.

You seem to be making a distinction between time as an objective "medium" or "coefficient" of change vs. the mind's perception of time. As long as you are not suggesting that the mind creates this medium or coefficient, then we have no disagreement. The mind can measure time, but time does not measure itself.

Of course 'we' exist. We are part of the physiosphere and the biosphere. How we perceive that existence is purely subjective - even though we may agree with others as to the nature of that subjectivity endowing it quasi-objectivity. We act 'as if' the experience is objective. A prime example is god belief. Many act 'as if' god is an objective reality - endowing that concept with a 'reality'

I hate to keep harping on this but my concern is that you seem to be saying that our knowledge of "reality" consists in a knowledge of our own perceptions; or at least I can't see how your line of reasoning leads anywhere else. I would rather leave aside belief in a divinity for now, and just concentrate on the physical world, since I think we will find trouble enough there.

How can you know that your subjective perceptions actually have an object beyond the perceptions? You and I and every other seeing person has a perception of the moon, for instance, but most of us think that there really is a moon that exists independently of our perception of it. What does it mean to say that we "endow the moon with reality"?

As I think I said before, I can see only two basic epistemological assumptions that one can make:

1) The world really does exist, as it appears to exist, independently of the mind, and we in some mysterious way actually know reality itself.

2) We don't know reality itself, but our knowledge is in some way mediated; but then it becomes impossible to argue your way to a knowledge of reality without at least implicitly making assumtion #1.

I don't think either assumption can be proven, but everything depends on which one you choose. How do you decide?

As previously stated. I can look at a woman. If she is my lover I find her attractive. If she is not my lover she may be a distraction. If I am a 'predator' she may mean something else. That does not change the fact of her existence in the physical/biological world. What does change is her existence in the noological.

I think I see now that you are making assumption #1 concerning the "bare existence" of physical objects, i.e. THAT they exist. However, you are claiming that either some or all qualities that they seem to possess do not exist outside the mind of the knower. Am I getting it now? For example, in the case of a yellow tennis ball, you agree that the ball exists outside your mind, but its "yellowness", "bounciness", and "three-inch-tallness" do not? Or would you rather say that those qualites do really exist insofar as the light waves reflected off the ball, and the bounciness of the ball, and the height of the ball can be objectively measured? And that they do not objectively exist insofar as the yellowness and bounciness and height as perceived by me do not exist outside my mind? And when my three year old daughter wraps the tennis ball up in a blanket and pretends it's a baby, it's "baby-ness" not only exists only in her own mind, but there is no objective basis for such a perception?

The cause and effect of my perceptions, my thoughts and ideas about the woman, for example, are purely internal - they are mental constructs based on my previous relationships with 'woman'. The stimulus for that perception exists externally. i.e. 'woman' is a physical/biological reality external to my physical/biological reality.

So your feelings about the woman are the same as my daughters feelings about the tennis ball. There is no objective basis for your judgment that the woman is desirable, or repugnant, or charming, or cruel.

What I am suggesting is that there is only consciousness, a Self. The 'I' we perceive ourselves to be is a construct built on that consciousness.

So we infer the existence of consciousness from our perceptions of ourselves? You seem to be making a distinction between consciousness and self-consciousness, and I'm not following.

You exist now, and now, and now and now.....

OK. Do you think that time consists of in infinite number of discrete units, each called "now", or is it more like a flowing stream?

This is the very point "who you are" is a concept which can and does change at with every 'now'.

Is it I who change, or it is only my self-consciousness that changes?

[bernee51]

To what degree do you think that the perceptions of each of us have enough in common that we can discuss them meaningfully? I mean, my wife loves brussel sprouts, while I think they taste putrid and poisonous, and in this way we disagree about something that is subjective.

Can I suggest you try them with a burnt butter and sage sauce.

So I guess the question is, when it comes to qualia, what do you think the conceptual and linguistic agreement is based on? We have to proceed by inference, but is that a good enough reason to deny that our feelings or perceptions are essentially the same from person to person, and that there are actual, objective "things" that we are referring to when we speak of them?

I think the concept of memes covers this. Memes are the genetic material of the noosphere.

You seem to be making a distinction between time as an objective "medium" or "coefficient" of change vs. the mind's perception of time. As long as you are not suggesting that the mind creates this medium or coefficient, then we have no disagreement. The mind can measure time, but time does not measure itself.

