These aren’t illusions, even free will; let alone time, money and probability.
Free will concept (as used by anyone but philosophers) makes sense; there are things that are controlled by your conscious processes. For example, now I’m deliberately controlling my arms to type this comment, isn’t it a free will? Of course, I’m entity within physics, my thoughts and actions are fully determined by physics laws (whether random or not), etc, etc. Yet, I can deliberately move my arm.
Probability isn’t an illusion; probability is a measure of uncertainty, and probability theory is a large and very useful field mathematics which supplies us with knowledge about how to use such a nice tool. It’s not an illusion; it’s a mathematical concept.
Time isn’t an illusion; no matter how timeless your physics theory, it must contain explanation for phenomena that you now call time. If you develop a shiny new gravitation theory, apples won’t fall differently. You can a new shiny timeless physics, butwhatever you now call time isn’t going to disappear. It would be explained as a dimension, or as a function of position of all particles in the universe.
As for money, I don’t quite understand why they are considered an illusion at all. I have checked banknotes in my wallet; they are real, as far as I can tell. Did you mean some economical misconceptions?
You cannot deliberately move your arm. The program of our universe just brought the elementary particles that make up your body into a configuration in which you moved your arm demonstratively. You cannot reasonably understand yourself as a closed systems because all of your elementary particles are heavily entangled with your surroundings. I like Joscha Bach’s definition of free will best: It’s a social term, in that an action was carried out under free will iff. it could have been influenced by social discourse.
The concept is that by aggregating things we observe that form parts of processes, or physical things, sometimes we end up calling them one name, or feeling them as one thing as a category or a concept.
For example, if we see a sequence of events where the first gave way to the second, which gave way to the third, fourth, etc. all the way to the 10th, because each one was not possible unless the previous one had happened we tend to “feel” as if something is passing, so we feel time, and we call it time, and create methods for measurement, and it all works in favor of our collective organizational strategy, but time by itself does not exist. The use of the word “cognitive illusion” I got it from some authors who describe it this way.
In my case I had arrived to the conclusion that time didn’t exist, that it was only “movement”, independently when I was in 10th grade, when a history teacher asked aloud “what would happen if everything in the universe stopped?” and I screamed “time would stop!” and she sent me to detention for acting as a smarty pants. I learned about relativity much later in my life.
Regarding free will, I had the same belief as you, but they convinced me otherwise here, when I posted about my idea of free will, randomness,and determinism.
Money, because I am in finance, I have a more closer perspective and have considered it similar to time. The addition of the properties of store of value, unit of account, medium of exchange, divisibility, portability, etc. add up to a feeling of substance or tangibility. Just like you say “I have checked banknotes in my wallet; they are real...” that is what I call above an illusion. That paper you have is just nearly worthless, but because we use it as a standard it has a subjective value and that feels like “money”.
One should distinguish between common-sense concepts, and their formalization. But since they have the same name, many people fail to see the difference.
For example, people perceive time. Time flow is a thing that everybody feels and knows about; I have a hard time imaging living in a world without it (it’s easy to imagine such a world—just as some static object—but what it means to live in a static world? consciousness thing seems to be very connected to the time concept). Then, people invent some physical theories; in those theories, time is somehow formalized—for example, in relativity theory time is considered an additional dimension. Note that there are two concepts—common-sense-time, and physics-time.
Now a new cool physical theory appears, which declares that the time dimension (or whatever) is redundant, that only spatial positions of particles are required, thus rendering physics-time concept an illusion.
So physics-time is an illusion; but common-sense-time isn’t—it’s still here, in our lives, it hasn’t gone anywhere. Now it just has a different formalization in physics.
Pretty much the same thing is true for other cases: there is a real-world solid fact, and then there are formalizations, theories and concepts built on the top of it; some of them can be wrong.
Money have a subjective value—one can go and exchange it for goods and services; the (obvious) fact that money is paper is irrelevant here. We can consider various economical theories about what money is and how it all works, and conclude they are false (or not), but money itself is certainly a thing and it works somehow. The cake isn’t a lie if you can eat it.
What you are searching for isn’t a list cognitive illusions of things; rather, it is a list of wrong, yet widespread theories of them. Common-sense time exists, but time as an additional dimension, maybe, doesn’t. Common-sense-free-will exists, but philosophical-free-will, maybe, doesn’t. And so on.
Regarding free will, I guess I was probably one of those people who tried to convince you otherwise :)
I agree that there is a common-sense vs formal dimension to the concepts we use. Time is so real in a common-sense way that we measure it precisely and we manage a big part of our lives with it.
Free will and it’s correct conceptualization is critical for our freedom and political systems.
The same goes for money and its use.
I think that a list of “illusions” is more difficult (and controversial!) than a list of cognitive biases.
These aren’t illusions, even free will; let alone time, money and probability.
