Air, Light, Existence & The Immaterial

TheMadFool

The notion of existence is predicated on detectability i.e. for something to exist it must be detectable. By detectable I refer to perception either through our senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch) or through their extensions, instruments.

It appears that to determine existence we use the following rule:

E = if x exists then, x is detectable (by means of at least one sensory mechanism or at least one instrument)

What about the converse of E?

D = if x is detectable (by means of at least one sensory mechanism or at least one instrument) then, x exists

Clearly, D doesn't work. People have told me that when they hear voices at night, their immediate reaction is to crosscheck the voices by using their eyes for a source (other people). In other words, detection with only one sensory system falls short of being good evidence for existence. Why else the need to corroborate with the other senses?

The notion of hallucination needs to be brought up at this point. A hallucination is different in that it maybe quite complex; it activates more than just one sensory system - the person hallucinating may not just hear voices but may actually see a person speaking to him/her. In other words, the other senses may connive with the faulty sensory system (causing the hallucination) and produce a very convincing false picture of reality, the hallucination.

The obvious question is then how do we distinguish hallucinations and real/existent things? The simple answer is other people. A hallucination, no matter how complex, can't be perceived by others. As the number of people who fail to detect anything increases, the probability of that what is being detected is a hallucination increases.

Basically, the statement D is false. Just because we can detect something, sense-wise or with instruments, it doesn't follow that that thing exists.

What is worth noting here is that there exists some things that are perceived only partially - involving some but not all our senses or instruments. For instance air and water can be felt and heard but are tasteless, odorless, and invisible. Visible light can't be felt or heard but can be seen. These things (air, water, and light) don't contradict statement E in any way but the point is that they are undetectable to some of our senses. This brings me to the next statement we have to deal with:

U = if x is undetectable (by means of at least one senory mechanism or at least one instrument) then, x doesn't exist

U, as you already know, is the contrapositive of statement E and is, therefore, true if E is true. We know E is true for we define existence as such. So, U is also true.

The problem with U is that, referring back to the examples of air, water, and light I used earlier, if we consult the child in us and playfully ask "what do you get if we cross air with light?" we immediately realize the possibility of something that's (invisible, odorless, tasteless [air]), that (doesn't produce sound, that can't be felt [light]), and yet that something exists. Air-light, the hybrid, maybe undetectable to our senses and instruments and may yet exist.

This is implies that U is false and that, by immediate inference, E too is false. Immaterial (undetectable) things may exist.

Benj96

↪TheMadFool

An extraterrestrial comes to investigate how our societies run. They say "give me the best object to explain how you organise your peoples on this planet. I would like to examine its qualities." The person thinks for a moment...hmm... he takes out a dollar bill and hands it to the alien. "This is called money. Virtually everyone in conventional society subscribes to it. It has value and power which we use to get things done."

The alien takes out a detector. He detects all the aspects of the note, the colour, the form, the inscriptions and images, the weight, chemical composition. He senses everything there is to sense about the physical object. "How does it work? Where is the value stored in the object? I cannot detect its presence. The only value I find is the few calories of paper in it. Do you burn it for energy?" The person laughs. "The value is I guess in our mind. We trust eachother that it has value." "So the value is make believe? Imaginary? It exists only because you all use it symbolically? You exchange a symbol of value that doesnt inherently exist?" "Yes." The person replies.

What exists can be a metaphysical construct. The value of money exists and has actionable effects on our lives, it can destroy lives or sustain them yet you cannot directly measure or appreciate its value in a singular note without the pre-conceived notions of numbers, a federal reserve, mints, central banks, supply and demand, economics, inflation and deflation, stock markets, Legalities surrounding finance and social behaviour. There is a lot of rules and regulation that goes into maintaining a fantasy that works. But it does work.

Consider a man that just invents money. He holds a coin and says look it has value! I can exchange it for this bread you have. The Baker laughs and says get lost you're hallucinating. That chunk of metal is not worth the same as this delicious edible bread. The man is hallucinating if he and only he believes it has value which it doesnt.

