| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lordofthefood1
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Ohio
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fathergia wrote: | | 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? |
I mean things like dividing by zero and being able to sprout wings and fly or seeing red-green
_________________
Behold the world in other people, life is clarity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nonentropic
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2359
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fathergia wrote: | | 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. |
love, pain, anger, grief, thoughts, dreams, ideas, concepts, ideals and such do exist (and the essence/meaning of them can be shared, transmitted, expressed and so on to others in many ways...through another individual and not just gathered-up from stuff outside of people). they exist inside people...inside of an individual in particular...to be specific. but, this is not the same type of existence as the Empire State building has (main point being that it is external and tangible to you and others). no one else can feel your pain. no one else can see your dreams as they occur to you and as you are (at a particular time) experiencing them. it is because we have so much in common with the others of our species...language...biology and so on that we are able to identify such things as grief, anger, pain, fear, awe and such in others...when we see them. we can understand, we can relate to these things and many times we do not deny their existence...although we cannot know for certain that what appears to be actually and likely occurring within another actually is. because what the other is actually experiencing is inside and we cannot simultaneously experience it/this for ourselves. so, we can never know for certain exactly what the other is truly experiencing, feeling, thinking, dreaming and the like. they can tell us and we can take in a lot of data about them ourselves...and so we can then decide what to think about such things and them given all that we know at the time.
chemicals, biology, hormones, dreams, electricity and more all go into making up that which is human. we are all connected. we are conscious because of our language development...and this developed because we are more than one. anyway, i'm just saying there are different types of existence. one type is internal to us (to each person) and the other type is external to all of us...again, as we tend to perceive and experience all things. more later...maybe.
_________________
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 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was thinking it out as i as writing, so i don't blame you fr not following well. It's hard to read someones rough notes. i'll try and sum up my p.o.v. now after more thought.
I personally believe that things can have the property of existence in so much as things can be real. I think there is a clear difference between what i percieve and what is really there.
unfortunately, i bend to the view that perception is not clear. So as a human, the concept of existence is meaningless. here is why. Once i have become aware of anything, it exists to me. the question of being real or not is irrelevant. If i have a unique idea it exists. if i were to try and think about something existing or not, everything i would try to work with to that end would exist.
So it, as an adjective, has zero ability to distinguish. it's useless as a concept.
Things can either be red, not red or partly red. there is no option for existence. it's an absolute, intrinsic to everything we can be aware of. It is unalterable and has no bearing on anything really..
As hatch said: | Quote: | | distinctness w/o change but not change without distinctness. |
_________________
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 |
|
|
lordofthefood1
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| C.Beck wrote: | I was thinking it out as i as writing, so i don't blame you fr not following well. It's hard to read someones rough notes. i'll try and sum up my p.o.v. now after more thought.
I personally believe that things can have the property of existence in so much as things can be real. I think there is a clear difference between what i percieve and what is really there.
unfortunately, i bend to the view that perception is not clear. So as a human, the concept of existence is meaningless. here is why. Once i have become aware of anything, it exists to me. the question of being real or not is irrelevant. If i have a unique idea it exists. if i were to try and think about something existing or not, everything i would try to work with to that end would exist.
So it, as an adjective, has zero ability to distinguish. it's useless as a concept.
Things can either be red, not red or partly red. there is no option for existence. it's an absolute, intrinsic to everything we can be aware of. It is unalterable and has no bearing on anything really..
As hatch said: | Quote: | | distinctness w/o change but not change without distinctness. |
|
Something I have to add about red.
Red has to be defined as a specific.
Something Burgundy to me might not be Red to you
(Or your Maroon might be a different color
and Scarlet and Crimson.
I think my girlfriend has a hundred pairs of Red shoes
because they are all a reddish color
but she has all different colors of shoes
(hypothetically, being that I don't have a girlfriend))
so on this
If I'm not aware that Splunge is a color
then I would think it doesn't exist
"So I got a Splunge colored shoes today."
"What? There is no Splunge color..."
_________________
Behold the world in other people, life is clarity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.Beck
Advanced Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 2964
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
that doesn't impact the conversation at all.
it reflects a measurable frequency of light. you can call it what you want, but it's not going to look any different.
our relationship with something is not a physical property of the thing.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Annabel_Lee
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 1051
Location: A kingdom by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| C.Beck wrote: | unfortunately, i bend to the view that perception is not clear. So as a human, the concept of existence is meaningless. here is why. Once i have become aware of anything, it exists to me. the question of being real or not is irrelevant. If i have a unique idea it exists. if i were to try and think about something existing or not, everything i would try to work with to that end would exist.
