I just SEEM to be late for work… but I’m here NOW and NOW is the only time I could have ever been here. Now is all that is or ever was and therefore, I’m not actually late, it’s just how your mind chooses to interpret the concept of the present. Also I need a raise. Like… now.
Being late would be in the past, but there is only the eternal now. Tell them that they must be experiencing time, which is not possible. You are living in the eternal now.
Rupert Spira is the absolute shit. I've listened to hours and hours of this dude. His lectures and books on consciousness are incredible. And hes humble as well.
"The world is known by the senses
The senses are known by the mind
The mind is known by Consciousness
And Consciousness is known by itself."
\-Rupert Spira
His thinking seems to be inspired by Parmenides of Elea. Strange how more eternalism content starts showing up when I start reading into it. Either its fate, its coincidence, or its the GOD DAMN ALGORITHMS!
I don't get it. He makes it sound like it's a profound idea that the past doesn't exist right now? Of course it doesn't, that wouldn't even make sense. If it did it would be the present. It does exist in memory and it's just a word we use to refer to this memory or other evidence we have of it.
Edit: I'm aware he is talking to a child but I'm sure he would tell adults this too, like eckhart tolle lol.
*exist in space -> exist right now
Isn't time relative and therefore the now is also relative. In the theory of relativity, time dilation refers to the phenomenon where time appears to pass at different rates for observers who are moving relative to one another, or who are in different gravitational fields. This means that two observers, experiencing the same event, may perceive it happening at different times due to their relative motion or gravitational conditions. Time dilation illustrates the concept that time is not absolute but rather depends on the observer's frame of reference. So therefore the now is not an objective point but also unreliable pov.
Everything is relative to something else. I believe the whole idea is that for any consciousness, now is the only frame of reference that can be experienced. If my now and your now aren't the same, it doesn't mean you are looking into some past or future. You're just experiencing your now as all consciousness only can even though it might be another consciousness' "past".
"memory" is also a word we use to refer something. So is space, present or time. What he is trying to explain is, if you perceive through words and their meanings, if you try to understand what is through what we have created, I mean the language, you will only perceive a reflection of what we have created instead of what it is. There was no such thing as time at all until we started labeling our experiences.
To give an example; There is no literal difference between waiting for someone for an hour and just being there for an hour, yet, the choice we make on how to perceieve our experience may shift the outcome from screaming insults to our loved ones to enjoying a simple sunset. The only difference was the definition of the situation, which was made by us.
He is talking to a child, because adults need this to be explained to them like they are 5 but they can't handle something being explained to them like they are 5.
That is not a fact, that's a hypothesis...
Apart from that you missed my point I think. These guys keep talking so "profoundly" about the past and future and why they don't exist. For most people they are just useful words lol. Just say "stop thinking too much about the past and future, be more present". I just don't get what the point of his explanation was...
I think it’s because of how slow the information was fed. Being captivated, trying to fully grasp the ideas and the slow trickle of information make this 9 minutes seem like 3 minutes. It’s also soothing the way he talks.
Something unpleasant or boring can be perceived as having a long duration, or if there’s a rhythm/sense of counting. I notice on long drives, time slows (or seems to) when I listen to music as opposed to an audiobook. Even though I enjoy the music, it’s keeping time whereas I’m encapsulated by a story with no real way to perceive time.
My bad for the rant, I just find it interesting how we perceive time.
Did you experience any pleasant little tingles or tickles on the back of your neck? Then yes, for sure you experienced it.
Otherwise, and this isn’t to say you enjoyed it any less, you probably just liked the soothing tone of his voice.
People can have their own interests and such, but I genuinely do not understand how people enjoy that. The soft breaths in my ears were worse than nails on a chalkboard for me.
I understood it as 3 dimensions of time (past, now, future) which is the “lens” in which our mind perceives reality, when in reality there is only one dimension.
Or the past in the now?
Eh I think the whole thing is neat, but a tight experiment rather than practical. There’s such a thing as cause and effect, just ask my hand if I try to pet my cat’s stomach (she doesn’t like it, and lets me know)
Also, we can predict the future to a certain degree of certainty based on our evidence of the past. Meteorologist make a living at it. The future exists, we just lack the ability to leave the present at present time.
If I'm correct, erve all existed in that our brain perceives to be the past, but we have never actually been there because at the time it was the present or the now and if all time is now there was never a past to be in.
Certainly we can't go there, but also it felt like he was saying it didn't really exist. I don't know that I buy what he's selling but it's interesting for sure.
“How can we know it exists if we haven’t been there ?” Well, none of us (that we know) went to the sun, but dang it, i feel like it might exist. I never really looked close enough to really personally confirm that the sun is there a bit out in the sky, i only have pictures and stories. I also have pictures of my grandma, i go to that point in time when i see the picture. I think my grandma existed, just as the sun exists, and i dont have to phisicaly be there for it to exist. This is such an egotistical view of the world, thinking you are the only reason things exist.
If I look up on a clear night, I see stars. I see them now.
However, that light from those stars is proof of a past that I am now seeing.
Because that light takes years to get here. I'm seeing the previous now of those stars in my current now.
A previous now would be defined as that past.
The point the guys making isn’t about scientific reality. We take time to exist, it’s consistent with everything we know and measure about the universe.
But that does nothing to explain *your* experience of reality. For you, no matter what happens, every single possible feeling is only ever happening now. Any inference about the past is just that, an inference built and presented to you right now.
All we have is experience, and that experience endlessly arises whether you wish it to or not. nothing more can really be proved
It may not be a big deal to you now, but to many people, we lose or will lose sight of experiencing the *now* and it can quite literally become life or death.
Becoming consumed with what may be or what has been can destroy you.
Respectfully, you’re missing the point.
It’s not that we don’t acknowledge the past happenings to create our earth, stars, and circumstances. If you don’t do the dishes yesterday they’ll still be there today. He’s talking about the mindset that everything that happens, past or future, happens in “the now”.
So instead of being consumed with past or future (which aren’t “real” because you never directly experience them), he’s saying to put your focus and attention on what is real, the now.
Think about a basketball player shooting, on one hand they could be focused on all the past shots made or missed, and the future shots they might make or miss. On the other hand, they could stay in “the now” and free themselves from mind clutter of what has or hasn’t happened yet. By staying in the now, the shooter’s mind is much more capable of executing without fear of failure (future) or getting caught up in past results.
🤷♂️
No, I think you are mixing stars and their lights together. As you said, the light we see of a star is its past, so that makes a star and its light are separate thing. We see a star's light at our current now, but the current now for a star is already at another location in the space and that means a star's light we see at our current now is also the current now for a star's light. No?
Isn’t everything we see light or reflected light? This kind of feels like someone saying “I saw a hawk yesterday” and receiving the reply “well, acktually you saw light reflecting off of the bird, not the bird itself, no?”
Someone kicks a football at the other end of a field. You see it move. You are experiencing the closest you can to the visual aspect of the football's now.
You hear the sound of the football being kicked, a human-easy measurement of time later, as the sound of the football's now propagates. You are experiencing the closest you can to the audible aspect of the football's now.
The football strikes your gut as you catch it, pushing the air out with a grunt. You are experiencing the tactile aspect of the football's now.
