Humberto Maturana November 27, 1995 not like to deal with all areas where it enters the word "time" as if this was referring to a striking aspect of the world or worlds in which we humans live.
Indeed the very fact that the weather could be a matter of reflection shows us that what the word "time" connotes change depending on the circumstances in which it is used.
This alone, however, would not be a problem because if we had accepted that the context always defines the meaning of the word, invite us to profound reflection. But we do not, and we wonder "what is time?" As thinking that the word "time", although I had grasped the essence end, it refers to some extent independent of the size or nature that could properly be disclosed or described if we work hard enough.
However I think the question "What is time?" Is appropriate because it implies from the beginning that the review time can be properly treated as a sort of independent entity size or nature. And I think that this view is totally inadequate because I think everything we humans are talking about relationships that emerge in our operation in language as consensual coordinations of a closed environment recursive behaviors.
Let me explain what I mean by certain words sulla vita, il linguaggio e la conoscenza e quindi di rispondere alla domanda “ quali distinzioni facciamo o evochiamo quando parliamo di tempo? ”.
VIVERE
Il vivere ha luogo la nell'adesso, nel momento in cui avviene. Il vivere è una dinamica che scompare mentre si svolge. Il vivere si svolge nel non-tempo, senza passato o futuro. Passato, presente e futuro sono idee che noi esseri umani, noi osservatori, inventiamo quando spieghiamo i nostri accadimenti nell'adesso.
Inventiamo il passato come l'origine dell'ora, o presente, e inventiamo il futuro come una dimensione che emerge come estrapolazione delle caratteristiche del nostro vivere ora, nel presente.
Like the past, present and future, are inventions to explain our life now, the time has invented the background in which past, present and future can take place. But
life, living, are now taking place, as a stream of processes of change .
say this, of course, is a way to explain the experience of being now in the moment while we are asking for an explanation of our life time ...
LANGUAGE
I supported, and I explained in other publications, which language is a way to flow in living together in consensual coordinations of behavior recursive, and that language is to work in una rete di coordinamenti consensuali di coordinamenti consensuali di comportamenti, in una dinamica relazionale di coordinamenti consensuali di comportamenti strutturalmente aperta a infinite ricursioni.
Inoltre noi siamo, come sistemi viventi, sistemi strutturalmente determinati e nulla di esterno a noi può determinare o specificare cosa accade in noi. Pertanto gli agenti esterni che in qualsiasi istante ci colpiscono possano solo innescare in noi cambiamenti strutturali determinati in noi dalla nostra struttura in quell' istante. Di conseguenza, tutto ciò che facciamo in qualsiasi istante emerge in noi determinata dalla nostra struttura in quell'istante o come risultato della nostra interna dinamica strutturale chiusa, oppure come risultato modulation of the internal structural dynamics enabled us to participate in the interactions.
In these circumstances we say that we are constitutionally "blind" to the intrinsic characteristics of the environment as a separate department, if you talk about the inherent characteristics of an independent reality had no effect.
This situation has the following implications for the fundamental understanding of what we do and what happens in us as languaging beings.
a) The language as a way to flow in recursive consensual coordinations of behavior is a way of life in the coordination of action, not a way to symbolize the characteristics of an independent reality. That is, language is a way of life by doing things together in the particular domain in which language do consensus is developed through the flow of interactions of the participants. We humans
exist in the language or, language, and when we can not say anything outside of language.
b) The manner in which we participate in the flow of the language at any moment emerge as a result of our interactions at that moment according to our structure at that moment. So what we do in the language at any time is determined by our structure at that time , regardless of how we have become with this structure at that time.
c) The main result of our interactions in the recursive language is that change our structure so influenced the course of our language in the flow of those interactions . That is, we acquire our structure time after time in accordance with the course of our language, and language from moment to moment according to our structure at that time.
d) We human beings exist in language, that we are the kind of beings that we are when we operate in language and in our language emerge in the flow of our recursive recursive consensual coordinations of consensual coordinations of behavior. Or, in other words, we exist in the closed dynamics of language and everything we do as human beings is taking place in our language as a flow of consensual coordinations of consensual coordinations of behavior.
So everything we say or we say, everything that we can distinguish when we do what we do as observers (as languaging human beings), as a transaction takes place within consensual coordination of behavior without reference to any thing outside of our language. Whether we act as ordinary human beings, philosophers, biologists, artists or whatever, in the same.
s) objects are born with the language as consensual coordinations of behavior that coordinate behaviors. How
consensual coordinations of behaviors, the coordinations of behaviors that constitute the objects act as symbols and coordinations of behaviors such as conceal behaviors that coordinate.
addition, in recursive consensual coordination of consensual coordinations of behavior of the flow of language, many properties of the objects emerge as different kinds of operations in the coordinations of coordinations of behavior have become symbols of doing in various areas of consensual coordinations of action.
f) ideas, concepts, notions, ... Domains are objects as abstractions that emerge from other properties of objects, properties and give rise to coordination of doing that define or are defined through them. How different types of objects correspond to different operations to collusion, the abstract objects (ideas, concepts, concepts) are the basis for abstract systems that lead to collusion in the domain of consensual coordinations of behaviors they are abstractions.
