| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mescaline
Advanced Member
Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 386
Location: Australia
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: Is existence a property? |
 |
|
| Can existence be a property of a thing like red is a property of a thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nonentropic
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2359
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: Is existence a property? |
|
|
| Mescaline wrote: | | Can existence be a property of a thing like red is a property of a thing? |
yes. it takes a conscious perceiver to be aware of a thing (or itself)...to notice...to discern it's difference(s)...it's separateness (in a sense) from other things. without the awareness/perception of a thing and obviously at this point, the existence of the thing, all the other potential and possible properties that it might possess/represent/give-off/contain (and so on) cannot be known. to be able to discuss a thing (setting aside ideas, symbols, ideals and such...things that "exist"/are conceived and remain, often times, mostly in the mind) in particular...as a specific thing...it must exist. so, "existence" (which can have a different meaning and twist to it based on whether it is outside of one's self or only largely manefested and maintained in the mind) is a property of a thing if it exists and the quality of that existence is directly related to the location of the thing itself.
it (existence) seems to have a primary nature and importance to it...like consciousness. without consciousness...knowledge/awareness of anything is impossible. with consciousness the existence of things occurs. then, from this point, other aspects of a thing can be known...pehaps...if, desired and able.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/nonentropic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would say no. It's like asking if there is something outside of comparison. How would you know without comparing? How can something be non-existent without existing already?
Better to just use the imaginary/real, abstract/concrete distinctions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fathergia
Advanced Member
Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 1322
Location: Texas Ft.Worth
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HatchBack176 wrote: | I would say no. It's like asking if there is something outside of comparison. How would you know without comparing? How can something be non-existent without existing already?
Better to just use the imaginary/real, abstract/concrete distinctions. |
Thats what I thought
_________________
School is over, the fun begins
I'm the dish that ran away with the spoon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nonentropic
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2359
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
definitions and understanding of "things", concepts and "existence" are needed to grasp this. does love exist in the same way that the Empire State building does? no, not in every sense. does love exist? yes, but it is not a tangible thing. neither exist without a conscious perceiver. regarding tangilbe things that can be perceived while conscious...color, texture, mass-weight-density, size and so on are integral to the object itself (it's existence is grasped/becomes a "given" simultaneously...existence is the object in sum/overall, so it is different in this sense than just one trait or charactersistic of an object/tangible thing. existence is the object in totality...all properties at once.)...are what the object/thing is in relation to us...by our scales, tools, biology and way of undertstanding/knowing things. "existence" (in a three dimensional-tangilbe way) is a necessary fact if we are to perceive for instance the color of some thing. so, in this case, it would be a property of this kind of "thing".
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/nonentropic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're not making any sense to me. I can conceive of space w/o time but not time without space. In other words, distinctness w/o change but not change without distinctness.
There are 0 distinctions that use time, since they can only be made in the same instant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nonentropic
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2359
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HatchBack176 wrote: | You're not making any sense to me.
I can conceive of space w/o time but not time without space.
i can only conceive of "space" and "time" when both are actually "real" and part of me...again, while i am conscious only.
In other words, distinctness w/o change but not change without distinctness.
"distinctness" is an idealization of some thing. it does not exist/cannot exist but perhaps in the mind...again as an ideal/as a concept. all is in motion...all is in changing...except perhaps some of our mental notions, symbols and such sort of.
There are 0 distinctions that use time, since they can only be made in the same instant. |
italics are mine. the last section does not make sense to me.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/nonentropic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh boy, so I take it you share a special bond with solipsism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nonentropic
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2359
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HatchBack176 wrote: | | Oh boy, so I take it you share a special bond with solipsism? |
it all starts from consciousness. no need to take anything.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/nonentropic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.Beck
Advanced Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 2964
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do you really not believe in anything outside of you, nonentropic?
When you close your eyes, do we all go away?
If it's all in your head, then why aren't you having more fun?
There would have to be some pretty interesting musings about human nature if our minds create worlds for ourselves that are anything less than optimal.
To OP.
I think existence is not a property like red. I do think it's a label for things that we can have sensory knowledge of(and more if you continue reading). it's kind of useless though, because it doesn't tell us much beyond distinguishing it from real/imaginary.
the implication of that distinction being the cause and effect relationship you can then have with that existing thing (that you can't have with an imaginary thing)
Ideas? a thought. do they exist? abstract ideas can exist. this is the next layer of cause and effect relationships then.. our perception is filtered but it can tell us things becuase it is generated and effected by concrete existing things which do operate by cause and effect relationships.
and if our brain is the reason we can think and if i can put my hand on my head and know it's real, then we can close the loop and say that everything exists!
which is a giant waste of time.