Free will concept (as used by anyone but philosophers) makes sense; there are things that are controlled by your conscious processes. For example, now I’m deliberately controlling my arms to type this comment, isn’t it a free will? Of course, I’m entity within physics, my thoughts and actions are fully determined by physics laws (whether random or not), etc, etc. Yet, I can deliberately move my arm.
Probability isn’t an illusion; probability is a measure of uncertainty, and probability theory is a large and very useful field mathematics which supplies us with knowledge about how to use such a nice tool. It’s not an illusion; it’s a mathematical concept.
Time isn’t an illusion; no matter how timeless your physics theory, it must contain explanation for phenomena that you now call time. If you develop a shiny new gravitation theory, apples won’t fall differently. You can a new shiny timeless physics, butwhatever you now call time isn’t going to disappear. It would be explained as a dimension, or as a function of position of all particles in the universe.
As for money, I don’t quite understand why they are considered an illusion at all. I have checked banknotes in my wallet; they are real, as far as I can tell. Did you mean some economical misconceptions?
It all adds up to normality.
You cannot deliberately move your arm. The program of our universe just brought the elementary particles that make up your body into a configuration in which you moved your arm demonstratively. You cannot reasonably understand yourself as a closed systems because all of your elementary particles are heavily entangled with your surroundings. I like Joscha Bach’s definition of free will best: It’s a social term, in that an action was carried out under free will iff. it could have been influenced by social discourse.
The concept is that by aggregating things we observe that form parts of processes, or physical things, sometimes we end up calling them one name, or feeling them as one thing as a category or a concept.
For example, if we see a sequence of events where the first gave way to the second, which gave way to the third, fourth, etc. all the way to the 10th, because each one was not possible unless the previous one had happened we tend to “feel” as if something is passing, so we feel time, and we call it time, and create methods for measurement, and it all works in favor of our collective organizational strategy, but time by itself does not exist. The use of the word “cognitive illusion” I got it from some authors who describe it this way.
In my case I had arrived to the conclusion that time didn’t exist, that it was only “movement”, independently when I was in 10th grade, when a history teacher asked aloud “what would happen if everything in the universe stopped?” and I screamed “time would stop!” and she sent me to detention for acting as a smarty pants. I learned about relativity much later in my life.
Regarding free will, I had the same belief as you, but they convinced me otherwise here, when I posted about my idea of free will, randomness,and determinism.
Money, because I am in finance, I have a more closer perspective and have considered it similar to time. The addition of the properties of store of value, unit of account, medium of exchange, divisibility, portability, etc. add up to a feeling of substance or tangibility. Just like you say “I have checked banknotes in my wallet; they are real...” that is what I call above an illusion. That paper you have is just nearly worthless, but because we use it as a standard it has a subjective value and that feels like “money”.
One should distinguish between common-sense concepts, and their formalization. But since they have the same name, many people fail to see the difference.
For example, people perceive time. Time flow is a thing that everybody feels and knows about; I have a hard time imaging living in a world without it (it’s easy to imagine such a world—just as some static object—but what it means to live in a static world? consciousness thing seems to be very connected to the time concept). Then, people invent some physical theories; in those theories, time is somehow formalized—for example, in relativity theory time is considered an additional dimension. Note that there are two concepts—common-sense-time, and physics-time.
Now a new cool physical theory appears, which declares that the time dimension (or whatever) is redundant, that only spatial positions of particles are required, thus rendering physics-time concept an illusion.
So physics-time is an illusion; but common-sense-time isn’t—it’s still here, in our lives, it hasn’t gone anywhere. Now it just has a different formalization in physics.
Pretty much the same thing is true for other cases: there is a real-world solid fact, and then there are formalizations, theories and concepts built on the top of it; some of them can be wrong.
Money have a subjective value—one can go and exchange it for goods and services; the (obvious) fact that money is paper is irrelevant here. We can consider various economical theories about what money is and how it all works, and conclude they are false (or not), but money itself is certainly a thing and it works somehow. The cake isn’t a lie if you can eat it.
What you are searching for isn’t a list cognitive illusions of things; rather, it is a list of wrong, yet widespread theories of them. Common-sense time exists, but time as an additional dimension, maybe, doesn’t. Common-sense-free-will exists, but philosophical-free-will, maybe, doesn’t. And so on.
Regarding free will, I guess I was probably one of those people who tried to convince you otherwise :)
Thx for your thoughts and taking the time!
I agree that there is a common-sense vs formal dimension to the concepts we use. Time is so real in a common-sense way that we measure it precisely and we manage a big part of our lives with it.
Free will and it’s correct conceptualization is critical for our freedom and political systems.
The same goes for money and its use.
I think that a list of “illusions” is more difficult (and controversial!) than a list of cognitive biases.