| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| You're saying magnetic fields have effects on things, so they exist. This also applies to the idea of santa, if you're giving things existence on the basis of measurable effects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zephr
Advanced Member
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 1051
Location: Tacoma
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HatchBack176 wrote: | | You're saying magnetic fields have effects on things, so they exist. This also applies to the idea of santa, if you're giving things existence on the basis of measurable effects. |
The idea of Santa exists. There is no fat man that lives at the north pole.
The idea has measurable effects. There is no measurable effect created by a dude in red robes that rides a magic sleigh. They are two different things. One exists, the other doesn't.
_________________
r|C|UaI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, what I'm getting at is that as you parse a sentence you look for what words refer to.
"Santa Claus, the person, does not exist"
I look up Santa Claus, I get the idea of Santa Claus.
I look up Santa Claus, the person. Nothing. Remember, does not exist.
Then after I already know that he doesn't exist, I get told he doesn't exist. It's completely redundant.
"Hey you know Santa Claus, the person..." No, I don't. "Well, he doesn't exist" Who are you referring to by 'he'? "Santa Claus, the person" Who? Your words aren't referring to anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lordofthefood1
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This whole argument bothers me
"Santa doesn't physically exist"
"Words relate to things"
"Yeah, but Santa doesn't physically exist."
"Santa Claus refers to Santa Claus"
"I know that, but it doesn't mean he physically exists, he only exists in essence."
Your last statement, Hatch, just seems completely absurd to be dealing with my interpretation of Zeph's argument.
The person would be referring to Santa Claus the IDEA
Because the idea exists
Not the non-existent physical entity of Santa Claus
but a new idea to bring up
What if I refer to something that nobody else knows
Does it exist to only me?
Surely what I'm referring to, at the time of reference, at least, has to refer to something existent
(being that it is how language works; a place holder word or not)
Is the word only existent to me?
a clarification in sentence
"I like Splongeadoodles"
(pretend you haven't seen the word Splongeadoodle, but I'm fairly certain that I made that up)
Nobody in the Universe has any idea what that word is relating to
(sure they could guess?)
So would Splongeadoodles be non-existent to people outside of me
(blahblah, I hope I'm wording this in a fashion that is readable)
(I'm playing on the fact that what if nobody knows the reference of the word)
_________________
Behold the world in other people, life is clarity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zephr
Advanced Member
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 1051
Location: Tacoma
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HatchBack176 wrote: | Well, what I'm getting at is that as you parse a sentence you look for what words refer to.
"Santa Claus, the person, does not exist"
I look up Santa Claus, I get the idea of Santa Claus.
I look up Santa Claus, the person. Nothing. Remember, does not exist.
Then after I already know that he doesn't exist, I get told he doesn't exist. It's completely redundant.
"Hey you know Santa Claus, the person..." No, I don't. "Well, he doesn't exist" Who are you referring to by 'he'? "Santa Claus, the person" Who? Your words aren't referring to anything. |
So you're saying that you're incapable of forming a mental image of a person who doesn't exist?
An idea of a thing and the thing itself are always two separate things. I can't eat the idea of a banana, but bananas are real. Bananas exist, even if I don't have one.
Santa isn't real. The idea exists. Santa doesn't. When a person talks about Santa they are referring to something that isn't real. Of course you don't know Santa, that's the point, he doesn't exist.
Santa isn't nonsense though. When I say Santa, you know what I mean, and I'm not talking about the idea of Santa. I'm talking about Santa himself. You know Santa means even though he doesn't exist.
You yourself refer to the physical person of Santa in your post, and I know what you meant by that. I get an image of a fat man in a red suit when you say Santa just as surely as I get an image of a long yellow fruit when you say banana. The ideas are both equally real, but those ideas refer to things. One exists. The other doesn't.
_________________
r|C|UaI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the idea refers to something, then you already know whether the thing referred to exists or not. My assertion one way or the other is redundant or contradictory.