Agreed

I hate to keep harping on this but my concern is that you seem to be saying that our knowledge of "reality" consists in a knowledge of our own perceptions; or at least I can't see how your line of reasoning leads anywhere else. I would rather leave aside belief in a divinity for now, and just concentrate on the physical world, since I think we will find trouble enough there.

How can you know that your subjective perceptions actually have an object beyond the perceptions? You and I and every other seeing person has a perception of the moon, for instance, but most of us think that there really is a moon that exists independently of our perception of it. What does it mean to say that we "endow the moon with reality"?

The moon exists as a physical reality - in the physioshere. What the moon means is another matter. For Muslims the sighting of the moon in its first quarter at a particular time signals the beginning or ending of, for example, Ramadan. It is still the moon, but the significance exists in the noosphere. The moon has taken of a particular reality.

As I think I said before, I can see only two basic epistemological assumptions that one can make:

1) The world really does exist, as it appears to exist, independently of the mind, and we in some mysterious way actually know reality itself.

2) We don't know reality itself, but our knowledge is in some way mediated; but then it becomes impossible to argue your way to a knowledge of reality without at least implicitly making assumtion #1.

I don't think either assumption can be proven, but everything depends on which one you choose. How do you decide?

No decision to make. The world really does exist however the context in which we see the world gives it the meaning we attach to it.

I think I see now that you are making assumption #1 concerning the "bare existence" of physical objects, i.e. THAT they exist. However, you are claiming that either some or all qualities that they seem to possess do not exist outside the mind of the knower. Am I getting it now? For example, in the case of a yellow tennis ball, you agree that the ball exists outside your mind, but its "yellowness", "bounciness", and "three-inch-tallness" do not? Or would you rather say that those qualites do really exist insofar as the light waves reflected off the ball, and the bounciness of the ball, and the height of the ball can be objectively measured? And that they do not objectively exist insofar as the yellowness and bounciness and height as perceived by me do not exist outside my mind?

The qualities of the tennis ball exist as you describe for me and you because we, and most others, may agree on the descriptors. We agree they bounce, we agree they are a certain size (based on previously agreed guidelines) and we agree the colour approximates what we agree is yellow. If, however, that particular ball is going long in match point of a grand slam it could mean something in addition to this.

And when my three year old daughter wraps the tennis ball up in a blanket and pretends it's a baby, it's "baby-ness" not only exists only in her own mind, but there is no objective basis for such a perception?

Cute. Sounds about right though.

So your feelings about the woman are the same as my daughters feelings about the tennis ball. There is no objective basis for your judgment that the woman is desirable, or repugnant, or charming, or cruel.

Only objective as far as the memes that carry these characteristics.

What I am suggesting is that there is only consciousness, a Self. The 'I' we perceive ourselves to be is a construct built on that consciousness.

So we infer the existence of consciousness from our perceptions of ourselves? You seem to be making a distinction between consciousness and self-consciousness, and I'm not following.

I think it is the other way round. We infer the perception of ourselves from he existence of consciousness. Consciousness I see as a continuum on which self consciousness exists. Consciousness is not exclusive to our species but it would appear that self aware consciousness is.

You exist now, and now, and now and now.....

OK. Do you think that time consists of in infinite number of discrete units, each called "now", or is it more like a flowing stream?

There is only 'now'. There is an illusion of a flow of 'nows'. We call this 'time'

This is the very point "who you are" is a concept which can and does change at with every 'now'.

Is it I who change, or it is only my self-consciousness that changes?

The perception of who you are, which is an identification of 'I' with 'other', changes. The 'other' could be ideas, thoughts etc. 'I am happy', 'sad' etc. Or relationships with physically discrete 'other'. I am 'father', 'husband', 'christian' etc.

[jmac2112]

OK, let me see if I have this straight:

The physiosphere is the realm of objective physical existence (i.e extra-mental existence).

The biosphere is the part of the physiosphere that is alive.

The noosphere is the realm of ideas, judgments, values, perceptions of meaning, and anything else that happens between the ears.

Memes are the vehicles by which the contents of the noosphere are passed from person to person. Or does this only pertain to judgments of good/bad and judgments of meaning? Are the truths of mathematics, for instance, passed on by memes?

