As usual, you seriously outgun me when it comes to discussions like this. But I think it's important not to extend my comments beyond the narrow scope in which I was making them, which was in the context of some saying that "now" doesn't really exist. (Poorly paraphrased.)
To begin with, there are some significant similarities in the sense of control systems and human cognition. After all, humans are 'machines' when it comes to accomplishing physical activities -- and we're subject to many of the same sorts of 'control' problems that our inventions have to overcome. I did not intend to imply that that encompasses all of human cognition ... but it is at least part of what we are.
That said, I wasn't really intending to extend my analogy very far at all -- it was really no more than an observation of the similarity in the problem being solved; i.e., how to bridge the gap between sensing and processing; and how to think about the "time constant" of the human system, and the environment in which it's acting.
If one focuses solely on the difference between "then," "now," and "later," I think one must accept that there really are epistemological difficulties with the "now." There's a finite-duration gap between sensing and understanding that (I think) cannot be bridged. And again, that's a problem also faced by control systems.
I probably failed to clearly place this activity within the bigger picture, however, which is where "human perception/cognition" more properly resides.
Specifically, humans don't exist merely within a cyclic control loop; we also understand ourselves to be operating within a continuum that includes both past and future. Even if the aforementioned lag between sensing and processing imposes a short period of uncertainty about "now," our awareness of context allows us to operate as if that lag did not exist. And despite the lag between "actual" and "perceived" now, I think there's no serious doubt that an objective "now" actually exists.
Our lives are made much easier by the fact that the world around us typically operates with a much longer time constant. Sporting events tend to push us to and beyond that cognitive limit, of course, as do things like warfare.
I wonder, r9etb — what is your view, your opinion, of this matter? How do we "square" the historical data with science?
To broaden things beyond the original narrow scope, I think it's just a plain fact that (aside from autonomic responses) humans don't actually spend all that of our mental efforts dealing with the "now." And, beyond that, we don't even spend all that much time "on the time line." This thread is a great example: the subject matter has very little indeed to do with the day-to-day issues that define my life. My thoughts -- and those of most folks, probably -- tend to range very far from our moment-to-moment activities, a lot of the time. And I think that stands as evidence that we humans have a (very limited) ability to take a "God's-eye view" of reality. And that is the proper context in which to address the slippery question of "now."
And to answer your question, I think it's only at this level that we can "'square' the historical data with science." From that perspective, science is really just one of several (many?) different ways of viewing and assessing reality -- and one, moreover, that is pretty much useless unless it's applied in conjunction with those other means of perception.
This is made clear by your discussions of Bohr and Einstein's views -- they're not talking about "evidence" per se, nor the interpretation of it; rather, they're talking about the overarching reality within which that activity takes place. And yet there's no serious doubt that both gentlemen were engaged in "science" when they were wrangling at a philosophical level with the issues raised by quantum mechanics. At that level, the "science" and "philosophy" (and also religion) are essentially inseparable -- to attempt to separate them into separate and exclusive forms of cognition is not just unnecessary, it's positively harmful to our attempts to come to grips with "reality." And thus we must conclude that our FRiend Coyoteman's comment about science vs. religion vs. philosophy -- while ideologically appealing to some -- are not really all that compelling after all.
Beautifully said, r9etb! Perhaps needless to say, I so agree. (I couldn't resist adding the bolds. )
And granted, "there are some significant similarities in the sense of control systems and human cognition," as you describe. But you aren't willing to push the analogy too far, for you recognize there are significant differences as well....
For as you wrote:
...humans don't exist merely within a cyclic control loop; we also understand ourselves to be operating within a continuum that includes both past and future. Even if the aforementioned lag between sensing and processing imposes a short period of uncertainty about "now," our awareness of context allows us to operate as if that lag did not exist. And despite the lag between "actual" and "perceived" now, I think there's no serious doubt that an objective "now" actually exists.If humans indeed lived "merely" within a cyclic control loop, then there would be no human freedom and, with no freedom, no human creativity. For purpose-built controllers "merely" execute their programs (as written for them by human beings). Controllers have no "freedom" to do anything else. I gather researchers in artificial intelligence are aware of this constraint and are trying to figure out how to get around it. Probably they have a way to go here, assuming what they seek is even possible at all.
I thought this was so insightful:
My thoughts -- and those of most folks, probably -- tend to range very far from our moment-to-moment activities, a lot of the time. And I think that stands as evidence that we humans have a (very limited) ability to take a "God's-eye view" of reality. And that is the proper context in which to address the slippery question of "now."Yes; but very limited. For the "God's eye view" is from eternity, while our view is bound by our spatiotemporal position and "the arrow of [linear] time." To imagine what such a view might be like, it would be to see all past, present, and future, of all that there is, ever was, or ever will be, all "at once," in what we humans would call an "instant" of time. We cannot even begin to imagine what such a view would be like!
Anyhoot, it seems the "God's eye view" would be of an eternal Present, an eternal Now. Since my faith teaches that man is made in the "image" (or likeness, reflection) of God, on that basis we may believe that man possesses something like the capacity to experience this Eternal Now, albeit in some far "weaker" fashion. And though I here drag the "squishy matter" (scientifically speaking) of the soul back into the discussion, If the human mind can experience anything like an Eternal Now, the soul would likely be the "sensorium" of it....
So here I'm mixing up science and religion! But I think this is permissible, provided we clearly understand in which "baileywick" we are working/thinking at the time, and properly disclose such details to the reader. Which I have just done. :^)
For it seems we are agreed, r9etb, that science, philosophy, and religion ought not to be separated, regarded as "hostile" to one another — not if we want to gain the biggest, most comprehensive view of Reality that can be obtained by the human mind.
I find your essay/posts so delightful to read and think about, r9etb. Thank you so very much for your wonderful contributions to this thread!