If I say "I do not exist". You'd disagree. 'I' refers to an existing subject, you don't need the rest of the sentence, especially since it's a blatant lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zephr
Advanced Member
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 1051
Location: Tacoma
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HatchBack176 wrote: | If the idea refers to something, then you already know whether the thing referred to exists or not. My assertion one way or the other is redundant or contradictory.
If I say "I do not exist". You'd disagree. 'I' refers to an existing subject, you don't need the rest of the sentence, especially since it's a blatant lie. |
Umm... I don't know how to break this to you, but Santa isn't real. He doesn't exist.
I can say "Santa does not exist." That's not a lie. It's an idea with a meaning of something that isn't real.
You can play verbal gymnastics all you want, but there is no fat man in a red robe making toys at the north pole.
If you can't tell the difference between an idea and an object, then I'm sorry, but I don't think we can have any meaningful conversation.
_________________
r|C|UaI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TakeAFlyingLeap
Member
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I haven't read the thread, but yes because you can not exist also. Those are your two choices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HatchBack176
Advanced Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 1262
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zephr wrote: | | HatchBack176 wrote: | If the idea refers to something, then you already know whether the thing referred to exists or not. My assertion one way or the other is redundant or contradictory.
If I say "I do not exist". You'd disagree. 'I' refers to an existing subject, you don't need the rest of the sentence, especially since it's a blatant lie. |
Umm... I don't know how to break this to you, but Santa isn't real. He doesn't exist.
I can say "Santa does not exist." That's not a lie. It's an idea with a meaning of something that isn't real.
You can play verbal gymnastics all you want, but there is no fat man in a red robe making toys at the north pole.
If you can't tell the difference between an idea and an object, then I'm sorry, but I don't think we can have any meaningful conversation. |
Do you have any clue why mescaline brought this topic up? It's not verbal gymnastics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zephr
Advanced Member
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 1051
Location: Tacoma
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HatchBack176 wrote: | | Do you have any clue why mescaline brought this topic up? It's not verbal gymnastics. |
I've gotten a little sidetracked with you trying to convince me that Santa exists and all that, but you've gotten further away from the original topic than I have as far as I can tell.
Also, the most important thing you seem to be missing here is that not everyone knows everything about every possible object. For instance some people (generally very young children, but people none-the-less) believe in Santa. Telling them that Santa doesn't exist is not redundant. It's a property of Santa that they're unaware of.
Even if it were redundant, that wouldn't prevent it from being a property. Just because it's obvious what color an orange isn't doesn't invalidate the concept of orangeness.
"Does that actually exist?" is a perfectly valid question to ask when someone describes something to you. You would be trying to find out if the object being described has the property of existence.
_________________
r|C|UaI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Property is a property of existence.
Existence as a property is true, but very redundant and needlessly circular. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lordofthefood1
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have FINALLY found* something that is what I was trying to say (by found, I mean that it has been presented to me and I have made the connection (lazy facilitator or a contributor?, hink) what I want (actually, it is two things, but only one of them has a physical copy).
'The Illuminating Nature of Consciousness"
A, If I know that something exists, it is because I am aware of its existence. (Premise; in order for me to know that something exists, I must be aware of its existence.)
B, For something to exist, I must know that it exists. (Premise; in order for something to exist, I must know that it exists.)**
C, Something exists. (Premise)
D, So I must know that it exists. (from B and C)
E, So I must be aware of its existence. (from A and D)
F, To be aware of something's existence, that thing must be an object of consciousness. (Premise)
G, So that thing that exists is an object of consciousness. (from E and F)
H, For there to be an object of consciousness, there must be a subject that is conscious of and illuminates this object as an object of consciousness. (Premise, 'illumination' is used in the sense of 'shedding light on', which is a metaphor for 'granting existence to')
I, There is a subject that is conscious of this object and thus illuminates it as an object of consciousness. (from H and I)
The main point ends after E, and B is the real problem
My acceptance in B being plausible comes from [paraphrased by me] said by George Berkeley, "We cannot possibly talk about something that does not exist, for if we talked about it, we would surely know about it."
This makes the talk very hard, which is why I tried to use a non-sense place holder, so you cannot discuss it (but then you are aware of it, as I said back when I brought up the non-sense, that you now know that it exists because I made you aware of it.)