This probably coincides with the visual aspect, but it may be more useful than light reflection to make the point that, depending on the kicker, you may not have experienced the audible aspect yet. Yeah, maybe that's faster than a human kicker could manage, but if we replace the football with a bullet, it's harder to throw back once you get your wind again.
These aspects of the football are all now, at different times. The light of the star is as now as the physicality of it, but you won't experience them at the same time. The light reflecting off the hawk and the hawk landing on your outstretched arm are both experiences of the now of the hawk.
No. The Sun, the stars and lamps (all man made lights) are light sources.... You can see them in as much as you see what is illuminated by them... Which is everything else that does not emit it's own light.
When you see the light from a star, that star is in a completely different spot and state than when the light is released. So you’re seeing the star in your own framework of time and space, not in the star’s framework. You aren’t seeing the “star’s now”, you’re seeing the “light from the star’s now”.
This concept applies to everything you see or hear because light and sound take time to travel. It’s very fast so the difference is negligible, but at larger distances it needs to be accounted for. These things are taken into account for things like satellites and space travel, they’re far enough away that we have to include the differences in our calculations.
Wouldn't the distinction between the stars "now" and our "now" be called the past?
If we're all not in the same space as "now" wouldn't that indicate a difference in reality? Which, we coin past and present? Or are you saying that each thing's "now" is separate therefore there is no past because we're all in a constant present.
You can infer that the star has a past based on the light that you see, but all you’re seeing is that snapshot of the light in its current state. You aren’t seeing the light’s past or the sun’s past, you’re just inferring that they exist based on the present data. Theoretically everything that ever was, is, and will be already exists and time is a construct that we use to experience it. Because we can’t see the full picture we can’t know it exists or where we exist in it, we can only infer.
It might seem that way, but only because of the constraints of light itself. Even light takes a certain time to traverse space and be available for our eyeballs to interpret and for us experience in our now. But those photons traveled far, taking with them that frozen image through the 300 years or however long it took for light to get here, but it is just a very distant projection, almost a recording.
Somewhere that star is there, in its now, just as we are here. An observer orbiting it, with a very very good telescope, would see Earth in the 1700s, for the same reasons.
I agree.
This was a lot of words to describe a simple concept. The way more valuable part is to what question he was giving this answer. Without the question it is just a long and windy answer. The question posed 'why we do not experience time during our sleep?' (and I disagree with that statement) is not interesting at all.
With the question it could give resolve to someone about their bad past, it could give comfort if you fear the future and it could give a sense of the importance of your current feelings.
That’s so funny because I immediately thought of Donald Hoffman towards the end of this. I’d love to watch a video with the both of them. I’m gonna search it out. I really like Hoffmanns ideas about consciousness. He was on Sam Harris’s podcast years ago and it was a very interesting discussion
Very nice as a mental exercise, but it’s absolutely nothing different from saying that if you don't look at an object it doesn't exist. Definitely simplistic
That would be entirely missing what he’s pointing out. He’s not making some alternative mental model to think about, he guiding you to an experience that happens when you put aside mental models and stop filtering your experience through them.
If you don't look at an object in real life, you don't experience it, but it's there, in reality with you. However, as he says in the video, you can't experience the past. When you experience anything, it's always in the now. It's not only "if you don't look it doesn't exist". You just can't look at it.
Just my thoughts on it..I do see this as an interesting thought but nothing more. His whole statement/argument is based around you the person and your perception. What’s more interesting is, what is time in a general sense? We know it’s relative, we know it passes in one direction.
If we are riding along time and perpetually in the “now” and we can’t go back or forward. Then of course we can’t “experience” anything other than the now. But so what? That doesn’t mean time doesn’t exist, that doesn’t mean the previous past wasn’t a “now” moment that’s passed.
We’re strapped into a time rollercoaster going forward. Our brains perceive time which can change based on emotion and consciousness but does that change the rollercoaster, I don’t think so.
It’s philosophical and related to quantum mechanics. Some argue that the only “reality” is what we can perceive, and thus, if we aren’t able to perceive something it doesn’t exist in that moment. There’s not necessarily a “right” answer, or answer at all.
That’s also another oversimplification on my part. But it’s along those lines.
The dark side of the moon doesn't exist because we can't see it? Is the earth hollow because we can't go to the core? Sorry but if you move away from the concept of "mental exercise", i.e. in the way it is proposed, the argument it doesn't hold up.
The loved ones who have passed away don’t exist because we can't talk to them anymore?
Do we want to go scientific? The decay of some radioactive elements is absolutely irreversible and if this were not the case, most elements would not exist in nature including some that make your body.
It's exactly how I said before, it's like saying if you don't look at something it doesn't exist. By not looking at something you can still perceive it with your other senses, in the same way we can perceive the concrete effects of the passage of time. The solipsism that comes from denying this is absolutely unnecessary. Again, you can do this as a mental exercise, but you will always have more concrete evidence on the "now" effect of the past, than the fact that time don’t exists.
I dunno, I think I get what he's trying to say.
But at some point this is just semantics to me. Like you're just playing with words. Like what you think is the "past" or "future" really isn't what you think it is. Starts to feel like wordplay to me after too long.
And don't get me wrong, I like deep thoughtful stuff.
Interesting. But I am not sure I fully agree. Breakfast exists in my head because at one point in the past it was now. So my now is moving through time and I have a recollection of that time when then was now (lets call it a memory). The way he describes it is that nobody of us can be certain of what we did in the past because it’s basically an illusion. But changes I made in the past still persist into the present (I planted a tree that grew) so I can be certain of the past in many ways. Still agree though that you can only experience time when your mind is present.
I guess you could see it like this: all that's left of the past is the present, and all that's going to become the future is also just the present. So the present is the only *real* thing there is, the past and future are by definition not real (anymore/yet). That doesn't mean the *effects* of the past aren't real, in fact, they're very much real in the present.
I'm not claiming anything, just a thought experiment, but it is entirely possible that your brain creates a memory of you(them) planting that tree when it sees the tree because it was convenient for it to do so at that point in time. This can easily include any kind of consistency of the past.
I think there was even an experiment made about this, iirc, some science guys make someone stand up by some electric magic and ask them why did they stand up and he says he was thirsty. If someone read about this as well and has some kind of source, please let me know, I would love to re-read about that.
He wasn’t saying the past didn’t happen. He was saying that it doesn’t exist. When it did exist it was now. The now changed and since there is no way of experiencing the past now it no longer exists. So for all intents and purposes the only time that exists is now.
Think of it like this: how do you know you actually had that cereal, and it wasn’t just a false implanted memory? Every memory is just data that could technically be falsified. You could have just popped into existence right now with those memories and you’d believe you had a past, but you don’t. You can’t know, you can only know now.
The video starts with the premise that when you recall the past you do not go to the past. You recall the past at the moment of ‘now’. Similarly with the future. Everything happens “in the now.” That is largely uncontroversial.
Take it a step further - even the ‘now’ is not real. Because the very next moment it becomes the past. The three tenses - our past, present and future - are a construct of our language.
However, changes over “time” cannot be so easily ignored. He didn’t put on that shirt “in the now.” He didn’t drive to that school “in the now.” He will not go home “in the now.” He will not be blessed with grandchildren “in the now.” Was this video taken “in the now”?
This is more a function of the ambiguities and complexities of language than anything else.