So it, as an adjective, has zero ability to distinguish. it's useless as a concept. |
But I think part of what needs to be acknowledged is that things change around us. I'm a yes to the opening question of whether or not existence is a property. Even if the measure is as absolute as you outline (i.e. existent or non-existent; there is no intermediate form of existence), don't things change and then cease to exist?
To acknowledge existence as an observable property would then be to also acknowledge change as an observable property. People change and cease to exist (we call that death), ideas often cease to exist (we call that forgetfulness, oblivion, or as a specific extreme example--symptoms of Alzeihmers where memories wipe out), things cease to exist too (combustion of things, chemical separation, etc.).
Of course, some may say that nothing really becomes non-existent if change is the pivot in the model. Things only change forms to other things. Existence isn't completely eradicated, just altered. People die to become part of the earth, a combustion of a log would change it into ash, the conscious loss of an idea may never really exit the unconscious self.
But existence is a property of a thing (in a given form at a given time). Sure things may change to other things, but things in their initial form would have to cease to exist. We need existence defined as a property to explain change. We can only tell that combustion occurs, if everything that gives a log its "logness" ceases to exist and adopts a new form (this may not literally have to be everything though). Similar parallels can be drawn for the other cases as well.
_________________
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet" -Samuel Beckett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Annabel_lee, didn't we just talk about the use of the word 'indescribable'? This is the exact same thing. Why has your opinion changed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annabel_Lee
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 1051
Location: A kingdom by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HatchBack176 wrote: | | Annabel_lee, didn't we just talk about the use of the word 'indescribable'? This is the exact same thing. Why has your opinion changed? |
Clarification, please?
In my conscious awareness, this was actually the first time I stated my opinion in the thread. I'm unaware of any change...
Also, from what I've read in the thread, I haven't gathered any overt conversation about the word "indescribable".
_________________
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet" -Samuel Beckett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Annabel_Lee wrote: | | HatchBack176 wrote: | | Annabel_lee, didn't we just talk about the use of the word 'indescribable'? This is the exact same thing. Why has your opinion changed? |
Clarification, please?
In my conscious awareness, this was actually the first time I stated my opinion in the thread. I'm unaware of any change...
Also, from what I've read in the thread, I haven't gathered any overt conversation about the word "indescribable". |
http://similarminds.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=138983#138983 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annabel_Lee
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 1051
Location: A kingdom by the sea
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HatchBack176 wrote: | | Annabel_Lee wrote: | | HatchBack176 wrote: | | Annabel_lee, didn't we just talk about the use of the word 'indescribable'? This is the exact same thing. Why has your opinion changed? |
Clarification, please?
In my conscious awareness, this was actually the first time I stated my opinion in the thread. I'm unaware of any change...
Also, from what I've read in the thread, I haven't gathered any overt conversation about the word "indescribable". |
http://similarminds.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=138983#138983 |
Hmm, I think I see your point. Are you arguing that existence isn't a property because it's always processed through a lens of existence? In that, we give something existence as we acknowledge it?
I'm not sure if the two discussions are symmetrical though. When one characterizes a property, one doesn't deny the lens of subjective perception. Can't we differentiate between once-existent things that cease to exist at some point? That's what my argument is based on.
_________________
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet" -Samuel Beckett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nonentropic
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2359
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i seek to determine what exists...what is possible and what is not. one's mind can believe/try to hold on to something (mentally) that does not exist...that can never exist (as i understand how things work in the unified world we are a part of). one can believe that the Social Security system in the US is a trust fund account and that the money taken out of one's pay check and supposedly put here for their retirement/old age will be there for them. unfortuantely, as i understand this program...it is a pay-out as "we" go system. there is no "money" in it. whatever excess there is has been used by the Fed. Gov. to fund/spend on other things (or perhaps just goddamn stolen to some degree). also, as i understand things, it is impossible for anything to be exactly like/identical to any other thing ever...and so, all talk about other dimensions of reality with duplicates of each of is completely false and bullshit. it is important for me to know what exists, what does not and what can never be.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/nonentropic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.G. Alt
Advanced Member
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 576
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nonentropic wrote: | [i]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.
|
Consider the following example:
“This rose is red.”