This still doesn't solve the Santa Claus thing, being that the argument was (at least, it seems from mine (and Zeph's?) point of view) about physical existence (spacial and time) instead of conscious existence
Hm, Iduno.
_________________
Behold the world in other people, life is clarity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lordofthefood1 wrote: | I have FINALLY found* something that is what I was trying to say (by found, I mean that it has been presented to me and I have made the connection (lazy facilitator or a contributor?, hink) what I want (actually, it is two things, but only one of them has a physical copy).
'The Illuminating Nature of Consciousness"
A, If I know that something exists, it is because I am aware of its existence. (Premise; in order for me to know that something exists, I must be aware of its existence.)
B, For something to exist, I must know that it exists. (Premise; in order for something to exist, I must know that it exists.)**
C, Something exists. (Premise)
D, So I must know that it exists. (from B and C)
E, So I must be aware of its existence. (from A and D)
F, To be aware of something's existence, that thing must be an object of consciousness. (Premise)
G, So that thing that exists is an object of consciousness. (from E and F)
H, For there to be an object of consciousness, there must be a subject that is conscious of and illuminates this object as an object of consciousness. (Premise, 'illumination' is used in the sense of 'shedding light on', which is a metaphor for 'granting existence to')
I, There is a subject that is conscious of this object and thus illuminates it as an object of consciousness. (from H and I)
The main point ends after E, and B is the real problem
My acceptance in B being plausible comes from [paraphrased by me] said by George Berkeley, "We cannot possibly talk about something that does not exist, for if we talked about it, we would surely know about it."
This makes the talk very hard, which is why I tried to use a non-sense place holder, so you cannot discuss it (but then you are aware of it, as I said back when I brought up the non-sense, that you now know that it exists because I made you aware of it.)
This still doesn't solve the Santa Claus thing, being that the argument was (at least, it seems from mine (and Zeph's?) point of view) about physical existence (spacial and time) instead of conscious existence
Hm, Iduno. |
Is this someone elses work? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lordofthefood1
Advanced Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stuckasfook wrote: | | lordofthefood1 wrote: | I have FINALLY found* something that is what I was trying to say (by found, I mean that it has been presented to me and I have made the connection (lazy facilitator or a contributor?, hink) what I want (actually, it is two things, but only one of them has a physical copy).
'The Illuminating Nature of Consciousness"
A, If I know that something exists, it is because I am aware of its existence. (Premise; in order for me to know that something exists, I must be aware of its existence.)
B, For something to exist, I must know that it exists. (Premise; in order for something to exist, I must know that it exists.)**
C, Something exists. (Premise)
D, So I must know that it exists. (from B and C)
E, So I must be aware of its existence. (from A and D)
F, To be aware of something's existence, that thing must be an object of consciousness. (Premise)
G, So that thing that exists is an object of consciousness. (from E and F)
H, For there to be an object of consciousness, there must be a subject that is conscious of and illuminates this object as an object of consciousness. (Premise, 'illumination' is used in the sense of 'shedding light on', which is a metaphor for 'granting existence to')
I, There is a subject that is conscious of this object and thus illuminates it as an object of consciousness. (from H and I)
The main point ends after E, and B is the real problem
My acceptance in B being plausible comes from [paraphrased by me] said by George Berkeley, "We cannot possibly talk about something that does not exist, for if we talked about it, we would surely know about it."
This makes the talk very hard, which is why I tried to use a non-sense place holder, so you cannot discuss it (but then you are aware of it, as I said back when I brought up the non-sense, that you now know that it exists because I made you aware of it.)
This still doesn't solve the Santa Claus thing, being that the argument was (at least, it seems from mine (and Zeph's?) point of view) about physical existence (spacial and time) instead of conscious existence
Hm, Iduno. |
Is this someone elses work? |
I just said that I found/heard it, so unless I talk to myself or forget what I create and stumble upon it as if it is something not of my own, then yes, I think you're right.
_________________
Behold the world in other people, life is clarity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuckasfook
Advanced Member
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 544
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| and so follows the next question... : Whose? |
|
| 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