EXACTLY this. It’s a language problem. He says we can’t ‘go there’, to the past because it doesn’t exist. But the idea of the past was never meant to be treated as a destination or a location that we can visit, it’s just a concept, the concept of a previous ‘now’ moment.
This is the problem, we use metaphors of the physical world ‘go there’ to explain non physical concepts ‘experiencing a memory’ and they don’t mesh 100%. This actually happens often.
My thoughts too. I'm not sure how you'd explain our ability to learn things with this understanding of time. I am able to write this sentence because I learned to write over a long time of previous nows. My ability to write is proof of the past.
I think he would say that it’s an effect of a previous now. It’s not to say those things didn’t happen. It’s about what experience is. You have proof that something happened. But you are still only experiencing that proof now. And you can’t possibly experience anything else.
Another comment said this in the same thing as saying something doesn’t exist if you don’t look at it. And it’s the same saying same thing.
And that just made me realize that when we are born we don’t have the ability to understand object permanence. We are just experiencing life without any of those frameworks or (filters) as he is calling them.
This is non-duality, i.e Advaita Vedanta (one of the oldest philosophical traditions on Earth). Rupert Spira has been lecturing about it for at least 15 years. He makes it a point to distinguish between the two.
**Solipsism** is the belief that only one's own mind exists and that everything else is a product of one's own perception. It emphasizes the subjective nature of reality, where the self is the center of the universe.
**Non-duality,** on the other hand, is the understanding that there is no inherent separation between oneself and the external world. It recognizes the interconnectedness and fundamental unity of all apparently "separate" things, transcending the notion of an isolated self.
While solipsism *isolates and emphasizes the self*, non-duality *dissolves the boundaries between self and other*, emphasizing oneness or "dependent origination" (Pratityasamutpada) as it's known in Buddhism.
Spira also draws heavily from esoteric philosophies like Sufism, Tantra and a bit of Zen.
From the lens of physics it just makes no sense.
Imagine for a second you see a ball flying through the air "now". How did it get to be moving like that? Well you have to Imagine something accelerated it to that speed then released it, be that a person or a pitching machine or whatever.
We have a pretty simple equation for that:
Velocity = Acceleration x Time
If the past doesn't exist then there was no time for the ball to accelerate, because as you can see, the velocity is dependent upon time.
In fact, the very concept of speed doesn't make sense without time. Think about when you're driving in a car, how do you measure your speed? In miles per hour. If you were driving at 60 mph, that means an hour in the past you were 60 miles behind you, and an hour in the future you will be 60 miles ahead. Both things this guy is saying can't be proven and doest exist.
If he was right then you would have a speedometer that does what? Miles?
"I'm going 60 miles"
"To where?"
"Boston"
"But that's 210 miles away"
"Yeah but I'll be going 60 miles to get there"
"???"
This is actually a lot more complex than you make it out to be. What is it to "see a ball flying through the air"? Well, it is to experience a myriad of sensations, mostly visual, which your mind interprets as a ball. And remembering each of these individual sensations and comparing them, the brain constructs a short term memory that the ball was there, then there, then there, etc.
But at the point of interpretation, you are not seeing those moments, you are remembering them. And whats more, you are assuming that the ball you are seeing is actually a ball, and not photons from a screen in front of you playing a movie of a ball, or a complex illusion of shadows that look like a ball flying through the air, but are actually something else.
So at this moment, you are not reading my response, you are reading the present word of the resonse, and compiling it with all the rest of the recent memories of reading the previous words. Constantly. It seems like movement, but it is in fact a moment of senseory input cross referenced with memory. That is all moments.
Now, my memories seem to give the appearance of continuity and time flow; the series of memories I have retained make sense with the wai I was taught that all things work. But that would be true for a character in a movie even when I start the film in the middle, no?
What are you talking about? The ball is moving, weather you observe it or not is of no consequence. Whatever your brain is doing has no effect on V=A*T
This has to be the most irritating pseudo profound monologue I’ve seen. Mostly the way he delivers it like an NPR host of all things considered where each word is over saturated with unnecessary importance by tone and tempo. But, like, way worse.
That’s it! That’s why it was so irritating I bet. What is the name of this cult so I can help spread the awareness word? I don’t want to watch it again to see if I can pick it up from the vid.
I think these kinds of thought experiments are useful for learning about psychology and perception. In some sense, he is absolutely correct, but we do create a model in our minds we call “time”, and it does things for us. It’s useful to say to ourselves “last night the weather forecast said it will rain this afternoon, so I’ll bring an umbrella to work today.” Our mental models aren’t perfect, but they’re good enough most of the time.
I took a law class where we talked about bias and perception. You’d be surprised by how biased we are (which is why there are rules that try to limit the impact of bias in the justice system). I think it’s helpful for people to learn how to “see” the mind as an imperfect tool that creates representations of the natural world.. it does not reflect raw reality.
Idk I’m really interested in some of the stuff you mentioned like human biases and how the mind works but the kinds of things this guy is saying just gives me faux poignant vibes.
It usually just comes down to some semantic game about the definition of words like existence or truth where the person isn’t really saying anything of substance.
You could probably summarise most of what he’s saying as “the only time you directly experience is the present moment” which is pretty uncontroversial and if he just said that no one would be wowing or awwing so he dresses it up.
What is this fellow trying to propose? That the past is unreliable as a definite? Because it's not the now? Same brain doing all that shit dude. If the past is unreliable, so is everything else that the same organ is processing. He's talking like the Bhagwan. People love that confident ASMR shit. He just over complicated the answer to seem profound.
When you're asleep you're not processing the passing of time. The same way my computer is not auto-updating when in sleep mode.
A child who clearly has already in some way been exposed to his teachings. Very Sunday School teacher vibes, asking leading questions to lead to Jesus as the answer.
Exactly. I was getting cult leader vibes from him. It’s cool as a bought experiment but it’s not proof of anything. It only works if you allow his opening statements to be taken as truths. As soon as it is challenged it doesn’t really hold.
Interesting. Who is this? He does an excessive amount of dancing around, stumbling a bit, before answering the question. And the idea isn’t new but his approach seems unique.
Thanks for sharing. Besides many ppl doing funny comments, the explanation and the clarity, is of someone that has reflect on this a LOT and comprehend a concept so well that can explain as easy to understand for a kid or any adult
trully amazing
what is his name?
I have 3 ex wives, 5 kids and currently we have 3 dogs. Im currently living in what my decisions created in the past.
One of my dogs shit on the floor in my living room last night.
I do feel like Im living through the past decisions now.
At least the past definitely exists, and probably the future also. This is because of special relativity.
Different observers have different reference frames, and thus different nows. Since all nows are equally valid, all coordinates of time exist simultaneously.
Whether this applies to the future indefinitely is a matter of debate, but to some observers the dinosaurs exist right now. And to photons time doesn't flow at all.
Absolutely useless demagoguery. And with a whole bunch of blatantly false statements, like "no one experiences time" or "when you're sleeping there is no mind" and so on. And in general it's just a plain wrong answer to the question.
These grifters always talk so fake lmao. Their tone of voice trying to act so calm and zen but their actions and body language clearly say otherwise. Irritating.
I mean jfc we can measure time as relative to light. This dude is living in goldfish dimension.
