Time is the organization and movement of memory by which the brain creates a memory from a stimulus, processes the memory, and prepares for upcoming transductions.
Some may argue that time is simply past, present, future and moves in a linear, straight forward way and has nothing to do with brain memory. I'm not too sure on how to oppose the qualifiers though.
Definition is debatable because it makes time subjective - based on an individual's memory. One might argue that time is the chronological order of events as perceived by the majority and absent from any bias.
Isn't time relative? Also, I think it is important to define 'memory' somewhere in your paper. Time is already a debated subject because of its many possible definitions based on simplicity, so in your paper be sure to include a lot of counter arguments to all of the other definitions of time.
Your definition is arguable because you describe time as being directly related to one's memory, some would argue that time is a liner occurrence of all things that happen not just the things recollected by one person.
Time does not exist (according to my past physics teacher), so there is obviously a bunch of argument because many people would say that time exists in memory. Very specific qualifiers that strengthen your argument.
Some may argue that time is simply past, present, future and moves in a linear, straight forward way and has nothing to do with brain memory. I'm not too sure on how to oppose the qualifiers though.
ReplyDeleteYour definition is very specific, but some readers might not understand what a stimulus is or tranductions and would require further defining.
ReplyDeleteDefinition is debatable because it makes time subjective - based on an individual's memory. One might argue that time is the chronological order of events as perceived by the majority and absent from any bias.
ReplyDeleteVery arguable. Most people wont know what transductions means though.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can always organize time, else people would never be late or absent to something. It requires time to organize time.
ReplyDeleteSome would definitely argue that time has nothing to do with the brain but is a simple set of numbers that the entire world follows.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I would agree that this is time, however that makes for a good argument, and your definition is very specific, so good!
ReplyDeleteIsn't time relative? Also, I think it is important to define 'memory' somewhere in your paper. Time is already a debated subject because of its many possible definitions based on simplicity, so in your paper be sure to include a lot of counter arguments to all of the other definitions of time.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure about your definition, but it will definitely raise counter-argument, maybe try to simplify it.
ReplyDeleteI am really confused about your definition. It specific and not vague so that's good.
ReplyDeleteYour definition is arguable because you describe time as being directly related to one's memory, some would argue that time is a liner occurrence of all things that happen not just the things recollected by one person.
ReplyDeleteTime does not exist (according to my past physics teacher), so there is obviously a bunch of argument because many people would say that time exists in memory. Very specific qualifiers that strengthen your argument.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting definition. It is debatable in many ways. Time is much more than something our brains use, but your argument can be debated. Good job
ReplyDelete