As I think I said before, I can see only two basic epistemological assumptions that one can make:

1) The world really does exist, as it appears to exist, independently of the mind, and we in some mysterious way actually know reality itself.

2) We don't know reality itself, but our knowledge is in some way mediated; but then it becomes impossible to argue your way to a knowledge of reality without at least implicitly making assumtion #1.

I don't think either assumption can be proven, but everything depends on which one you choose. How do you decide?

No decision to make. The world really does exist however the context in which we see the world gives it the meaning we attach to it.

Here I was referring only to our knowledge of the bare existence of physical things outside our minds, not to any meaning that we attach to them or value judgments that we make about them. Does that alter your answer?

I think I see now that you are making assumption #1 concerning the "bare existence" of physical objects, i.e. THAT they exist. However, you are claiming that either some or all qualities that they seem to possess do not exist outside the mind of the knower. Am I getting it now? For example, in the case of a yellow tennis ball, you agree that the ball exists outside your mind, but its "yellowness", "bounciness", and "three-inch-tallness" do not? Or would you rather say that those qualites do really exist insofar as the light waves reflected off the ball, and the bounciness of the ball, and the height of the ball can be objectively measured? And that they do not objectively exist insofar as the yellowness and bounciness and height as perceived by me do not exist outside my mind?

The qualities of the tennis ball exist as you describe for me and you because we, and most others, may agree on the descriptors. We agree they bounce, we agree they are a certain size (based on previously agreed guidelines) and we agree the colour approximates what we agree is yellow. If, however, that particular ball is going long in match point of a grand slam it could mean something in addition to this.

So qualia involve matters of agreement, i.e. common judgment, regarding the qualities that things possess; and some of those qualities do not refer to the things in themselves, but to their conformity to parameters that exist only in the mind, such as the rules of a game. Is that correct?

So your feelings about the woman are the same as my daughters feelings about the tennis ball. There is no objective basis for your judgment that the woman is desirable, or repugnant, or charming, or cruel.

Only objective as far as the memes that carry these characteristics.

But it sounds as though the idea carried by this particular meme is "women with certain characteristics are attractive". In other words, on the theory you are propounding there seems to be nothing objective about it in the sense of having anything to do with the woman herself. Aesthetics is just a matter of an arbitrary (or perhaps biologically based) association of the shape of a woman and my feelings about her. How then can the judgment of the beauty of a woman be considered objective in any sense?

What I am suggesting is that there is only consciousness, a Self. The 'I' we perceive ourselves to be is a construct built on that consciousness.

So we infer the existence of consciousness from our perceptions of ourselves? You seem to be making a distinction between consciousness and self-consciousness, and I'm not following.

I think it is the other way round. We infer the perception of ourselves from he existence of consciousness. Consciousness I see as a continuum on which self consciousness exists. Consciousness is not exclusive to our species but it would appear that self aware consciousness is.

I'm still confused. Are you saying that, from the fact that we are self-aware, we infer that there is an "I" that is aware of itself?

You exist now, and now, and now and now.....

OK. Do you think that time consists of in infinite number of discrete units, each called "now", or is it more like a flowing stream?

There is only 'now'. There is an illusion of a flow of 'nows'. We call this 'time'

Earlier I think I described time, objectively speaking, as a coefficient of change, or the medium in which change occurs, and I believe you agreed that this existed independently of the mind. Are you now saying that there is no such thing outside the mind? You seem to be denying that we actually move through time, and saying that time is just an illusion.

This is the very point "who you are" is a concept which can and does change at with every 'now'.

Is it I who change, or it is only my self-consciousness that changes?

The perception of who you are, which is an identification of 'I' with 'other', changes. The 'other' could be ideas, thoughts etc. 'I am happy', 'sad' etc. Or relationships with physically discrete 'other'. I am 'father', 'husband', 'christian' etc.

So the “I� that does the knowing knows only its attributes and relations. It seems that our knowledge of “I� is not immediate, but we rather infer the existence of “I� from the attributes of which we are aware.

[bernee51]

OK, let me see if I have this straight:
The physiosphere is the realm of objective physical existence (i.e extra-mental existence).

The biosphere is the part of the physiosphere that is alive.

The noosphere is the realm of ideas, judgments, values, perceptions of meaning, and anything else that happens between the ears.

That would be a pretty accurate description - thinkin globally.