Until he suggests that the Baker can use the coin in exchange for something he wants. Now the Baker is interested. Okay I will take the coin and give you this bread. But in a week when your fruits are ripe I want to exchange it for some of those. "Done!" the man says. Is he still hallucinating the value of his newly created money? Because now the Baker trusts its value too. It has value to two people. Are they collectively hallucinating or does money now exist?

TheMadFool

↪Benj96

It appears that you're talking about a different kind of existence here. I'm not referring to existence of the kind you're talking about. Money is more a concept than anything else. It exists, if that's even the right word to use here, in the mind - as an idea. Money inhabits a conceptual world and that's all there is to it. A good indication that this is the case is to give a 1000 dollars to a Sentinelese tribesman in the Andaman and Nicobar islands. The Sentinelese wouldn't know what to do with it and wouldn't care and that's because he simply lacks the concept of money. That being so, I find it almost impossible to imagine how one could hallucinate a concept?

Echarmion

This is implies that U is false and that, by immediate inference, E too is false. Immaterial (undetectable) things may exist. — TheMadFool

It all depends on how you define existence. What would it mean for immaterial things to exist? Certainly it wouldn't mean they are material, but what else is there?

Benj96

That being so, I find it almost impossible to imagine how one could hallucinate a concept? — TheMadFool

A ghost is a concept. It hasn't been proven to be an objective thing and therefore resides as a recurrent idea or theme in the minds of people who claim to believe in or have experienced ghosts. You could argue that anyone who sees a ghost merely hallucinated its presence.

But according to your reasoning it is impossible to hallucinate a concept. So either they hallucinated they were encountering something that does indeed actually exist... or they did not hallucinate because a ghost is a concept. At the end of the day, their conscious awareness experienced a version of reality that is not shared by you or the collective. Does this mean it must be a hallicination? Could it not be reasoned as a rare and singular unrepeatable experience?

If two people argue about the concept of a God for example. And one says it is just an idea in the mind, a concept while the other says no, God is real and right beside me at this very moment. The one who argued it as a concept would have to believe they are hallucinating. But then it cannot be a concept because you said it is impossible to hallucinate a concept. So which is it?

Wayfarer

The notion of existence is predicated on detectability i.e. for something to exist it must be detectable. By detectable I refer to perception either through our senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch) or through their extensions, instruments. — TheMadFool

What about pure maths, mathematical proofs, and the like. They're only detectable, or rather, discernible, through reason. But many of the observations made by senses and instruments are subsequently elaborated through mathematical analysis. So mathematics is inextricably involved, but it's existence doesn't depend on 'detectability'.

in fact think you could argue that detectability in many areas of science is derived from predictions based on mathematics (like Dirac's prediction of the existence of antimatter, which was made on purely mathematical grounds; particles weren't detected until much later.) Same goes for many of Einstein's predictions which were again made on mathematical grounds and not detected until much later. So how do maths fit into this picture?

neonspectraltoast

↪TheMadFool

I don't define existence as such. Certainly not something that can be measured by an instrument.

The one fundamental reality we can be sure of is that we're all experiencing something. It should be held in somewhat high regard, therefore.

But what you're experiencing can't be measured/dissected. There are different emotions, and there are different experiences, but there is a larger arena of experience that remains whole in the now. This I call asperience. It is a whole that can't be divided. It is one. It is you and I.

TheMadFool

It all depends on how you define existence. — Echarmion

I feel that's implied by what I said in the OP. @Benj96's remarks are in a similar vein.

The crux of the matter seems to be the definition of "existence". The main point of my OP is that something that is undetectable through our sensory apparatus or instruments may/can exist. However, in asserting that a problem arises viz. what do I mean by "exist/existence"? As I've already disposed of the conventional definition of "existence" as predicated on detectability, the onus is on me to come forward with a meaning of "existence" that fits the way I've used the word "exist/existence".