In our culture we live our lives in language as if language were a symbolic system for referring to different types of entities that exist independently of what we do, and even treat ourselves as if esistessimo outside of language as a separate independent language users. Time, matter, energy, ... would some of these entities. This attitude leads us to behave as if we could characterize these entities in terms of their intrinsic nature independent. I argue that this can not be done just because we say something that we produce the effect takes place in a linguistic domain as a work in recursive consensual coordinations of behavior.
KNOWLEDGE
The main consequence of our existence in language is that we can not talk about what is outside it, not even imagine something outside of language in order to have any meaning outside of it. We imagine something as if it existed outside of language, but when we try to refer to it, it arises in language characterized by the elements, concepts and ideas that emerge through what we do in our language.
There is nothing in human life outside of language because human life is held in language, and even if we can imagine a reality independent, objective, what we imagine is not independent of our language. In fact, just reflecting on this question becomes clear that the concept of reality explanation is an assumption that we humans have invented to explain what we distinguish as our experiences in the events of our lives as if it existed independently of what we do.
I refer to this situation by saying that even if we may say that an independent reality seems necessary for epistemological reasons to explain the human experience, we can not say anything about it . Even the notion of an independent reality has no meaning outside of language and if such a concept was adopted is irrelevant, or would be used as an explanatory principle a priori. But at the same time, it is clear that not having access to something that might properly be called an independent reality is not a limitation for our lives or our actions as anything we do in the flow of consensual coordination of behavior in which we exist requires the concept or the assumption that there is an independent reality. Indeed, the notion of reality, an assumption adopted as an explanatory principle explanatory taken as self evident. If a person is not aware of this, as in our culture, or if you do not want to follow the full implications of this awareness, as happens in the various branches of our Western philosophical tradition, will address the notion of reality as referring to a domain of independent entities (any kind) which exists independently of what makes the observer.
Yet if we understand the language in the knowledge that as living systems are structure determined systems by and choose to follow the consequences of that awareness, we can become aware of several basic conditions that would otherwise not see.
a) When we realize that reality is an explanatory concept or assumption, we abandon the belief in it as a domain of entities that exist independently of what an observer does and we become aware that what they actually do when explain our experiences is to use our experiences to explain our experiences.
That is when we become aware that explained using the coherence of our experiences to propose a mechanism (a generative mechanism) which, if allowed to operate, would generate in the viewer the experience of being explained.
b) We become aware that there are many areas explanations of many areas of experiential coherences that we humans can live . At the same time, we become aware that the notion of structural determinism refers to the regularity of the coherences of our experiences, and that we operate in our lives in so many areas of structural determinism many areas of experiential coherences that we live in the flow of our experiences.
c) become aware that we do not experience the things like the characteristics of an independent world , but as I said above, what we distinguish as happening to us as we work in the language, taking care of what happens to us when we live. At the same time when we become aware that the experiences happen to us, we happen out of nowhere, from nowhere, or the leisure to live them as part of a known domain of experiential coherences, or surprising because they seem to take place outside the coherence of other experiences known.
In the latter case we want to explain and explain by making this experience part of a field of experiences already known, otherwise we will remain scared until we would have done.
d) When we become aware that we are already living in what we distinguish as happening to us, we can distinguish, and our experience emerge from nothing, we realize how we explain our experience with the coherences of our experiences. That is, we become aware that all our explanations take place in a closed domain , and that reality and the other explanatory concepts are a priori assumptions that do not take place outside the areas in which we exist as explanatory speaking beings.
s) become aware that the notion of structural determinism is not an assumption than an independent reality, but that is an abstraction of the regularities of our experience. Also become aware that since the structural determinism is an abstraction of the regularities of our experience we can use structural determinism to explain our experiences with the coherences of our experiences.
Finally, we also become aware that we live in many domains of structural determinism as many domains of experiential coherences, and explanatory each domain is in fact a domain of structural determinism .
In these circumstances, what is " know? From what I have said, knowing can not refer to an independent reality as it is something that we as human languaging can not do.
Yet if we take care of what we do in everyday life and technology, we see that we claim to know, or know that other beings, when we see ourselves or other beings behave properly in some fields that we specify an argument, and do so in according to some criteria that we set ourselves for what is appropriate behavior in that area. Knowledge is an interpersonal relationship in consensual coordinations of consensual coordinations of behaviors.