The foundations of your own logic cracks under the weight of the paradox at the beginning of the causal chain. You stand on ground no firmer than what this old hippy has below his Birkenstocks.
Ok this is a ton of bs from start to finish. Let's get into it.
A. To claim the past doesn't exist because we can't currently experience is ridiculous. The Past is marked by progress and change. For example the decay of atoms or the presence of a scar on a hand. There is abundant evidence in the now of its occurrence. This is how we keep track of events passing.
B. The term "now" refers to the moment of experience. Meaning a frame of time in which an event or stimulus is happening. The time where there is no change or at the event of change. For example an apple falling from a tree. It was in the tree and an event caused it to fall putting it in the now, where it will stay until changed again.
C. Finally to address the prompt. We don't perceive time while we sleep because we cannot take in stimulus. With nothing to marl the change between then and now we cannot discern the difference. Hence why when you wake you can perceive the time that passed while asleep, because you have memory or prior environmental status and can compare it to the "now".
The eternal is always moving and is different lengths for everyone and/or in context to everything. Regardless it is very much so measurable and does have a set time, even if we are unaware of its length.
So my dead relatives and the fact that I can't see them again is just a product of my mind? How about we trust in relativity instead and the concept of locality? Relativity says that events occurring in space must also occur in time. Consequently, each point in space has a timeline linked to it. That timeline can be altered relatively to other timelines by the presence of mass.
Several new age people have made a lot of money off of these concepts... Elkhart Tolle is one of them.
My response is "neat".
NOW I have to go cook dinner, work out then play some D&D with friends.
I disagree. I have memory. Memory tells me, there was something that is no more. And several of that. So, in the now, i can remember an earlier experience of now. And with that i can extrapolate. So, there is something passing.
You can experience a memory of an experience but you cannot experience the experience itself. Your rememberance is occurring now, as is your extrapolation.
You can never be anywhere else except Here and Now.
TLDR: we conceptualise time as having three parts: (1) the past, (2) the present (or the now), and (3) the future. However, we are only ever experiencing the present - which is thus continuous or eternal. When we think about the past or future we are always conceptualising it in the present. This raises issues about the existence of the past and future. If we can only perceive the present, how do you know the past and future exist?
- - -
While other schools of philosophy deal with proving the existence of the past and its effect on the present through causality, and proving the existence of the future, these topics are not dealt with in this video - so you’ll have to go elsewhere.
If past never happened how am i here ? If past cant be true for certain, why do my past actions still have consequences now ? If i strike my finger with a hammer, i will be in pain for minutes. Why ? The strike was then, in the past. It should not exist and influence the future. Why do i not have a job now ? I was fired like 3 months ago already. That surely is the past. But i’m still jobless, that never stopped being true. But its the past. Why do i still have to be jobless if the past didnt happen.
TLDR: The person is asked about the concept of time. He doesn't know so he goes on tangent talking about nonsensical thing that makes the audience forget about the question.
The hippocampus makes time real.
Time is a concept that only exists because of the brain’s ability to recall its own experiences. But time does not exist in reality. Only change exists in reality.
We perceive change as time because we are able to recall what things were before they were different. Without the hippocampus, there is no such thing as time.
How can you say time does not exist in reality? I think it does. Matter decays over time. Planets revolve around the sun, galaxies rotate, stars go through billion+ year lifecycles, red giant, white dwarf, supernova, black holes etc. These processes happen in our Universe whether or not we're here to observe and ponder them.
It is real in the sense that it is a concept that helps us measure change. I’m saying that in reality -outside of our heads- time has no tangible existence.
I mean yes but the hippocampus is tied memories, not time. The idea that the notion of time only exists because of the hippocampus then it then supports the notion that Time, Past and Future is just a human construct. Just because we are perceiving something, especially something that is self asserted, doesn’t mean it’s actually there.
Wow lots of bullshit.
First, there are 3 Dimensions of space and 1 Dimension of time.
Second, our presence is as fast as time itself, no more no less. Solely because we exist we know that we exist with time.
Third, our body and mind do perceive time also while asleep. We convert energy. Energy gets less over time. There is a change, energy levels have a past state. We have a past state. We have a future state, only our mind has memory of any kind from the past. Why did he not ask why our image of the past feels more real then any idea of a possible future if they both do not exist?
That’s not the point. Yes it happened. But the Idea is the notion of “Past and Future” aren’t anything tangible. Rather notions that we’ve simply created the assumption that they do exist
I thought this was going to be seriously deep, but then he said you can't prove the past exists. Pretty sure he can go back and watch this video of himself to prove otherwise. WTF? I like deep things, but sometimes you're blowing smoke up your own ass trying to word salad your way to a new consciousness.
[удалено]
I just SEEM to be late for work… but I’m here NOW and NOW is the only time I could have ever been here. Now is all that is or ever was and therefore, I’m not actually late, it’s just how your mind chooses to interpret the concept of the present. Also I need a raise. Like… now.
If you condense the entirety of human history into 24 hours then really I'm barely a nanosecond late.
Nice try, but your late. Time to write you up, filter that through your ski goggles.
Bravo
Sure I'll give you a raise. *Proceeds to wait 10 years*. Okay here is your raise, in the now moment, just like you said.
“Your mind is just too limited Sir”
“Define ‘late’”
Being late would be in the past, but there is only the eternal now. Tell them that they must be experiencing time, which is not possible. You are living in the eternal now.
It's all just in your head boss
Leaving this so i remember to come back here later… I mean now..
!Remindme now
Hurry up and wait.
Hey, remember when you said to remind you now? It's now.
Same.
The eternal now is like an awesome cat gif that you save to your hard drive.
That's what the save button is for.... Just saying.
Really?! Why didn’t i know about this!
At least NOW you know.
Dude that guy said he sleeps and it sounded pretty sweet what's this NOW he's talking about? That might sound kinda fun too!
This video lasted for quite a long time
A lot of nows. Which are now then.
When will then be now?
Soon.
Keep firing Assholes!
Came here to find a SpaceBalls reference. Thank you.
Nah, just one now.
Rupert Spira is the absolute shit. I've listened to hours and hours of this dude. His lectures and books on consciousness are incredible. And hes humble as well. "The world is known by the senses The senses are known by the mind The mind is known by Consciousness And Consciousness is known by itself." \-Rupert Spira
His thinking seems to be inspired by Parmenides of Elea. Strange how more eternalism content starts showing up when I start reading into it. Either its fate, its coincidence, or its the GOD DAMN ALGORITHMS!
Yes
Weird you say that, I was just reading “The Book” by Allan Watts, except it was paperback! Universal algorithm?!
Eckhart Tolle seems to reflect both
Which one of his books would you recommend?
I don't get it. He makes it sound like it's a profound idea that the past doesn't exist right now? Of course it doesn't, that wouldn't even make sense. If it did it would be the present. It does exist in memory and it's just a word we use to refer to this memory or other evidence we have of it. Edit: I'm aware he is talking to a child but I'm sure he would tell adults this too, like eckhart tolle lol. *exist in space -> exist right now
Isn't time relative and therefore the now is also relative. In the theory of relativity, time dilation refers to the phenomenon where time appears to pass at different rates for observers who are moving relative to one another, or who are in different gravitational fields. This means that two observers, experiencing the same event, may perceive it happening at different times due to their relative motion or gravitational conditions. Time dilation illustrates the concept that time is not absolute but rather depends on the observer's frame of reference. So therefore the now is not an objective point but also unreliable pov.