(from wiki) The noosphere is best described as a sort of 'collective consciousness' of human-beings. It emerges from the interaction of human minds. The noosphere has grown in step with the organization of the human mass in relation to itself as it populates the earth. As mankind organizes itself in more complex social networks, the higher the noosphere will grow in awareness.

Memes are the vehicles by which the contents of the noosphere are passed from person to person. Or does this only pertain to judgments of good/bad and judgments of meaning? Are the truths of mathematics, for instance, passed on by memes?

A good question… wiki describes a meme as a postulated unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, gets transmitted from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. Based on that I would assume mathematics (the concept of a symbolic representation of the physical world) to be a meme.

As I think I said before, I can see only two basic epistemological assumptions that one can make:

1) The world really does exist, as it appears to exist, independently of the mind, and we in some mysterious way actually know reality itself.

2) We don't know reality itself, but our knowledge is in some way mediated; but then it becomes impossible to argue your way to knowledge of reality without at least implicitly making assumption #1.

I don't think either assumption can be proven, but everything depends on which one you choose. How do you decide?

No decision to make. The world really does exist however the context in which we see the world gives it the meaning we attach to it.

Here I was referring only to our knowledge of the bare existence of physical things outside our minds, not to any meaning that we attach to them or value judgments that we make about them. Does that alter your answer?

I go with 1) in that I see a rock can feel its warmth, hardness etc – it exists in the physical world. The ‘concept’ of rock however only exists in the noological

A lizard ‘knows’ a rock exists because it can warm itself on it – but does it ‘know’ it’s a rock?

So qualia involve matters of agreement, i.e. common judgment, regarding the qualities that things possess; and some of those qualities do not refer to the things in themselves, but to their conformity to parameters that exist only in the mind, such as the rules of a game. Is that correct?

We may both agree that the tennis ball is ‘yellow’ but you cannot know my understanding of yellow. I think this differs from the rules of a game in that they are meant to be objective – not observer dependent.

But it sounds as though the idea carried by this particular meme is "women with certain characteristics are attractive". In other words, on the theory you are propounding there seems to be nothing objective about it in the sense of having anything to do with the woman herself. Aesthetics is just a matter of an arbitrary (or perhaps biologically based) association of the shape of a woman and my feelings about her. How then can the judgment of the beauty of a woman be considered objective in any sense?

Only by mutual agreement and then only in a limited sense – I limited to those who agree.

What I am suggesting is that there is only consciousness, a Self. The 'I' we perceive ourselves to be is a construct built on that consciousness.

So we infer the existence of consciousness from our perceptions of ourselves? You seem to be making a distinction between consciousness and self-consciousness, and I'm not following.

I think it is the other way round. We infer the perception of ourselves from he existence of consciousness. Consciousness I see as a continuum on which self consciousness exists. Consciousness is not exclusive to our species but it would appear that self aware consciousness is.

I'm still confused. Are you saying that, from the fact that we are self-aware, we infer that there is an "I" that is aware of itself?

The reflective nature of human consciousness allows it to build relationships around that at reflectivity – effectively creating an “I�. When we say “I am…� we build a subject/verb/object relationship which puts meat on the bones of ‘I�. The sense of self is made up of all those things we are in relationship with. Whenever you see the sentence “I am…� we see a relationship of some sort. E.g. I am a man (relationship with the idea of a man); I am happy (relationship with those things we believe make us happy); I am a husband (relationship with my wife and my ideas of what it is to be a husband) etc.

Earlier I think I described time, objectively speaking, as a coefficient of change, or the medium in which change occurs, and I believe you agreed that this existed independently of the mind. Are you now saying that there is no such thing outside the mind? You seem to be denying that we actually move through time, and saying that time is just an illusion.

The concepts we call time exist in the mind. We observe change in ‘things’ – from this we infer that we are moving through this concept we call time. I think our sense of self is caught up in this idea of time. As I may have pointed out before (or elsewhere – conversations can get confused) our reflective consciousness takes a bit of the past (memories) and a bit of the future (anticipations), wrap it around ‘now’ to build what Humphrey called a ‘thick moment of time’.

If we (conceptually) ignore the past and future and deal only with ‘now’ the universe as we know it is emergent – the past and future only exist relative to ‘now’ – so only ‘now’ is real.