Or, in other words, knowledge is something that we attribute to ourselves or others when we consider our ol'altrui appropriate behavior in a specific area, and often attribute the knowledge to do something together in some areas of coordinations of behaviors. If we are not aware of this situation, we act by treating knowledge as a way of referring to any entity that assumes there really are, ie in a field of entities that exist independently of what we humans do. In these circumstances the pursuit of knowledge becomes an endless pursuit of the thing itself.
This knowledge is not and can not be, a way of referring to a domain of entities that exist independently of what humans do as languaging beings, it is not a limitation or deficiency in the domain of knowledge, is a constitutive feature del fenomeno della conoscenza.
Infatti questa conoscenza dovrebbe essere una maniera di vivere insieme in coordinamenti consensuali di coordinamenti consensuali di comportamenti, in una condizione che fa della conoscenza un dominio sempre aperto alle trasformazioni, e la vita umana aperta a continue trasformazioni attraverso la conoscenza come esperienze emerse nella vita umana dal nulla (chaos).
In queste circostanze, cosa dire sul tempo?
LA NATURA DEL TEMPO
Noi apparteniamo ad una cultura, soprattutto e particolarmente nei domini della scienza della filosofia e della tecnologia, che vive nell’esplicita o implicita accettazione di un qualche genere di realtà indipendente as the ultimate reference for the explanations.
This attitude permeates the way we ask questions and listen to the answers.
So in our culture when we ask what is time, we expect an answer in the form of a reference to some kind of independent entity, with the implicit understanding that this reference will give our answer to universal validity.
As I said, no reference can be made, and not because of a limitation in our ability to know, but as characteristic of the nature of the phenomenon of cognition. So what we
connotation with the word time can not be a thing in itself. In
our culture the notion of time is used as an explanatory concept or principle in the same way it used the concept of reality.
But if we are aware of this situation and if we are aware that the word time can not be referred to an 'entity that exists independently of what we do, we put our questions in a manner different from what we say when in everyday life or techniques we use the word time. What features of the coherence of our experiences as we abstract connotation or use the word time?
a) We use the experience to explain the experience . Explain the time, therefore, is an I'll have to run through the element of the domain of our experiences. Therefore you need to use the features of our daily experience, and not concepts or beyond, for oars or describe what I think we do when we use the word time. Experience is our initial condition is to ask the question is to answer. So I'll have to find ourselves starting to do something and the ability to do what we do in daily life or technique.
Experience is not our problem when we want to explain what we do, this is our task to explain.
Similarly, the problem is the use of word time or any other word in everyday life, but to explain or discover what we do when we use it, or as we live.
b) I maintain that the word connotes time of happening of an abstraction processes in sequence as we distinguish them in the coherence of our experiences . How do we distinguish the sequence of processes, so we distinguish also the simultaneity of such processes as a characteristic of our experiential coherences connotation with the phrase "at the same time." Such an abstraction is made possible mainly because in the activity of our nervous system are distinct sequences of activity as a configuration of relationships di attività sulla superficie delle cellule nervose al momento della generazione degli impulsi nervosi. Come risultato quello che dalla prospettiva di un osservatore è un’operazione nel tempo, nella distinzione del tempo come un’astrazione di un processo appare come un’operazione nel presente .
c) Al momento dell’astrazione della relazione sequenziale che da origine a quella distinzione che chiamiamo tempo, il tempo emerge nell’ esperienza dell’osservatore con direzionalità ed irreversibilità . Perfino nel caso in cui noi distinguiamo processi ciclicamente reversibili, noi facciamo questa distinzione nel contesto di irreversibilità direzionale time that allows the distinction of the sequence of the case and its inverse as a configuration of a process that we call time reversible. So time is reversible abstraction of a particular experience irreversible and directional.
d) Once the time has emerged as a distinction in the domain of the experiences of an observer become an operational entity in our culture appears as if independence from what the observer does. This is because once the time has shown it can be used by the observer (by each of us as languaging beings) in its reflection on the regularity of his own experiences because it arises as an abstraction of the regularities of his experiences.