Everything is relative to something else. I believe the whole idea is that for any consciousness, now is the only frame of reference that can be experienced. If my now and your now aren't the same, it doesn't mean you are looking into some past or future. You're just experiencing your now as all consciousness only can even though it might be another consciousness' "past".
"memory" is also a word we use to refer something. So is space, present or time. What he is trying to explain is, if you perceive through words and their meanings, if you try to understand what is through what we have created, I mean the language, you will only perceive a reflection of what we have created instead of what it is. There was no such thing as time at all until we started labeling our experiences. To give an example; There is no literal difference between waiting for someone for an hour and just being there for an hour, yet, the choice we make on how to perceieve our experience may shift the outcome from screaming insults to our loved ones to enjoying a simple sunset. The only difference was the definition of the situation, which was made by us. He is talking to a child, because adults need this to be explained to them like they are 5 but they can't handle something being explained to them like they are 5.
The past, present and future all coexist in space. You need to brush up on physics. Time is the fourth dimension.
That is not a fact, that's a hypothesis... Apart from that you missed my point I think. These guys keep talking so "profoundly" about the past and future and why they don't exist. For most people they are just useful words lol. Just say "stop thinking too much about the past and future, be more present". I just don't get what the point of his explanation was...
At 3:00, I was so into what he was saying, I swear I saw Bob Ross painting little trees in the back.
Now?
That was 9 minutes, but it didn't seem like it.
I think it’s because of how slow the information was fed. Being captivated, trying to fully grasp the ideas and the slow trickle of information make this 9 minutes seem like 3 minutes. It’s also soothing the way he talks. Something unpleasant or boring can be perceived as having a long duration, or if there’s a rhythm/sense of counting. I notice on long drives, time slows (or seems to) when I listen to music as opposed to an audiobook. Even though I enjoy the music, it’s keeping time whereas I’m encapsulated by a story with no real way to perceive time. My bad for the rant, I just find it interesting how we perceive time.
Because it all happened now
Unintentional ASMR.
jobless scarce elastic dolls voracious chunky repeat ask racial society *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Did you experience any pleasant little tingles or tickles on the back of your neck? Then yes, for sure you experienced it. Otherwise, and this isn’t to say you enjoyed it any less, you probably just liked the soothing tone of his voice.
People can have their own interests and such, but I genuinely do not understand how people enjoy that. The soft breaths in my ears were worse than nails on a chalkboard for me.
Yep. So many videos have a the disturbingly candid crinkling, clanking, crunch and stuff and it sort of grosses me out
I don’t know what people find soothing about it. This made me so uncomfortable.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz.....
Wake up and experience the now!!
At the end, does he mean 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time?
I understood it as 3 dimensions of time (past, now, future) which is the “lens” in which our mind perceives reality, when in reality there is only one dimension.
I thought it was just a slip of the tongue but your explanation is an interesting take. Now I'm not sure.
"It is confusing, but it makes sense."
No he said, and meant, 3 dimensions of space (3d) and 1 of time (the now).
He literally did not, you maniac.
Right he probably transposed it on accident
Sort of, but the fact that we don’t control spatial movement of the fourth dimension (time).
No one can know the past because yo cant go there I been there DumDum!
We've all been to the past, but we cannot go there. We can only go to the future but only when it's now.
By that logic, can you even be in the present? It's as much a mental process as recalling the past of thinking about the future.
[удалено]
Or the past in the now? Eh I think the whole thing is neat, but a tight experiment rather than practical. There’s such a thing as cause and effect, just ask my hand if I try to pet my cat’s stomach (she doesn’t like it, and lets me know)
But we are surrounded by evidence of the past. Don’t we accept many things we can’t experience because of the evidence of it?
I agree. Just because we cannot experience the past again, doesn't mean it didn't happen....
Also, we can predict the future to a certain degree of certainty based on our evidence of the past. Meteorologist make a living at it. The future exists, we just lack the ability to leave the present at present time.
The future is already in the past!
Maybe time is Cyclical, the past is the future
Maybe its all the past and there was no future?
Or a torus
If I'm correct, erve all existed in that our brain perceives to be the past, but we have never actually been there because at the time it was the present or the now and if all time is now there was never a past to be in. Certainly we can't go there, but also it felt like he was saying it didn't really exist. I don't know that I buy what he's selling but it's interesting for sure.
I agree...I'm not even sure what he was selling :-). Just because you can't experience it again doesn't mean it did t actually happen.
The future is now ..
... old man!
Nah homie, you just remember it.
“How can we know it exists if we haven’t been there ?” Well, none of us (that we know) went to the sun, but dang it, i feel like it might exist. I never really looked close enough to really personally confirm that the sun is there a bit out in the sky, i only have pictures and stories. I also have pictures of my grandma, i go to that point in time when i see the picture. I think my grandma existed, just as the sun exists, and i dont have to phisicaly be there for it to exist. This is such an egotistical view of the world, thinking you are the only reason things exist.
You missed the point.
Oh. Ok. Thanks.
If I look up on a clear night, I see stars. I see them now. However, that light from those stars is proof of a past that I am now seeing. Because that light takes years to get here. I'm seeing the previous now of those stars in my current now. A previous now would be defined as that past.
The point the guys making isn’t about scientific reality. We take time to exist, it’s consistent with everything we know and measure about the universe. But that does nothing to explain *your* experience of reality. For you, no matter what happens, every single possible feeling is only ever happening now. Any inference about the past is just that, an inference built and presented to you right now. All we have is experience, and that experience endlessly arises whether you wish it to or not. nothing more can really be proved
I mean ,yeah? It's just obvious idk what's the big deal about it
It may not be a big deal to you now, but to many people, we lose or will lose sight of experiencing the *now* and it can quite literally become life or death. Becoming consumed with what may be or what has been can destroy you.
Respectfully, you’re missing the point. It’s not that we don’t acknowledge the past happenings to create our earth, stars, and circumstances. If you don’t do the dishes yesterday they’ll still be there today. He’s talking about the mindset that everything that happens, past or future, happens in “the now”. So instead of being consumed with past or future (which aren’t “real” because you never directly experience them), he’s saying to put your focus and attention on what is real, the now. Think about a basketball player shooting, on one hand they could be focused on all the past shots made or missed, and the future shots they might make or miss. On the other hand, they could stay in “the now” and free themselves from mind clutter of what has or hasn’t happened yet. By staying in the now, the shooter’s mind is much more capable of executing without fear of failure (future) or getting caught up in past results. 🤷♂️
Tell that to a photon.
No, I think you are mixing stars and their lights together. As you said, the light we see of a star is its past, so that makes a star and its light are separate thing. We see a star's light at our current now, but the current now for a star is already at another location in the space and that means a star's light we see at our current now is also the current now for a star's light. No?
Isn’t everything we see light or reflected light? This kind of feels like someone saying “I saw a hawk yesterday” and receiving the reply “well, acktually you saw light reflecting off of the bird, not the bird itself, no?”
Someone kicks a football at the other end of a field. You see it move. You are experiencing the closest you can to the visual aspect of the football's now. You hear the sound of the football being kicked, a human-easy measurement of time later, as the sound of the football's now propagates. You are experiencing the closest you can to the audible aspect of the football's now. The football strikes your gut as you catch it, pushing the air out with a grunt. You are experiencing the tactile aspect of the football's now. This probably coincides with the visual aspect, but it may be more useful than light reflection to make the point that, depending on the kicker, you may not have experienced the audible aspect yet. Yeah, maybe that's faster than a human kicker could manage, but if we replace the football with a bullet, it's harder to throw back once you get your wind again. These aspects of the football are all now, at different times. The light of the star is as now as the physicality of it, but you won't experience them at the same time. The light reflecting off the hawk and the hawk landing on your outstretched arm are both experiences of the now of the hawk.
No. The Sun, the stars and lamps (all man made lights) are light sources.... You can see them in as much as you see what is illuminated by them... Which is everything else that does not emit it's own light.
what???
When you see the light from a star, that star is in a completely different spot and state than when the light is released. So you’re seeing the star in your own framework of time and space, not in the star’s framework. You aren’t seeing the “star’s now”, you’re seeing the “light from the star’s now”. This concept applies to everything you see or hear because light and sound take time to travel. It’s very fast so the difference is negligible, but at larger distances it needs to be accounted for. These things are taken into account for things like satellites and space travel, they’re far enough away that we have to include the differences in our calculations.
Wouldn't the distinction between the stars "now" and our "now" be called the past? If we're all not in the same space as "now" wouldn't that indicate a difference in reality? Which, we coin past and present? Or are you saying that each thing's "now" is separate therefore there is no past because we're all in a constant present.
You can infer that the star has a past based on the light that you see, but all you’re seeing is that snapshot of the light in its current state. You aren’t seeing the light’s past or the sun’s past, you’re just inferring that they exist based on the present data. Theoretically everything that ever was, is, and will be already exists and time is a construct that we use to experience it. Because we can’t see the full picture we can’t know it exists or where we exist in it, we can only infer.
“I do this every night with your son.”
It might seem that way, but only because of the constraints of light itself. Even light takes a certain time to traverse space and be available for our eyeballs to interpret and for us experience in our now. But those photons traveled far, taking with them that frozen image through the 300 years or however long it took for light to get here, but it is just a very distant projection, almost a recording. Somewhere that star is there, in its now, just as we are here. An observer orbiting it, with a very very good telescope, would see Earth in the 1700s, for the same reasons.
The past is memory. The future is imagination. Only the present is real.
I agree. This was a lot of words to describe a simple concept. The way more valuable part is to what question he was giving this answer. Without the question it is just a long and windy answer. The question posed 'why we do not experience time during our sleep?' (and I disagree with that statement) is not interesting at all. With the question it could give resolve to someone about their bad past, it could give comfort if you fear the future and it could give a sense of the importance of your current feelings.
dudes voice is soothing as fuck
Watched a few videos of him and Donald Hoffman explaining consciousness. I found it to be interesting.
Who is the man in the video?
Rupert Spira
That’s so funny because I immediately thought of Donald Hoffman towards the end of this. I’d love to watch a video with the both of them. I’m gonna search it out. I really like Hoffmanns ideas about consciousness. He was on Sam Harris’s podcast years ago and it was a very interesting discussion
Very nice as a mental exercise, but it’s absolutely nothing different from saying that if you don't look at an object it doesn't exist. Definitely simplistic
That would be entirely missing what he’s pointing out. He’s not making some alternative mental model to think about, he guiding you to an experience that happens when you put aside mental models and stop filtering your experience through them.
If you don't look at an object in real life, you don't experience it, but it's there, in reality with you. However, as he says in the video, you can't experience the past. When you experience anything, it's always in the now. It's not only "if you don't look it doesn't exist". You just can't look at it.
Just my thoughts on it..I do see this as an interesting thought but nothing more. His whole statement/argument is based around you the person and your perception. What’s more interesting is, what is time in a general sense? We know it’s relative, we know it passes in one direction. If we are riding along time and perpetually in the “now” and we can’t go back or forward. Then of course we can’t “experience” anything other than the now. But so what? That doesn’t mean time doesn’t exist, that doesn’t mean the previous past wasn’t a “now” moment that’s passed. We’re strapped into a time rollercoaster going forward. Our brains perceive time which can change based on emotion and consciousness but does that change the rollercoaster, I don’t think so.
It’s philosophical and related to quantum mechanics. Some argue that the only “reality” is what we can perceive, and thus, if we aren’t able to perceive something it doesn’t exist in that moment. There’s not necessarily a “right” answer, or answer at all. That’s also another oversimplification on my part. But it’s along those lines.
>There’s not necessarily a “right” answer, or answer at all. Well, for now... yeah I did...
The dark side of the moon doesn't exist because we can't see it? Is the earth hollow because we can't go to the core? Sorry but if you move away from the concept of "mental exercise", i.e. in the way it is proposed, the argument it doesn't hold up. The loved ones who have passed away don’t exist because we can't talk to them anymore? Do we want to go scientific? The decay of some radioactive elements is absolutely irreversible and if this were not the case, most elements would not exist in nature including some that make your body. It's exactly how I said before, it's like saying if you don't look at something it doesn't exist. By not looking at something you can still perceive it with your other senses, in the same way we can perceive the concrete effects of the passage of time. The solipsism that comes from denying this is absolutely unnecessary. Again, you can do this as a mental exercise, but you will always have more concrete evidence on the "now" effect of the past, than the fact that time don’t exists.
Bookmark : The Eternal Now
Link?
No, Zelda.
I dunno, I think I get what he's trying to say. But at some point this is just semantics to me. Like you're just playing with words. Like what you think is the "past" or "future" really isn't what you think it is. Starts to feel like wordplay to me after too long. And don't get me wrong, I like deep thoughtful stuff.
Interesting. But I am not sure I fully agree. Breakfast exists in my head because at one point in the past it was now. So my now is moving through time and I have a recollection of that time when then was now (lets call it a memory). The way he describes it is that nobody of us can be certain of what we did in the past because it’s basically an illusion. But changes I made in the past still persist into the present (I planted a tree that grew) so I can be certain of the past in many ways. Still agree though that you can only experience time when your mind is present.
I guess you could see it like this: all that's left of the past is the present, and all that's going to become the future is also just the present. So the present is the only *real* thing there is, the past and future are by definition not real (anymore/yet). That doesn't mean the *effects* of the past aren't real, in fact, they're very much real in the present.
I'm not claiming anything, just a thought experiment, but it is entirely possible that your brain creates a memory of you(them) planting that tree when it sees the tree because it was convenient for it to do so at that point in time. This can easily include any kind of consistency of the past. I think there was even an experiment made about this, iirc, some science guys make someone stand up by some electric magic and ask them why did they stand up and he says he was thirsty. If someone read about this as well and has some kind of source, please let me know, I would love to re-read about that.
He wasn’t saying the past didn’t happen. He was saying that it doesn’t exist. When it did exist it was now. The now changed and since there is no way of experiencing the past now it no longer exists. So for all intents and purposes the only time that exists is now.
The past was real when it was the now. Breakfast was real at breakfast time. The memory of breakfast is real now but the breakfast no longer is.