In order for such a statement to be true, it must be the case that there is a rose (ie. that this rose exists) and that it is red.
But, following your line of reasoning, if existence is a property similar to “red”, the consider the following statement:
“This rose exists”.
This statement is true if it is the case that there is a rose and that this rose exists. In essence, you are saying that "this rose exists & exists", which is a tautology. This, I concede does not dsprove that existence is a property, but it does demonstrate that claiming so is about as useful as saying that all things have the property of being things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nonentropic
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2359
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ see the other things i have said here as well. seek the gist/essence of what i am saying. other qualities are also absolutely necessary/inherent in a thing (depending on it's location). i've been talking about things, properties and existence. i believe i've said enough and i don't believe i am being redundant.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/nonentropic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Annabel_Lee wrote: | | HatchBack176 wrote: | | Annabel_Lee wrote: | | HatchBack176 wrote: | | Annabel_lee, didn't we just talk about the use of the word 'indescribable'? This is the exact same thing. Why has your opinion changed? |
Clarification, please?
In my conscious awareness, this was actually the first time I stated my opinion in the thread. I'm unaware of any change...
Also, from what I've read in the thread, I haven't gathered any overt conversation about the word "indescribable". |
http://similarminds.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=138983#138983 |
Hmm, I think I see your point. Are you arguing that existence isn't a property because it's always processed through a lens of existence? In that, we give something existence as we acknowledge it?
I'm not sure if the two discussions are symmetrical though. When one characterizes a property, one doesn't deny the lens of subjective perception. Can't we differentiate between once-existent things that cease to exist at some point? That's what my argument is based on. |
When you make a judgment about something, you HAVE to create a 'timeless world'. In which you can see whatever relationships all-at-once.
If I were to add 2 + 2 + 2 and forget that they're supposed to be combined into a whole, I will add '2 + 2', forget the result, then add '2 + 2' again. I have to create a picture (an all-at-once instant) that shows me the relationships of the whole, as I add the numbers together. So, when I say that something has ceased to exist, I bring 2 temporal points into the same picture ('before' and 'now'). The problem is that for something to change you must compare it to some constant.
Let me show you a diagram.
You're saying "My mother no longer exists" as if it is the top picture, with only a timeline. Implicitly though what you're actually saying should look like the bottom picture. Which sounds like
There is an object, that has 3 properties:
1) Persists (is referrable) in time. (arrow from timeline to square)
2) Exists at an instant in time. (arrow from negation sign to square)
3) Does not exist at an instant in time. (arrow from lightning bolt to square)
Number 2 is redundant to Number 1, and Number 3 is in contradiction with Number 1. Existence/Non-Existence refer to the referrability of things, in the same instant that they're already being referred to. Which always leads to either a redundancy or a contradiction. Describability/Indescribability does the same thing by describing the describability of things, in the same instant they're already described. Which always leads to either a redundancy or a contradiction.
Let me show for comparison purposes what a real property looks like:
"There is an object, that has 3 properties:
1) Persists in time.
2) Is red at an instant in time.
3) Is not-red at an instant in time.
No contradiction.
Another non-sense one:
There is an object that has 3 properties
1) Persists in time.
2) Was imaginary.
3) Is now real.
Number 2 and 3 cannot be referring to the same object, otherwise they are in contradiction. Because they are mutually-exclusive with no 3rd option.. In other words, all real properties must be able to 'live' in a timeless world where everything happens in an instant. A statement like that can only mean that there is a specific structure to judgment-making, there are assumptions you have to make, to be able to make a judgment. In empirical terms, the brain has to be structured in a certain way, otherwise it would be incapable of making judgments. I happen to think it means that the parallel architecture of the right hemisphere must be capable of synchronization. Our experience of things like a-ha moments would seem to support this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nonentropic
Advanced Member
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 2359
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is existence a property?
- yes -
"Can existence be a property of a thing like red is a property of a thing?"
- yes -
does "a thing" exist (/have an existence)? yes...no...maybe...impossible...not likely...cannot determine.... does "a thing" have a perceivable color? yes...no...maybe...impossible...not likely...cannot determine.... does "a thing" have a definite shape? yes...no...maybe...impossible...not likely...cannot determine.... (added with 1st edit) does "a thing" have a magnetic field? yes...no...maybe...impossible...not likely...cannot determine.... and so on.
a "property": (one definition of it) a characteristic trait, quality or attribute
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/nonentropic
Last edited by nonentropic on Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| 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
