Nay. The screwdriver is not existentially dependent on anything but existence. — Shamshir

The screwdriver is a human creation.

So what is it that prevents you from recognising response to stimuli as experience? — Possibility

Having an outdoor lighting system which responds to physical stimulus.

Based on a definition of experience as ‘an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone’, it’s a reasonable and justifiable assumption that amoeba CAN have experiences... — Possibility

Because amoebas are people too.

What is the difference of being taught online by videos than reading a textbook and teaching yourself? — Zilian

Surely you can set some out?

Thinking/believing that one's worldview - about art - is better than an others' is not equivalent to being an elitist.

The appreciation of art is something that art loving cultures have. The appreciation is of their own culture. To appreciate one's own culture is not equivalent to being elitist. One appreciates their own culture in the terms of the culture. One can do both appreciate art and acknowledge that not everyone appreciates the same sorts of things using those same terms.

Some people can appreciate different cultures' art on it's own terms. These people are not elitist.

...

Field equations = things that all six-year-olds ought be able to comprehend.

Einstein was not a god... assuming the veracity of the quote.

I completely agree with the demand of explanation coming in the simplest adequate terms.

Can I play?
— creativesoul

Do. — Unseen

So that we ensure that we're talking about the same thing here...

What is the criterion for consciousness such that when it is met by any and all candidates, those candidates and only those candidates are the ones sensibly said to have consciousness whereas any and all candidates that do not meet the criterion are likewise sensibly denied to have consciousness?

Your turn.

With that correction, the objection - so far as I understand it - seems to disappear. — andrewk

Could one of you help me to understand how?

So it's more about accounting practices than existence?

Well. In one sense, certainly. As I said to andrewk earlier...

If being the value of a bound variable is equivalent to being (adequately?)taken account of, then I've no objection, but being taken account of is clearly not necessary for existence, otherwise there could be no such thing as discovery.

Where is your answer to the OP? WHY are we conscious? — Unseen

Science shows us that consciousness is always temporally behind the times and experiments show that the brain has made the decision before the consciousness thinks it has made it. It follows from those things that the consciousness is merely an observer of brain activities. — Unseen

To be conscious is to be experiencing something — Unseen

...the consciousness has no direct connection without the world. Some degree of processing goes on before your consciousness is aware of anything. This is what I call the pre-consciousness. It processes the data and decides what to do with it, including what to give you as conscious awareness. — Unseen

Consciousness is helpless to do anything. All of our actual thinking (assessing, planning, reacting) goes on in the preconsciousness before we even become aware of it. — Unseen

Can I play?

I've been wondering what you think about this...

...

Simply put: If a screwdriver was all there was, it would still be a screwdriver without any external relations; but its external relations being inescapable in this world, become inadvertently part of what a screwdriver is. But it is not dependent on them, they can be added and subtracted at will. — Shamshir

A screwdriver is existentially dependent upon humans.

Agree?

This gets to an important historical issue in philosophy proper, namely the misguided notions of necessity/contingency...

Some people look for reasons to be offended. They will always find them.

Some people do not care about offending others. They will intentionally offend.

Those are the extremes.

I do find that there are certain uses of language that ought be culled.

I figure words derive their meaning in reference to application.

Like how shears are shears because they shear... — Shamshir

And yet we park on driveways and drive on parkways...

:joke:

A screwdriver is existentially dependent upon humans.

Agree?

A screwdriver does not need a relative application to be a screwdriver... — Shamshir

Then a screwdriver is not a screwdriver in relation to it's application...

For a nondescript thing to change into something identifiable, like a screwdriver, because of its apprehension in thought/belief, would entail a problem of perpetual alteration, meaning that discovering anything new (qua functionality, correlations &c.) about the screwdriver would change it into something else. But, by presupposing all its properties in its propositional form (qua the existential constant), it retains its essentiality, despite any subsequent predication (true or false). — Merkwurdichliebe

This also harks back to Heraclitus' river and all of it's untenability.

Conflicting moral belief systems. Some think/belief that certain language use is acceptable. Others do not.

It's that simple to outline. The details, reasoning, and/or justification for what counts as acceptable/unacceptable is far greater in nuance.

For a nondescript thing to change into something identifiable, like a screwdriver, because of its apprehension in thought/belief, would entail a problem of perpetual alteration, meaning that discovering anything new (qua functionality, correlations &c.) about the screwdriver would change it into something else. But, by presupposing all its properties in its propositional form (qua the existential constant), it retains its essentiality, despite any subsequent predication (true or false) — Merkwurdichliebe

Screwdrivers are existentially dependent upon us calling them by that namesake. There's nothing essential about being a screwdriver aside from being called such. Vodka and orange juice is, most certainly, a screwdriver... although one could not drive screws with one. If driving screws is essential to being a screwdriver, then a screwdriver is not always a screwdriver, but knives are.