It is not a property like red. It is not restricted by sensory reference.
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nonentropic
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2359
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
- my words are in italics and i bolded & underlined some sections and words below for emphasis -
| C.Beck wrote: | Do you really not believe in anything outside of you, nonentropic?
no. when i am awake/aware and conscious i know i am alive and that i still exist...and at the same time, i am also aware and believe that the rest of what i call the "lifeverse" continues to exist/is alive and continues to change...continues to move as well. - my mental continuum returns -
When you close your eyes, do we all go away?
If it's all in your head, then why aren't you having more fun?
you missed my point. maybe you can see what i mean now perhaps? as for the fun, i'm trying to solve too many problems to have much fun presently. no joke.
There would have to be some pretty interesting musings about human nature if our minds create worlds for ourselves that are anything less than optimal.
To OP.
I think existence is not a property like red. I do think it's a label for things that we can have sensory knowledge of(and more if you continue reading). it's kind of useless though, because it doesn't tell us much beyond distinguishing it from real/imaginary.
the implication of that distinction being the cause and effect relationship you can then have with that existing thing (that you can't have with an imaginary thing)
- dreams? ...my dreams, while i sleep, do effect me. still, distinctions must be made between things largely occurring in one's mind and things that are outside one's mind to know and understanding what is being discussed. i think i made these distinctions earlier. -
Ideas? a thought. do they exist? abstract ideas can exist. this is the next layer of cause and effect relationships then.. our perception is filtered but it can tell us things becuase it is generated and effected by concrete existing things which do operate by cause and effect relationships.
and if our brain is the reason we can think and if i can put my hand on my head and know it's real, then we can close the loop and say that everything exists!
heavy on cause and effect to make your point. which i cannot follow. seems too muddled and confused to me. you can say and believe that (what you posted above) if you choose. you do not define existence well at all.
which is a giant waste of time.
It is not a property like red. It is not restricted by sensory reference.
for an "object" (not an illusion/chimera/or sensory mistake) to have a property like red, outside of one mind's own creations (dreams, imaginings and such) it must also have the property (a characteristic trait, quality or attribute) of existence. not all things external and existing give-off/reflect a color by which they can be "seen" easily by us (eg. the wind/air) and yet they will have other properties consistent with a 3D form/thing/object given it's current "state".
|
anyway...i have my own way of looking at things. it is not necessary for me to have to prove them or myself to others. i did not ask the question. one need not reply either...thus, one may have time to do something else.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/nonentropic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fathergia
Advanced Member
Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 1322
Location: Texas Ft.Worth
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nonentropic wrote: | | definitions and understanding of "things", concepts and "existence" are needed to grasp this. does love exist in the same way that the Empire State building does? no, not in every sense. does love exist? yes, but it is not a tangible thing. neither exist without a conscious perceiver. regarding tangilbe things that can be perceived while conscious...color, texture, mass-weight-density, size and so on are integral to the object itself (it's existence is grasped/becomes a "given" simultaneously...existence is the object in sum/overall, so it is different in this sense than just one trait or charactersistic of an object/tangible thing. existence is the object in totality...all properties at once.)...are what the object/thing is in relation to us...by our scales, tools, biology and way of undertstanding/knowing things. "existence" (in a three dimensional-tangilbe way) is a necessary fact if we are to perceive for instance the color of some thing. so, in this case, it would be a property of this kind of "thing". |
But can we say that love doesn't exist in the same way the empire state building does? I say that we can as it is just chemicals in your brain(typing that made me sad and I'm being serious) So the chemicals exist and the empire state building exist. Every feeling that we have is just chemicals so can existence really be considered a property.
_________________
School is over, the fun begins
I'm the dish that ran away with the spoon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lordofthefood1
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it is, being that there are things that do not exist
(or we have no knowledge of their existance)
_________________
Behold the world in other people, life is clarity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fathergia
Advanced Member
Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 1322
Location: Texas Ft.Worth
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lordofthefood1 wrote: | I think it is, being that there are things that do not exist
(or we have no knowledge of their existance) |
Just because we do not know of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Unicorns actually do exist(I'll explain later because I got to go to bed right now) but they aren't quite their own species but an abnormality of another.
(Again I'll explain later)
Some things only exist because we made them up but for all we know somewhere in this wide universe they COULD exist so can we really assign if they exist or not?
_________________
School is over, the fun begins
I'm the dish that ran away with the spoon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
test
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
similarminds.com
Log in
Register