How does one define "existence" without detectability being an essential feature? Theists say things like "god is immaterial and that god exists". Words like that suggests to me that firstly, god is undetectable because he's immaterial and secondly, it's not wrong to say immaterial things exist. This is exactly what I'm asserting in my OP - undetectable "stuff" that exist. Firstly, theists seem to be of the view that detectability is a material issue in that only the material are detectable. Thus, their god being immaterial isn't detectable which I suppose is the official explanation for why no one has seen god. Secondly, by claiming the existence of an immaterial being, theists are positing existence of a different kind but...what's their definition of existence? This, in my opinon, is the million dollar question. Are theists and I in the same leaky boat or do they have a definition that I can use? You be the judge.

They're only detectable, or rather, discernible, through reason. — Wayfarer

This is something that I've been thinking about. Is the mind exclusively a processor (of information) or does it also have a, well, auxiliary function as a sensory system. If it's the former then there's nothing further to discuss but if it's the latter the possibility that it's "detecting"/picking up a signal (god/spiritual realm) in the cosmos is something we have to attend to and pronto.

Too, the mind, even if it's just a processor and nothing else, is, as we all know, fully capable of finding patterns in our observational data of our universe. I believe naturalistic theology is deeply involved in extracting a divine hand from natural patterns (argument from design/fine tuning argument) we see in the universe.

I don't define existence as such. — neonspectraltoast

What is your definition of existence?

fishfry

The notion of existence is predicated on detectability i.e. for something to exist it must be detectable — TheMadFool

You deny all abstract existence? Numbers, justice, beauty?

Wayfarer

This is something that I've been thinking about. Is the mind exclusively a processor (of information) or does it also have a, well, auxiliary function as a sensory system — TheMadFool

Reason is neither. It is more than an 'information processor', as it is capable of judgement, which is not a function of computation; and something other than a sensory system. It's the very faculty you're using to puzzle about this problem, probably without being aware that you're using it.

TheMadFool

You deny all abstract existence? Numbers, justice, beauty? — fishfry

As you've noticed, it seems my idea of existence seems to be, to put it in the best possible way I can, not about abstract stuff. The existence I'm struggling with here is the kind theists claim when they say "god exists", an entity that is not just a concept in our heads but has "existence" external to us, among the rocks, trees, planets and stars.

That said, I did mention, in my reply to wayfarer, that the mind may have, apart from a primary data processing function, a side gig as some sort of sensory system that's, in a way, sensing patterns in raw data the universe, as a whole, presents to us. It's possible or even true that processing data is actually about detecting patterns. These patterns are aspects of the universe that can be "sensed/detected" by our mind. Viewed thus, the mind is a sensory organ in its own right, responsible for discerning patterns.

Reason is neither. It is more than an 'information processor', as it is capable of judgement, which is not a function of computation; and something other than a sensory system. It's the very faculty you're using to puzzle about this problem, probably without being aware that you're using it. — Wayfarer

Can you have a read of my reply to fishfry.

Wayfarer

The existence I'm struggling with here is the kind theists claim when they say "god exists", an entity that is not just a concept in our heads but has "existence" external to us, among the rocks, trees, planets and stars. — TheMadFool

I see your problem. Basically you want ‘what exists’ to be locatable in time and space, or objectifiable as a ‘that’. But what this excludes is precisely what answers to the term ‘transcendent’. For which, see this essay, by a theist - a bishop, no less - that God doesn’t exist.

As for your speil about being able to ‘sense patterns’ - utter nonsense, I’m afraid. Nothing to do with the capacity of reason.

TheMadFool

I see your problem. Basically you want ‘what exists’ to be locatable in time and space, or objectifiable as a ‘that’. But what this excludes is precisely what answers to the term ‘transcendent’. For which, see this essay, by a theist - a bishop, no less - that God doesn’t exist. — Wayfarer

I only ask for the believer (in god) to put his definition of "existence" on the table. What does a theist mean by "exists" in his trademark statement, "god exists".

As for your speil about being able to ‘sense patterns’ - utter nonsense — Wayfarer

I wish I could post a video but I can't. Suffice it to say that the statement, "I sense a pattern" is both semantically and syntactically unproblematic.