Witt's criticism of essentialism is apt here. The only thing that all screwdrivers have in common is being called such.

The screwdriver is a screwdriver in relation to its application. It doesn't need that relation to be a screwdriver... — Shamshir

This makes no sense. If a screwdriver is a screwdriver in relation to it's application, then it needs a relation to it's application in order to be a screwdriver.

If A is an A in relation to B, then A is existentially dependent upon being in relation to B.



Driving screws is something that all sorts of things other than screwdrivers are capable of doing in resourceful enough hands. Those things are not screwdrivers. If a screwdriver is so in relation to it's application, as you claim above, then all things used to drive screws would be screwdrivers.

You're conflating names of things with uses of things.

Are you wanting to get into Kantian notions, synthetic apriori, in particular?
— creativesoul

...at the bottom of it all, this kantian scheme seems inescapable, so never mind, unless you have a better notion. I'm willing to listen. — Merkwurdichliebe

Kant's scheme is neither inescapable, nor adequate for accounting for thought/belief. There's much to be admired about Kant. To his credit, his CI is brilliant. To this day, it can be used as a standard by which to determine whether or not some thought, belief, and/or behaviour is good. And it is very easily taught and understood by impressionable children. Hence, it can still be used to cultivate a society of more conscientious moral actors/agents/citizens, and it inherently induces and/or promotes thoughtful consideration of others and consequences.

His failure to draw and maintain the actual distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief can be chalked up to the conventional (mis)understanding of his time. That neglect produced the notions of reason that are still all too prevalent in philosophical discourse. All of them conflate rudimentary thought/belief with more complex. There are a plurality of inadequate dichotomies at work in all philosophical discourse of the time. We've talked about many of these in past.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you wanting to get into Kantian notions, synthetic apriori, in particular?
— creativesoul

Negative. I just wanted to hear your assessment of how the content of thought/belief can exist prior to thought/belief... — Merkwurdichliebe

Thought/belief is always about the world and/or ourselves.

How the content of thought/belief can exist prior to thought/belief depends upon the thought/belief candidate under our consideration. Thought/belief begins simply and grows in it's complexity. The simplest correlations are drawn between external things and internal things. The most complex are drawn between external things, internal things, and/or things that are both.

Anyone is more than welcome to try. I would think that if it could be done, it would have been by now. Folk around these parts carry axes...
— creativesoul

What they need is a feller buncher, like what you drive. — Merkwurdichliebe

I have no idea what that means, but it's funny anyway. Must be the accent.

Are you wanting to get into Kantian notions, synthetic apriori thought/knowledge, in particular?

The term "existence" exists. All terms are existentially dependent upon language use. All language use is existentially dependent upon pre-linguistic thought/belief. All thought/belief consists entirely of meaningful correlations drawn between different things. All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content, regardless of further subsequent qualification.
— creativesoul

That, there, is very clever. :up:

(I'm sure someone even more clever will come along and deconstruct it with their innate genius :roll: .) — Merkwurdichliebe

Anyone is more than welcome to try. I would think that if it could be done, it would have been by now. Folk around these parts carry axes...

...that could be argued. What is the less short answer? — Merkwurdichliebe

It has been argued for. Without subsequent refutation and/or valid objection it does not need to be further argued. I'm seeing where it leads.

I like your philosophy, despite what they say. — Merkwurdichliebe

Thanks.

Yes.

Are you claiming that nothing existed prior to language? — creativesoul

No. — fresco

Good.

Language acquisition is existentially dependent upon both trust and truth.

We trust our direct sensory perception - at first - because we have no choice in the matter. Ducks, dogs, and dinosaurs have never been able to doubt whether or not their physiological nervous system is dependable/trustworthy.

Trust is akin to a load bearing structure of the written/spoken word. That is particularly obvious when we think about direct proportional effects/affects. When trust is high in a speaker, one takes them at their word. One thinks/believes that the person is speaking sincerely.

"Truth telling" can lead to a bit of confusion if it is conflated with sincerity/honesty. One can speak sincerely, one can speak clearly, one can be perfectly honest, and...

One could be stating a falsehood. While being honest is admirable, it does not require omniscience. One is lying when one deliberately misrepresents their own thought/belief. Lying is what insincere speakers are doing.

