Yeah, time just ceases to exist at the speed of light.

It's this expectatation thing and it feels bizarre. Once i had this with milk and buttermilk.

How high were you?

When do you think this interview took place? This week? You know this is is from _years_ ago, right? This interview is approximately 10 years old. The last time Eagleman appeared on CTT was in 2017, which may or may not have been filmed in 2017 (CTT reused old interview footage a lot).

@@b.g.5869 yeah but time doesn't exist so y'know ....

@@tales-from-this-crypt 😂

@@b.g.5869 Arabic news aljazira

@@alideeb7906 I don't understand why you're mentioning Al Jazeera. What does that have to do with this?

The extremely rapid advance of neuroscience, especially applied neuroscience, combined with/driven by AI is one of the most exciting developments for me to watch for the next, if I'm lucky, 40 or 50 years of life.

This was awesome. It was exactly what I was looking for.

Unfortunately, his politeness often prevents him from asking tough follow-up questions when his guests spew bs. I don''t understand why he bothered to ask a neuroscientist about objective physical time, unless he hoped to show us that neuroscientists can tell us only about the subjective perception of time constructed by the brain.

@@brothermine2292 Not sure about the guest's publishing history, but he may have discussed these things somewhere in his work. Philosophers, neuroscientists, mathematicians, AI/virtual world developers, historians who study the history of science...any of these, and more, can have an interesting POV on time, or the nature of reality. I think he asks follow up questions, he just avoids hammering them to make them uncomfortable.

@@brothermine2292 Because this neuroscientist's work centers on seeing how that subjective internal experience connects with actual physical reality. In this case, his point was that it connects very loosely- which tells us that our subjective experience of time isn't correct- and may even be a complete human construct. This connects very closely with the work of physicists and cosmologists, whom he spoke with in previous shows, who are now saying time is possibly 100% a human construct, that it actually emerges from something more fundamental but does not exist as we experience it. Which describes the block universe- where the past, present, and future all exists simultaneously and which one we experience depends on our reference point. Relativity proves this beyond doubt, and we've tested relativity to the point of exhaustion. Space may also be a construct, very akin to time- relativity tells us they're the same thing after all. One reason we've started to think this is because if something is objectively real then we should be able to talk intelligently about any amount of it- but that's not the case with space or time. We eventually run into the Planck limit- and anything smaller loses the properties that make it space or time- it now becomes something unintelligible that we can't say anything about- because it doesn't really exist. It's like you've gotten to a space so small the constituents that combine to give us the emergent property of space and time can't do it's thing- whatever that is- so we lose the illusion. What if space and time are actually vibrations in a field, and if you just keep looking at a smaller and smaller spaces- you eventually are looking at a space smaller than the wavelength- so you no longer see the emergent property- you see the field it emanates from?

@@stoneysdead689 : Your reply appeals to Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, not to Neuroscience, to argue that objective time & space are different than how we subjectively perceive them. You're essentially making my point, that Neuroscience can't tell us about objective reality. By the way, Relativity does NOT imply space & time are the same. It implies there is a relationship between them.

@@brothermine2292 Nope- I disagree with you completely- nice try though. Personally, I think neuroscience, which explains the lens through which you experience time- is just as important to understand and at least half the equation. You want to know about objective reality- then you have to understand and decode the lens through which you experience it. Neuro science ha plenty to tell us about objective time. Namely- how we misinterpret it.

yes, it's about time.

Nah, it isn't a given that people interested in philosophy, psychology or physics will like or agree with Sadhguru. For example, I don't agree with most anything he says.

@@SolidSiren if you look only for people you agree with, how open you are to new or challenging ideas? Sadhguru is quite intelligent, and among loads of bullshit he says, he may provide some very insightful thoughts. You don't need to agree to enjoy a good talk. C'mon.

😅

complete rubbish, as usual for this channel.

Really? What was exactly so good about it? I mean he didn’t told something unexpected. I’m asking that because I maybe missed something about this interview.

Although it was never discussed before the invention of time.

Just what I'm wondering here, are we talking about the same thing? Time might be an illusion, but ageing is not. So how is ageing explained?

Chronos was the original word for time. Kronos is the Greek god of time who is described as a destructive all devouring force. Which is how people in general view time today but time isn't the culprit it's the destructive, devouring forces of erosion and ageing that are, time just tracks and measures the process. I got this info from an article on reddit r/time from 12 days ago titled "A brief mystery of time". Worth a read.

Very true. Maths, time and money are only inventions to help make sense of things

It means... it seems to me... there are only lumps of stuff existing. A lump moves relative to other lumps and not absolutely. 'Relative' means movement is not a property of a lump. Movement is not a lump nor a property of a lump but without lumps there can be no movement. One might say, lumps are the 'substrate' of movement. There is no mention of time in any of this because the concept of time is derived from lumps and movement. I go even farther and assert everything for which there is a noun is derived from lumps and movement.

He fails completely. He's all mastery of the obvious. Nothing new here

There is no flow of time. There is only now.

He appeared in 4 episodes. You can see which ones on the Wikipedia article on CTT episodes.

@@b.g.5869 I really appreciate you.. & will use the information. Thanks a bunch!

He's in love with the sound of his voice. Thats all😅

I couldn't agree more

*"RLK is a master at asking the right questions"* ... _Time will tell_ if he gets the answers he seeks.

Yes he is! A very bright man, and hardworking!

Time is, "Everything happening all at once". Space prevents this.

​@@frontech3271 "Time is, "Everything happening all at once". Space prevents this." Prevents what? Prevents time? Or it prevents everything from happening all at once?

Time is just one thing changing relative to something else. Every new moment is a change in arrangement.

It isn't time but events that is one thing changing relative to something else. Every new moment is a change in arrangement but moment isn't as it's defined i.e. "..a brief period of time" because moment comes from the latin momentum which is an event related term meaning that moment is actually a "..very brief period of an event" this also reduces period to being an event related term i.e. ".......period of an event".