Wayfarer

I only ask for the believer (in god) to put his definition of "existence" on the table. What does a theist mean by "exists" in his trademark statement, "god exists". — TheMadFool

I provided the reference. I know of more (such as this.) The basic point is, that what is eternal and simple, cannot come into or go out of existence, whereas 'everything that exists' does. This is not something unique to theistic religion, you find an exact parallel in Mahāyāna Buddhism.

Wayfarer

Suffice it to say that the statement, "I sense a pattern" is both semantically and syntactically unproblematic. — TheMadFool

Yes, but it doesn't explain anything. Computers can sense patterns, so can all kinds of creatures. Reason can grasp meaning, and the scope of reason far exceeds what can be attributed to mere patterns.

TheMadFool

I provided the reference. I know of more (such as this.) The basic point is, that what is eternal and simple, cannot come into or go out of existence, whereas 'everything that exists' does. This is not something unique to theistic religion, you find an exact parallel in Mahāyāna Buddhism. — Wayfarer

If it's not too much trouble, what's your take on the issue of theistic existence? Your previous reply to this question stating existence is about being, in your words, "locatable in space & time" doesn't quite hit the mark because, as you yourself mentioned, god's allegedly "transcendent".

Reason can grasp meaning, and the scope of reason far exceeds what can be attributed to mere patterns. — Wayfarer

Indeed you're right. The mind is said to be capable of very many things but you surely won't deny that pattern recognition is part of the mind's act.

Mww

you surely won't deny that pattern recognition is part of the mind's act. — TheMadFool

I certainly wouldn’t deny this assertion. Nevertheless......

"I sense a pattern" is both semantically and syntactically unproblematic. — TheMadFool

.......while unproblematic as a proposition under those stringent conditions, forces the two assertions to contradict each other, insofar as perception, in and of itself, is not a function of mind but of a posteriori principles alone. My physiology senses only real physical objects, of which I immediately become aware; my mind apprehends the presence of possible patterns between those objects, or between myself and those objects, merely as judgements of logical relations.

tim wood

My physiology senses only real physical objects, of which I immediately become aware; my mind apprehends the presence of possible patterns between those objects, or between myself and those objects, merely as judgments of logical relations. — Mww

What would Hume say? Would he let this pass as proximately correct, "close enough for government work"? Or all right? Or all wrong? I'm thinking he agrees or differs as he thinks in practical or pure terms. I find a useful analogy in the reproduction of music from the way a steel needle vibrates in a shellac (I had to look that up) or vinyl groove and amplified through a horn. That is, unremarkable, at the same time incomprehensible.

I guess what caught my eye was the "only real physical objects, of which I immediately become aware." Awareness may be "immediate," although even that calls for clarification. One can ask just what it is that partakes of immediacy. But the idea of immediate awareness of "real physical objects" seems contentious in that that, it seems to me, is just what must be synthesized, and thereby not immediate at all. Perhaps it is recognition after synthesis that is immediate. In any case, no argument here, but a concern that like Odysseus under the sheep, something is getting away that shouldn't.

tim wood

But what this excludes is precisely what answers to the term ‘transcendent’. For which, see this essay, by a theist - a bishop, no less - that God doesn’t exist. — Wayfarer

Did you read this essay?

"Let me be clear: I believe God is. But my faith is not knowledge. At best I can give sound reasons — sound to my mind, at least — why my faith is not irrational."

You seem to be hell-bent on insisting on the existence of something that existence disqualifies from being, from existing, as your essayist demonstrates. His is a rational faith built on an absolute presupposition. And perhaps he's a Bishop because he recognizes both the power and the limitations of transcendence. Maybe he's read his Kant.

To my way of thinking, anyone who wants to find God has to look into a mirror. All else is supernaturalism.

Mww

like Odysseus under the sheep, something is getting away that shouldn't. — tim wood

But Polyphemus, being blind as the proverbial bat, was easily fooled by a simple ruse. Humans in general, likewise easily fooled, still have the capacity to right themselves. Sometimes misused, such capacity, but there nonetheless.

