Time is Illusory

[Chap]

... it might be objectively true that Augustine wrote too redundantly.

Too redundantly for what? For who? Augustine's audience was nothing like the general literate population of today. The only safe methodological rule is to start by assuming that an ancient writer knew his own world and his own readership well enough, and that he wrote in a way that was suited to that world and to that readership. Of course if we find other ancient writers telling us something like 'Augustine is really yawn-provoking. All those unnecessary repetitions and elaborations ...', then we have learned something interesting. But then I have said all that before.

[Some Schmo]

Would we say that height is illusory?

By the way, the height/length of a thing can definitely be illusory, depending on its context. Consider the following:

[Morley]

... it might be objectively true that Augustine wrote too redundantly.

Too redundantly for what? For who? Augustine's audience was nothing like the general literate population of today. The only safe methodological rule is to start by assuming that an ancient writer knew his own world and his own readership well enough, and that he wrote in a way that was suited to that world and to that readership. Of course if we find other ancient writers telling us something like 'Augustine is really yawn-provoking. All those unnecessary repetitions and elaborations ...', then we have learned something interesting. But then I have said all that before.

Thank you for doing such a nice job of engaging this, Chap.

Physics Guy: Saying " ... it might be objectively true that Augustine wrote too redundantly" is like complaining that there's too much math in physics. This has little to do with cultural relativism and everything to do with mastery of subject matter.
.

[Res Ipsa]

Would we say that height is illusory?

By the way, the height/length of a thing can definitely be illusory, depending on its context. Consider the following:

This is the part where I get way too persnickety.

I don't think the length of lines is illusory.
I don't think the perception of the length of lines is illusory.
I think the perception that the length of the lines is unequal is illusory.

[Some Schmo]

This is the part where I get way too persnickety.

I don't think the length of lines is illusory.
I don't think the perception of the length of lines is illusory.
I think the perception that the length of the lines is unequal is illusory.

It sounds like you're saying that the illusion is created by the context.

Your last two sentences seem contradictory to me. How can you view the lines as unequal but still have a proper sense of their individual length?

ETA: And why does it feel like I'm arguing with a lawyer rather than discussing something with RI? (just playing with you...)

[Res Ipsa]

This is the part where I get way too persnickety.

I don't think the length of lines is illusory.
I don't think the perception of the length of lines is illusory.
I think the perception that the length of the lines is unequal is illusory.

It sounds like you're saying that the illusion is created by the context.

Your last two sentences seem contradictory to me. How can you view the lines as unequal but still have a proper sense of their individual length?

ETA: And why does it feel like I'm arguing with a lawyer rather than discussing something with RI? (just playing with you...)

LOL. No way for you to know this, but these are the kinds of questions I've argued about (mostly with myself) over the years. And when I argue with myself, it tends to be lawyers all the way down.

Here's what I'm trying to do in my own head: allow illusion to have some kind of meaning that isn't "something that is perceived differently by different people." Because, if that's what illusion means, then everything we perceive is an illusion and it makes a perfectly good word kind of boring and useless (in my opinion).

Our brain takes all kinds of input and translates it into a map of reality that isn't 100% accurate and isn't a perfect match to anyone else's map. To me, that doesn't meet the "deception" element of an illusion. It's like, I don't know, maybe like a normally distributed error like a typical sampling error in a survey. An illusion, to me, is something different. It causes us all to misperceive something in the same way. The error is all the same, as opposed to being distributed around the objective reality.

So, to me, the mere fact that we perceive time pass at different rates is just the ordinary, boring fact that our maps aren't perfect. But the example of the lines you posted and the magician's floating lady trick are illusions because they deceive us all in the same way.

Something like that.

[Some Schmo]

LOL. No way for you to know this, but these are the kinds of questions I've argued about (mostly with myself) over the years. And when I argue with myself, it tends to be lawyers all the way down.

Is that an example of "occupational hazard?"

(hehe)

Here's what I'm trying to do in my own head: allow illusion to have some kind of meaning that isn't "something that is perceived differently by different people." Because, if that's what illusion means, then everything we perceive is an illusion and it makes a perfectly good word kind of boring and useless (in my opinion).

Our brain takes all kinds of input and translates it into a map of reality that isn't 100% accurate and isn't a perfect match to anyone else's map. To me, that doesn't meet the "deception" element of an illusion. It's like, I don't know, maybe like a normally distributed error like a typical sampling error in a survey. An illusion, to me, is something different. It causes us all to misperceive something in the same way. The error is all the same, as opposed to being distributed around the objective reality.

So, to me, the mere fact that we perceive time pass at different rates is just the ordinary, boring fact that our maps aren't perfect. But the example of the lines you posted and the magician's floating lady trick are illusions because they deceive us all in the same way.

Something like that.

I can relate to your thought process. Thinking about this thread, it occurred to me that my concept of "illusion" is broader than I originally considered.

Here's where we diverge, I think: it's not just differences in what two people may have perceived, but what I, as an individual, perceive one moment compared to the next. It's the difference between an estimate and a real measurement. So time seems to drag sometimes and goes really quickly others, but I can always look at a clock to see how much time really passed. The lack of consistency within one individual is what points to the feeling of time passage being illusory.

Maybe "illusion" isn't a binary thing (it's either an illusion or not an illusion). Maybe some things are more consistently illusory than others, or are more effective as illusions than other things (fooling more people).

But you've actually touched on something that I've kind of suspected all along: that we suffer from illusions way more often than not because of the way or brains are wired, and that our perception is imperfect. We aren't sporting perfect maps of reality. I don't think that really affects the definition of the word, but makes us realize how often our perception is inaccurate. If we can't say how long something is without a measuring stick, then it seems to me we suffer from regular illusions. We test and measure things because we know deep down that our suspicions are regularly wrong. We keep clocks because we don't keep perfect time in our heads.

[Res Ipsa]

I like it. Five thumbs up!

[Some Schmo]

I like it. Five thumbs up!

That is so weird. I could have sworn you had five thumbs on one hand.

I have got to stop dropping acid before my visits here.

[Res Ipsa]

Or I need to start.