Making promises to the electorate is what politicians do. When one sincerely promises to do 'X', then it is his/her obligation, which they voluntarily entered into, to make the world match their words. That is the difference between a promise made by an insincere speaker, and one made by a sincere one. The insincere speaker knows that, knows the power of that, and uses it as a means to garner/gain trust.

When enough promises are broken, the individual speaker is no longer needed and/or wanted as someone to depend upon. When the government consists of long lists of just such people, the citizens will lose their trust. When the citizen no longer believes that their vote matters, voter turnout will falter. If within a fifty year timeframe, a government passes legislation that offers financial incentive for citizen business owners to move all the operations to another country, that government has turned it's back on it's own people. Not a fatal mistake. It can be corrected, and ought.

Governments create the socioeconomic landscape. There is no reason for to not use that power as a means to help foster and/or cultivate more opportunity and options for all citizens being governed.

I don't think that those two options are exhaustive/adequate.

The term "existence" has meaning attributed to it that is relative to the users.

Things existed prior to language, and thus prior to the term.

Your second sentence does not follow from the first. — fresco

Nor need it.

Are you claiming that nothing existed prior to language? Are you claiming that nothing exists prior to our reporting upon it?

Anything and everything we can know about existence is a reletavisic truth approximation. — Merkwurdichliebe

This is a perfect example that proves the point I made earlier about unnecessarily complex language use.

Think about it this way... if what you say here is true, then anything and everything knowable about existence is relative, and the term "relative" is not doing anything at all. It's not telling us anything about our knowledge, unless it is being invoked against claims of absolute knowledge. Are people still claiming that too?

I find the dichotomy yet another linguistic bottle to get trapped within. There are better ways to account for the world and/or ourselves. The concept of "existence" is determined entirely by us. Not all concepts of "existence" are on equal footing. Common sense helps discriminate between notions/conceptions/frameworks/schema.

The term "existence" exists. All terms are existentially dependent upon language use. All language use is existentially dependent upon pre-linguistic thought/belief. All thought/belief consists entirely of meaningful correlations drawn between different things. All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content, regardless of further subsequent qualification.

All philosophical positions are existentially dependent upon same things as terms are. After-all, they are existentially dependent upon terminological use.

What does the notion of "relative" existence add here? Better yet, does it help or hinder our understanding?

The term "existence" has meaning attributed to it that is relative to the users. Things existed prior to language, and thus prior to the term.

That which exists has an affect/effect.

I think you are onto something. — Merkwurdichliebe

We'll see.

It is a higher kind of thought/belief because it involves a more complex form of abstract speculation. — Merkwurdichliebe

Again...

Not sure about this logical train...

Some complex forms of abstract speculation are false. Some simple moral thought/belief are true.

Which is more valuable here?

It is not a supremely useful or efficient mode of thought/belief, but it is highly concerned with consequence, which has deep psychological significance -
qua. redemption/damnation. There is something much more personal about consciously doing right/wrong, than say building an engine/system. Doing right by building an engine/system would be supremely personal. I might be off here, but I'm just exploring the connotations. — Merkwurdichliebe

When doing what's right is an operative guiding principle of one's behaviour, it becomes causal in it's affects on the agent, and their effects on the world.

I agree that aiming to do what's right has visceral affects/effects. I agree that some people driven by moral thought/belief are driven by thought/belief that has been taken upon and perpetuated by pure faith alone. I agree that some of these people are irrational, because they themselves cannot offer a reason, or an academically accepted line of reasoning to support the confidence, certainty, and/or conviction that accompanies their belief statements.

I disagree with covert implications that one ought disregard and/or dissent from a statement spoken by one who cannot argue well for it, simply because they cannot argue well for it.

Moral thought/belief permits for a greater range of reasoning, and because of that it sprawls into an indeterminate irrationality. — Merkwurdichliebe

Not sure about that logical train...

All thought/belief that exists in it's entirety prior to it's being taken into consideration by the thinking/believing creature is irrational. All pre-reflective thought/belief is irrational.

Some is well-grounded and true.

Because of that, we can know that not all irrational thought/belief are on equal ground. They are certainly not all prone to the same mistakes. I'm assuming 'indeterminate irrationality' has negative connotation. It's being invoked as though It's not something we ought aspire towards, but... avoid.

I find it unwise to avoid well-grounded true belief. Given the choice between being extremely rational, well argued for, and false on the one hand and being irrational, well-grounded, and true on the other...

Given that choice, I'm erring on the side of well-grounded and true each and every time.

...for every moral reason, there is always an opposite/contradictory reason. This is in contrast to say mathematical/logical reason that has a strict criterion and little room for dissention. — Merkwurdichliebe

Moral reasoning often includes both mathematical and logical reasoning.

All can be mistaken. History shows this.