I would allay your concern with the hypothesis that sensation, the direct and unambiguous product of perception, is that of which we are immediately aware. In metaphysical parlance, empirical sensation becomes appearance as representation, and is the matter of a synthesis, telling us what kind of sensation it is, in conjunction with intuition, which is its form, telling us particulars relative to its kind. That synthesis gives us phenomena, some as yet unknown something. The reason for the synthesis of appearance to intuition, is to prevent the confusion of, say, color with touch, pressure with scent, and so forth, in order to ensure the next synthesis....phenomena with understanding.....has the logically correct, that is, non-contradictory, material to work with.

Of course, science can confirm that certain areas of the brain are provably responsible for maintaining such lack of confusion, but......nobody really cares about that, because science can only explain how we get stuff wrong with a glitch in the mechanics, which tells us absolutely nothing useful, whereas reason allows us to understand how we got stuff wrong. And ya gotta admit, logical, rational speculation is more satisfying to the Average Joe than, “well, buddy.....what can I tell ya; your brain’s broke”.
——————-

Because we talking perception, having to do with the empirical, Hume, the quintessential empiricist of his time, might hold with his “constant conjunction”, although his idea of conjunction was very far from transcendental synthesis. As such, his notion of immediate awareness would be the object of perception, thus not a Kantian “appearance” as mere representation thereof.

Anyway.....couple cents worth.

TheMadFool

I certainly wouldn’t deny this assertion. Nevertheless......

"I sense a pattern" is both semantically and syntactically unproblematic.
— TheMadFool

.......while unproblematic as a proposition under those stringent conditions, forces the two assertions to contradict each other, insofar as perception, in and of itself, is not a function of mind but of a posteriori principles alone. My physiology senses only real physical objects, of which I immediately become aware; my mind apprehends the presence of possible patterns between those objects, or between myself and those objects, merely as judgements of logical relations. — Mww

Indeed, with all the emphasis laid on proper use of language, I admit there's a perceptible "philosophical" awkwardness in using the term "sense" with respect to the mind discerning patterns. However, the expression "I sense a pattern" has found its way into the vernacular and my reckoning is that people have intuited, if not inferred through logical argument, that our minds, in a way, "sense" patterns.

tim wood

I would allay your concern with the hypothesis that sensation, the direct and unambiguous product of perception, is that of which we are immediately aware. In metaphysical parlance, empirical sensation becomes appearance as representation, and is the matter of a synthesis, telling us what kind of sensation it is, in conjunction with intuition, which is its form, telling us particulars relative to its kind. That synthesis gives us phenomena, some as yet unknown something. The reason for the synthesis of appearance to intuition, is to prevent the confusion of, say, color with touch, pressure with scent, and so forth, in order to ensure the next synthesis....phenomena with understanding.....has the logically correct, that is, non-contradictory, material to work with. — Mww

Let's see:
perception --> sensation --> (appearance <=> (synthesis1 (sensation + intuition))) --> (phenomenon <=> (synthesis2( appearance + understanding))).

That's not quite what you wrote. Any adjustments? It seems to me that awareness occurs at more than one point, but we might ask, awareness of what? Which implies the question, what is aware?

Let's try the hot stove test. (As a model. I think the central nervous systems actually accommodates burns with a real immediacy, i.e., before the brain has time to process the thing.)

perception: a signal
sensation: hot, burning
appearance: putting together burning with what burning is - being burned
phenomenon: understanding, or assigning, the meaning of the appearance.

Close enough?

Wayfarer

If it's not too much trouble, what's your take on the issue of theistic existence? — TheMadFool

The issue is with the meaning of the word ‘exist’. It is comprised of two components, ‘ex-‘, meaning apart from or separate (compare exile, external, extrinsic) and ‘ist’, to stand or be. So to ‘exist’ is to ‘be separate’, to be ‘this’ as distinct from ‘that’. Strictly speaking it pertains to the domain of phenomena, ‘the ten thousand things’ of Taoism.