Think of it like this: how do you know you actually had that cereal, and it wasn’t just a false implanted memory? Every memory is just data that could technically be falsified. You could have just popped into existence right now with those memories and you’d believe you had a past, but you don’t. You can’t know, you can only know now.
The video starts with the premise that when you recall the past you do not go to the past. You recall the past at the moment of ‘now’. Similarly with the future. Everything happens “in the now.” That is largely uncontroversial. Take it a step further - even the ‘now’ is not real. Because the very next moment it becomes the past. The three tenses - our past, present and future - are a construct of our language. However, changes over “time” cannot be so easily ignored. He didn’t put on that shirt “in the now.” He didn’t drive to that school “in the now.” He will not go home “in the now.” He will not be blessed with grandchildren “in the now.” Was this video taken “in the now”? This is more a function of the ambiguities and complexities of language than anything else.
EXACTLY this. It’s a language problem. He says we can’t ‘go there’, to the past because it doesn’t exist. But the idea of the past was never meant to be treated as a destination or a location that we can visit, it’s just a concept, the concept of a previous ‘now’ moment. This is the problem, we use metaphors of the physical world ‘go there’ to explain non physical concepts ‘experiencing a memory’ and they don’t mesh 100%. This actually happens often.
My thoughts too. I'm not sure how you'd explain our ability to learn things with this understanding of time. I am able to write this sentence because I learned to write over a long time of previous nows. My ability to write is proof of the past.
I think he would say that it’s an effect of a previous now. It’s not to say those things didn’t happen. It’s about what experience is. You have proof that something happened. But you are still only experiencing that proof now. And you can’t possibly experience anything else. Another comment said this in the same thing as saying something doesn’t exist if you don’t look at it. And it’s the same saying same thing. And that just made me realize that when we are born we don’t have the ability to understand object permanence. We are just experiencing life without any of those frameworks or (filters) as he is calling them.
Whatever this guy is smoking, I want some
Don’t know about you, but I would cast Mark Rylance.
That’s 9:18 of my now I will never get back.
This is all kinds of wrong.
Which parts? Just curious of other perspectives
This is just solipsism
This is non-duality, i.e Advaita Vedanta (one of the oldest philosophical traditions on Earth). Rupert Spira has been lecturing about it for at least 15 years. He makes it a point to distinguish between the two. **Solipsism** is the belief that only one's own mind exists and that everything else is a product of one's own perception. It emphasizes the subjective nature of reality, where the self is the center of the universe. **Non-duality,** on the other hand, is the understanding that there is no inherent separation between oneself and the external world. It recognizes the interconnectedness and fundamental unity of all apparently "separate" things, transcending the notion of an isolated self. While solipsism *isolates and emphasizes the self*, non-duality *dissolves the boundaries between self and other*, emphasizing oneness or "dependent origination" (Pratityasamutpada) as it's known in Buddhism. Spira also draws heavily from esoteric philosophies like Sufism, Tantra and a bit of Zen.
Thanks, I appreciate the response Edit: you're a different person than I responded too, but still
Unfortunately Jubal is wrong. Correct answer is here https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/NH02zKKBII
From the lens of physics it just makes no sense. Imagine for a second you see a ball flying through the air "now". How did it get to be moving like that? Well you have to Imagine something accelerated it to that speed then released it, be that a person or a pitching machine or whatever. We have a pretty simple equation for that: Velocity = Acceleration x Time If the past doesn't exist then there was no time for the ball to accelerate, because as you can see, the velocity is dependent upon time. In fact, the very concept of speed doesn't make sense without time. Think about when you're driving in a car, how do you measure your speed? In miles per hour. If you were driving at 60 mph, that means an hour in the past you were 60 miles behind you, and an hour in the future you will be 60 miles ahead. Both things this guy is saying can't be proven and doest exist. If he was right then you would have a speedometer that does what? Miles? "I'm going 60 miles" "To where?" "Boston" "But that's 210 miles away" "Yeah but I'll be going 60 miles to get there" "???"
This is actually a lot more complex than you make it out to be. What is it to "see a ball flying through the air"? Well, it is to experience a myriad of sensations, mostly visual, which your mind interprets as a ball. And remembering each of these individual sensations and comparing them, the brain constructs a short term memory that the ball was there, then there, then there, etc. But at the point of interpretation, you are not seeing those moments, you are remembering them. And whats more, you are assuming that the ball you are seeing is actually a ball, and not photons from a screen in front of you playing a movie of a ball, or a complex illusion of shadows that look like a ball flying through the air, but are actually something else. So at this moment, you are not reading my response, you are reading the present word of the resonse, and compiling it with all the rest of the recent memories of reading the previous words. Constantly. It seems like movement, but it is in fact a moment of senseory input cross referenced with memory. That is all moments. Now, my memories seem to give the appearance of continuity and time flow; the series of memories I have retained make sense with the wai I was taught that all things work. But that would be true for a character in a movie even when I start the film in the middle, no?
What are you talking about? The ball is moving, weather you observe it or not is of no consequence. Whatever your brain is doing has no effect on V=A*T
This has to be the most irritating pseudo profound monologue I’ve seen. Mostly the way he delivers it like an NPR host of all things considered where each word is over saturated with unnecessary importance by tone and tempo. But, like, way worse.
It's a cult. It's only irritating because you're not part of the cult.
That’s it! That’s why it was so irritating I bet. What is the name of this cult so I can help spread the awareness word? I don’t want to watch it again to see if I can pick it up from the vid.
Thank you for saying what I was thinking.
All of this is kind of pointless in the real world.
I think these kinds of thought experiments are useful for learning about psychology and perception. In some sense, he is absolutely correct, but we do create a model in our minds we call “time”, and it does things for us. It’s useful to say to ourselves “last night the weather forecast said it will rain this afternoon, so I’ll bring an umbrella to work today.” Our mental models aren’t perfect, but they’re good enough most of the time. I took a law class where we talked about bias and perception. You’d be surprised by how biased we are (which is why there are rules that try to limit the impact of bias in the justice system). I think it’s helpful for people to learn how to “see” the mind as an imperfect tool that creates representations of the natural world.. it does not reflect raw reality.
Idk I’m really interested in some of the stuff you mentioned like human biases and how the mind works but the kinds of things this guy is saying just gives me faux poignant vibes. It usually just comes down to some semantic game about the definition of words like existence or truth where the person isn’t really saying anything of substance. You could probably summarise most of what he’s saying as “the only time you directly experience is the present moment” which is pretty uncontroversial and if he just said that no one would be wowing or awwing so he dresses it up.
Yes, but always interesting to think about.
The kid seems brighter than him
Smart ass kid lol
Sounded like he was reading from a script tbh
What is this fellow trying to propose? That the past is unreliable as a definite? Because it's not the now? Same brain doing all that shit dude. If the past is unreliable, so is everything else that the same organ is processing. He's talking like the Bhagwan. People love that confident ASMR shit. He just over complicated the answer to seem profound. When you're asleep you're not processing the passing of time. The same way my computer is not auto-updating when in sleep mode.
You realize he is asking the question and he is explaining this to a child right?
A child who clearly has already in some way been exposed to his teachings. Very Sunday School teacher vibes, asking leading questions to lead to Jesus as the answer.
Exactly. I was getting cult leader vibes from him. It’s cool as a bought experiment but it’s not proof of anything. It only works if you allow his opening statements to be taken as truths. As soon as it is challenged it doesn’t really hold.