With the notion of time, therefore, that the same thing happens with the notion of structural determinism that is also an 'abstraction from the regularity of the experiences of the observer, which can be used to treat the regularity of their consistencies of the observer because it emerges as an abstraction of them.
and) I think that what I said is valid for every domain, including, of course, physics. The domain of physics emerges as a domain of explanation of some types of experiential coherences of the observer through the use of certain types of experiential coherences observer. So physics is not a primary domain of existence , but it is a particular domain of explanations of a particular domain of experiential coherences of the observer. The theoretical concepts are abstractions of experiential coherences of the observer in certain domains, or at least they are well designed. Given this condition, the theories are valid only in the operational domain in which they apply as abstractions.
f) Time and one-way reversible time emerge as theoretical knowledge in physics as an abstraction that the observer makes of its coherence and experimental with words denoting time and reversibility. Abstract notions such as the one-way time and time may be reversible be treated as entities that have operational effectiveness of the experiential domain in which they are abstractions. This seems obvious. What is not so obvious, however, is that we often forget that the way time and time reversible are actually abstractions of experiential coherences of the observer, as I indicated earlier. In the latter 'If we treat the one-way time and reversible time as an entity existing independently of what we do as observers, or as if they were reflections or representations of these independent entities, and so we generate conflicts conceptual and operational. When this happens, we see that even formulations matematiche nelle proposizioni astratte emergono solamente come valide nelle loro coerenze in quanto astrazioni delle coerenze delle esperienze che rappresentano.
Poiché la nozione di tempo è stata generata come astrazione delle nostre esperienze di sequenze di processi nelle molteplici dimensioni e forme dell’esistenza umana, questa nozione viene generata in relazione alla molteplicità di forme nelle quali viviamo. Di conseguenza ci sono tante forme di tempo quante sono le forme di astrazione delle regolarità delle esperienze di processi e sequenze di processi . Così noi parliamo di tempo veloce e lento, di passare il tempo, di perdere tempo, di avere o non avere tempo, di coincidenza nel tempo, di reti di tempo, simultaneity, ... in many areas of experience, and in all cases we refer to the same type of abstraction in the domain of sequences of processes. In reality, each domain has its own temporal dynamics as the case has its own dynamics. The awareness that the concept of time emerges as an abstraction from the consistency of the experiences of the observer that uses as explanatory concept is not a problem. What becomes a problem in the long run is the unconscious adoption of the concept of time as an explanatory principle that is accepted as giving a certain content transcendental ontological status.
CONCLUSION
I answered the question "what connotation distinction when we talk about the weather? "showing 1) that we can not and does not connote connote an entity or natural dimension that exists regardless of what we do as human observers, and 2) showing that we use in everyday life the word time to indicate or connote an 'abstraction of our experiences of succession processes.
In other words, I showed that the birth of the concept of time in any domain is based on the biology of the observer , not in the domain of physics is a domain of explanations of a particular kind of experiential coherences of the observer. Also in this
process have also shown that when the time arises as the main abstraction of the flow experiences of the observer, it is clear directionality and irreversibility, and that the reversible time arises only as a collateral and further abstraction of the experience of the observer who is only possible in a time domain one-way and irreversible. Finally, I argue that the notion of time is frequently used as an explanatory principle which gives it a transcendental ontological status.
The observer is not a physical entity, the observer is a way to make human beings in the language . E 'through the operations of the observer emerging all cognitive domains, including the domain of observation. Physics is the way in which the observer explained by the consistency of his experience in a particular domain of experience which is denoted by the term natural.
In fact, the same observer emerges as an entity of which we observers can talk through the operation of the observer that is the foundation of everything we humans do. No doubt we
we behave in our lives as if we lived in a world that exists independently of what we do and what we call reality .
It is especially why we wonder how we know reality, or time, as if there riferissimo just something that exists independently of what we do. My intent was different. My question is not about the reality of time, or any other type of entity, as if its independent existence could be taken for granted. My question is about the experiences or transactions in which we do as observers when we use different concepts, concepts or words that imply distinctions of scale or characteristics of an independent world.
The experience that we distinguish as happened to us is never a problem unless we accuse each other of lying. is the explanation of the experience that is un problema come fonte di conflitti . L’esperienza emerge spontaneamente letteralmente dal nulla, oppure, se vogliamo, dal caos, dal dominio sul quale non possiamo dire nulla che non nasca dalle coerenze della nostra esperienza. Ciò che dico è valido per ogni dominio di esperienze, sia questo la vita, la fisica, la fisica quantistica, le relazioni umane … Tutti questi differenti domini di esperienza sono domini esperenziali vissuti come domini di spiegazioni delle nostre esperienze attraverso le nostre esperienze. Ma le nostre esperienze non sono disordinate, esse nascono coerentemente in quanto nascono in noi dal niente . Così noi esistiamo in questa meravigliosa situazione esperienziale nella quale noi, in quanto observers who exist in the present, we are the source of everything, to weigh what we can handle in the coherence of our experiences as observers, as an entity through which their works give life to the work of observing and explaining the events to their ' inside a closed domain of explanation.
The great temptation is to turn that distinguish the abstraction of the coherences of our experiences with concepts such as reality, existence, reason, space, consciousness .. or time, explanatory principles.
is the end of the International Year and with it the end of this adventure 
