oday. It wouldn’t make sense to be able to put a past action into a random person and have him think that he did in fact commit that action. There is more to a situation than just remembering it. At most, I think it is possible to imagine yourself doing it, but you can’t actually “remember” it. Their two different things, it’s like this, try to remember when you were stranded on an island for a whole month! I'm sure you never were in this situation, but you could imagine how it would be like. 6)++++++++++++++++++++++William James1) I agree with William in a sense that his argument stands logically possible. He’s trying to convince people that time travels so fast that you don’t experience the present. His last sentence “… gone in the instant of becoming” explains why the present could not have been measured or witnessed. However, is their such thing as instant? There must exist some time duration for any change that occurs. Even chemical reactions that take no longer than a few nano seconds has some duration. But in this case, time could be the only thing that doesn’t apply to itself. 2) His idea behind his example is true, for some things that seem to be in the present were actually taken place during the past. The example he uses “All the changes of place of a meteor seem to the beholder to be contained in the present”, proves to us that time is deceiving. Our understanding of time does not logically follow the way we live through time. Is it possible to see something occurring in the past? If so, wouldn’t that be contradicting reality since the past does not exist?3) To my understanding, Clays argument of time and experience do relate to one another. We are constantly experiencing different phases of time. It is not necessary to experience only the present, but the past as well. This does not mean that we go back to the past to witness something ...