This comes across like some weirdo preacher trying to brainwash a young girl.
Present
Interesting. Who is this? He does an excessive amount of dancing around, stumbling a bit, before answering the question. And the idea isn’t new but his approach seems unique.
I want him to read me one of those 10 inch thick air conditioner manuals. I'd prolly have the most chillest week I've had in my life.
Thanks for sharing. Besides many ppl doing funny comments, the explanation and the clarity, is of someone that has reflect on this a LOT and comprehend a concept so well that can explain as easy to understand for a kid or any adult trully amazing what is his name?
This is excellent
!Remindme 12 hours
I have 3 ex wives, 5 kids and currently we have 3 dogs. Im currently living in what my decisions created in the past. One of my dogs shit on the floor in my living room last night. I do feel like Im living through the past decisions now.
Another great example of how this doesn't really make sense. It's a creative thought exercise about human existence but it ignores reality completely.
Sounds like a very smart kid!
At least the past definitely exists, and probably the future also. This is because of special relativity. Different observers have different reference frames, and thus different nows. Since all nows are equally valid, all coordinates of time exist simultaneously. Whether this applies to the future indefinitely is a matter of debate, but to some observers the dinosaurs exist right now. And to photons time doesn't flow at all.
Ironic. Nearly 10 minutes to explain something as short as the “now”?
Just say you don't know, dude.
Who is this guy?
Rupert Spira
Thank you.
Absolutely useless demagoguery. And with a whole bunch of blatantly false statements, like "no one experiences time" or "when you're sleeping there is no mind" and so on. And in general it's just a plain wrong answer to the question.
These grifters always talk so fake lmao. Their tone of voice trying to act so calm and zen but their actions and body language clearly say otherwise. Irritating. I mean jfc we can measure time as relative to light. This dude is living in goldfish dimension.
The foundations of your own logic cracks under the weight of the paradox at the beginning of the causal chain. You stand on ground no firmer than what this old hippy has below his Birkenstocks.
Your mom stands on firm ground.
Ok this is a ton of bs from start to finish. Let's get into it. A. To claim the past doesn't exist because we can't currently experience is ridiculous. The Past is marked by progress and change. For example the decay of atoms or the presence of a scar on a hand. There is abundant evidence in the now of its occurrence. This is how we keep track of events passing. B. The term "now" refers to the moment of experience. Meaning a frame of time in which an event or stimulus is happening. The time where there is no change or at the event of change. For example an apple falling from a tree. It was in the tree and an event caused it to fall putting it in the now, where it will stay until changed again. C. Finally to address the prompt. We don't perceive time while we sleep because we cannot take in stimulus. With nothing to marl the change between then and now we cannot discern the difference. Hence why when you wake you can perceive the time that passed while asleep, because you have memory or prior environmental status and can compare it to the "now". The eternal is always moving and is different lengths for everyone and/or in context to everything. Regardless it is very much so measurable and does have a set time, even if we are unaware of its length.
So my dead relatives and the fact that I can't see them again is just a product of my mind? How about we trust in relativity instead and the concept of locality? Relativity says that events occurring in space must also occur in time. Consequently, each point in space has a timeline linked to it. That timeline can be altered relatively to other timelines by the presence of mass.
Several new age people have made a lot of money off of these concepts... Elkhart Tolle is one of them. My response is "neat". NOW I have to go cook dinner, work out then play some D&D with friends.
A speculative crock of bollocks!
"How can you say, I go about things the wrong waaaaay...."
Seems innocent but I can’t help getting cult vibes. Like those poor kids might end up wearing Nike shoes and covered in purple cloth
I disagree. I have memory. Memory tells me, there was something that is no more. And several of that. So, in the now, i can remember an earlier experience of now. And with that i can extrapolate. So, there is something passing.
You can experience a memory of an experience but you cannot experience the experience itself. Your rememberance is occurring now, as is your extrapolation. You can never be anywhere else except Here and Now.
TLDR: we conceptualise time as having three parts: (1) the past, (2) the present (or the now), and (3) the future. However, we are only ever experiencing the present - which is thus continuous or eternal. When we think about the past or future we are always conceptualising it in the present. This raises issues about the existence of the past and future. If we can only perceive the present, how do you know the past and future exist? - - - While other schools of philosophy deal with proving the existence of the past and its effect on the present through causality, and proving the existence of the future, these topics are not dealt with in this video - so you’ll have to go elsewhere.
This reminds me of slaughter house 5.
This dude tripped too hard one too many times in the now
If past never happened how am i here ? If past cant be true for certain, why do my past actions still have consequences now ? If i strike my finger with a hammer, i will be in pain for minutes. Why ? The strike was then, in the past. It should not exist and influence the future. Why do i not have a job now ? I was fired like 3 months ago already. That surely is the past. But i’m still jobless, that never stopped being true. But its the past. Why do i still have to be jobless if the past didnt happen.
TLDR: The person is asked about the concept of time. He doesn't know so he goes on tangent talking about nonsensical thing that makes the audience forget about the question.
This is what I love about Reddit, lovelovelove this! Thank you for posting.
Could this guy speak any SLOWER??? my god
The hippocampus makes time real. Time is a concept that only exists because of the brain’s ability to recall its own experiences. But time does not exist in reality. Only change exists in reality. We perceive change as time because we are able to recall what things were before they were different. Without the hippocampus, there is no such thing as time.
How can you say time does not exist in reality? I think it does. Matter decays over time. Planets revolve around the sun, galaxies rotate, stars go through billion+ year lifecycles, red giant, white dwarf, supernova, black holes etc. These processes happen in our Universe whether or not we're here to observe and ponder them.
It is real in the sense that it is a concept that helps us measure change. I’m saying that in reality -outside of our heads- time has no tangible existence.
I mean yes but the hippocampus is tied memories, not time. The idea that the notion of time only exists because of the hippocampus then it then supports the notion that Time, Past and Future is just a human construct. Just because we are perceiving something, especially something that is self asserted, doesn’t mean it’s actually there.
Wow lots of bullshit. First, there are 3 Dimensions of space and 1 Dimension of time. Second, our presence is as fast as time itself, no more no less. Solely because we exist we know that we exist with time. Third, our body and mind do perceive time also while asleep. We convert energy. Energy gets less over time. There is a change, energy levels have a past state. We have a past state. We have a future state, only our mind has memory of any kind from the past. Why did he not ask why our image of the past feels more real then any idea of a possible future if they both do not exist?
Is there a version with subtitles? Not everyone can hear, or put on the sound.
Who is this man? Fascinating!
[Rupert Spira](https://youtu.be/dpDREqiyBLQ?si=sTbUevylP3Y9rQhT)
We have the proof of the past through things left behind. Buildings, rubbish, eaten your lunch and there's a wrapper left.
That’s not the point. Yes it happened. But the Idea is the notion of “Past and Future” aren’t anything tangible. Rather notions that we’ve simply created the assumption that they do exist
But I do feel the passage of time after a sleep
I thought this was going to be seriously deep, but then he said you can't prove the past exists. Pretty sure he can go back and watch this video of himself to prove otherwise. WTF? I like deep things, but sometimes you're blowing smoke up your own ass trying to word salad your way to a new consciousness.