You must log in or register to comment.

breadandbuttercreek t1_j5nz9lb wrote

One of the main functions of our consciousness is to anchor us in time. It takes a tremendous amount of memory and prediction to create the bubble of time in which we create our personal narrative. It isn't surprising when disorders of the brain or mental illness disrupt this personal narrative, because it takes so much constant effort to maintain.


wintrysilence t1_j5nsreu wrote

I don't read articles that call people with psychotic disorders 'mad'. Stop stigmatizing mental illness.


mijjim15 t1_j5rvkuj wrote

The word "mad" is to the mentally ill what "queer" is for LGBTQ people. It's being reclaimed!


Never_B_Ur_Saint_377 t1_j6cjben wrote

Are we censoring words here too? 😞 I didn’t at any point in this article feel any inclination that the author was using the word “mad” in a derogatory or hateful way. I just checked my hard copy Webster’s dictionary and the first definition is adjective: insane. The only person stigmatizing mental illness here is you. It is clear that the author’s intent wasn’t to belittle the insane by using the word mad. It’s also clear that you are reacting to their use of the word mad, which by definition is an appropriate word to use, and have attached your own bad connotations to that word through either ignorance or possibly being triggered by it. Either way, this is a problem within yourself that you need to work out. Learn how to read a room and hopefully a dictionary.


mg_ridgeview t1_j5p84xx wrote

I think time was one of the worst human inventions, we were better off without it.


Next-Ice-3857 t1_j5q3s9g wrote

In my opinion time is imperative for all mortal beings, it brings about reference points, structure, etc.

I do agree that if in a hypothetical scenario humans were not mortal time would not be a talking point.


A-Chris t1_j5pdjsd wrote

I’m not the right person to explain it, but this author doesn’t have an even basic grasp of how modern physics views time. It’s certainly a prickly topic given that we can’t really discuss it without invoking the linguistic shorthand already associated with our pretty ancient views of it, but his “insights” are basically what physicists have been trying to communicate to the public for a century; namely that time isn’t universal and that the flexible definition of the present does centre around the observer or more precisely reference frames. Again, I’m not the right person to describe this, but I don’t think this word salad gets you any closer to comprehension for what is a very deep and fascinating subject.

Edit: typo


aut0po31s1s t1_j5sjn31 wrote

Yeah, Bergson and Einstein had conflict on this one too.


Never_B_Ur_Saint_377 t1_j6ckhpx wrote

I always cringe at philosophy trying to explain time. It is observed by the subject trying to explain it making it subjective. If you try to explain the present it has already become the past. The future is real because while explaining the present which is becoming the past you are entering the future. We all know it exists but when boiled down to thought experiments its existence can be questionable. The static view is pretty objective but then it makes no room for the ego and of course it has to come in trying to find meaning for itself.