I know it’s a really difficult idea to fathom. One of the classical sources that makes it explicit is the early Medieval theologian, Eriugena. Read a couple of paragraphs from this SEP entry on him.

The article shows how Eriugena built on Neoplatonism to articulate a philosophy of different levels or kinds of being. So from the viewpoint of one level, for example the level of manifest existence, then beings on another level do not not exist.

If humans are thought to exist in a certain way, then angels do not exist in that way.

But what happened subsequently to Eriugena is the abandonment of the idea that there are different kinds or levels of being. This is associated with the ideas of another theologian, Duns Scotus, and also with nominalism. This resulted in the so-called ‘univocity of being’, that all beings exist in the same way. Consequently the idea of ‘modes of being’ was abandoned or lost or rejected. This is how the modern conception of the Universe as a single dimension, namely, that of matter-energy, came about.

You can still find it in the 17th Century philosophers:

In contrast to contemporary philosophers, most 17th century philosophers held that reality comes in degrees—that some things that exist are more or less real than other things that exist. At least part of what dictates a being’s reality, according to these philosophers, is the extent to which its existence is dependent on other things: the less dependent a thing is on other things for its existence, the more real it is.

And, you can still find that idea in Hegel. But it’s practically extinguished in modern thought, to the point that it can’t be understood, there’s not even an analogy or metaphor for it in our lexicon.

Mww

my reckoning is that people have intuited, if not inferred through logical argument, that our minds, in a way, "sense" patterns. — TheMadFool

Yours, and a veritable HOST of like-minded individuals. Which is fine, each must hold to himself.

TheMadFool

But it’s practically extinguished in modern thought, to the point that it can’t be understood, there’s not even an analogy or metaphor for it in our lexicon. — Wayfarer

This is a complete and utter tragedy. Either that or there's a good reason why the concept of "different levels of existence" lost currency.

Thanks for the etymological information on the word "exist". Very helpful. :up:

Yours, and a veritable HOST of like-minded individuals. Which is fine, each must hold to himself. — Mww

Wrong usage of the word "sense" or is there a grain of truth in it?

Wayfarer

This is a complete and utter tragedy. — TheMadFool

It's a major existential predicament, that's for sure, and one we all suffer from without understanding its causes.

//ps// Get hold of Defragmenting Modernity, Paul Tyson. He's an Aussie academic. He lays it all out.

Mww

Any adjustments? — tim wood

Your (synthesis2( appearance + understanding))) I would change to phenomenon + understanding. Imagination synthesizes the representation “appearance” with the representation “intuition”, into the representation “phenomenon”, so appearances are already accounted for. All that’s left is understanding the rules under which experience becomes possible, and that is accomplished through the synthesis, again by means of imagination, of phenomena with the categories. We have to recognize that which we have perceived, is either possible or necessary, is imbued with sufficient quantity and quality, whether a cause or an effect, whether permanent or changeable.
——————

perception: a signal
sensation: hot, burning
appearance: putting together burning with what burning is - being burned
phenomenon: understanding, or assigning, the meaning of the appearance.

Close enough? — tim wood

All in all, close enough. It’s all speculative metaphysics, after all. Experience has enabled us to use that listing, insofar as we already know there is a sensation we cognize as a burn. But the cognitive system itself as it normally operates, at the point of sensation alone, has as yet no name for it, it is merely a something, an affect on the faculty of sensibility. It is an awareness, a change in our subjective condition.

It epitomizes the distinction between being aware and being conscious.....theoretically. We are aware of an object empirically by the sensation of it; we are conscious of an object rationally by the conception of it.

Mww

Wrong usage of the word "sense" or is there a grain of truth in it? — TheMadFool

Two things: it is said we have a naturally given “internal sense”, and, if a logical argument is consistent with itself and non-contradictory, concluding the validity of such internal sense, then it would seem to have a grain of truth, at least logically. Depends on the major premise, I guess.

TheMadFool

↪Wayfarer

:ok: Thanks.

↪Mww

:ok: Thanks.

Air, Light, Existence & The Immaterial

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions