• Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    No. Nowhere have I said that internal dialogue wasn't linguistic.fresco

    So an internal dialogue of shapes, colors, etc. is a language in your view?
  • fresco
    577
    You've just named them, so you've answered your own question !

    I regret, I cannot philosophically commune with the idea of an 'observer independent world' even though we obviously operate, moment to moment, on that basis as though there were.
    What it momentarily suits us to call seperate 'observer and observed' or 'organism and evironment' are in essence coextensive and codefining unities, in which state transitions in the one are isomorphic to state transitions in the other.

    As for your assertion of your version of 'the obvious', an entirely contrary holistic view is held by anyone who calls themselves 'a meditator'.
  • Janus
    16.3k
    It's like a fractal - however we magnify our cognition, the same pattern keeps appearing. That is where propositional logic has its merits, it explains the pattern.Merkwurdichliebe

    You mean in the sense that it makes the invariant patterns of experience explicit?
  • Janus
    16.3k
    Let's think on that. If existence is had by all things, then there can be no difference between things that exist and things that don't...

    And hence, that such-and-such exists adds nothing to it that's not already implicit in the such-and-such.
    Banno

    What you're missing here is the analysis of the different kinds of existence we can conceive of.
  • Janus
    16.3k
    I find that talking in terms of something's existence is just talking about the thing.

    Existential dependency doesn't require talking in terms of something's 'existence'. It's more about a common sense method of approach. It requires talking in terms of something's elemental constituency. If something consists of something else, it is existentially dependent upon that something else. If something exists prior to something else, it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.
    creativesoul

    Yes, but you are talking about the existence of things both dependent and depending; that is the point. You can say that something depends on something else, but that is not the same as saying that the existence of the thing depends on something else, or the existence of something else. To talk of existential dependency is already to talk of existence. Try formulating your distinction between existential dependency and other kinds of mere dependency without talking in terms of "existential" "exist" and "existence". The idea of existence or being is just the broadest most general concept we can apply to all objects of thought and experience.
  • Banno
    25.1k
    What you're missing here is the analysis of the different kinds of existence we can conceive of.Janus

    Different kinds of existence. How so?
  • Janus
    16.3k
    Physical existence, fictional existence, conceptual existence, possible existence, desired existence.
  • Banno
    25.1k
    Oh, is that all.
  • Janus
    16.3k
    Yes that is all; though more than is imagined in Banno's sadly circumscribed world apparently! :cry:
  • Banno
    25.1k
    And we are off to insults. Meh.
  • Janus
    16.3k
    So, there is no implied insult in your "Oh, is that all."? It's certainly seems to be an attempted dismissal or belittlement instead of a charitably motivated argument that engages in good faith. C'mon man... own your shit... for once... :roll:
  • Banno
    25.1k
    My apologies; It;s just that there is no obvious connection between what my comment on existence and your reply. If you care to fill in the blanks...
  • Janus
    16.3k
    OK, thanks, no problem, perhaps I misunderstood...

    What you're missing here is the analysis of the different kinds of existence we can conceive of. — Janus


    Different kinds of existence. How so?
    Banno

    So, you asked the above question regarding my statement about the different kinds of existence we can imagine. And I answered with:

    Physical existence, fictional existence, conceptual existence, possible existence, desired existence.Janus

    So, I am puzzled that you would say that you cannot see the obvious connection between my comment on the different kinds of existence we can imagine and my reply which listed some of those different kinds.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    You've just named them, so you've answered your own question !fresco

    So on your view you can't visualize a shape as shape, you necessarily have the word "shape" in mind?
  • Merkwurdichliebe
    2.6k
    But that's not what you saidBanno

    Oh Banno, you goof you. Do you really not understand what I'm saying? Or are you just altering my words so you have something to argue about?

    It's quite basic.

    Let's review.

    Are you now saying that the need of a tree for water is not inherent in the tree itself...

    Honestly, I am having difficulty thinking in such a confused fashion.
    Banno

    I'm saying the tree is dependent upon water which it does not provide for itself.Merkwurdichliebe

    You seriously don't understand? Let me explain again, in one stroke, instead of scattered posts.

    Really...it's really not that difficult.


    Inherent to the existing tree is its dependency on water. In other words, the tree needs water for its existence, yet because the water it needs exists independent to it, certain conditions are required that provide direct access to existing water. In other words the very water it depends on is not intrinsic to the tree, thus it depends upon proper conditions, or a set of relations, to obtain this water. The tree depends upon many relations beyond itself that provide what is necessary for its existence.

    This, at minimum, shows that a tree's existence is relative.
  • Banno
    25.1k
    That's just not true, since existence is the one attribute all things, however diverse, share.
    — Janus

    Let's think on that. If existence is had by all things, then there can be no difference between things that exist and things that don't...

    And hence, that such-and-such exists adds nothing to it that's not already implicit in the such-and-such.
    Banno

    So existence is the one attribute all things share, and there are different kinds of existence.

    Ok, so I am presuming that there must be something that each of these kinds has in common, such that they are all the one attribute.
  • Banno
    25.1k
    You'd need a lot more than just that to have me take any more interest in your line of thought.
  • Merkwurdichliebe
    2.6k
    You'd need a lot more than just that to have me take any more interest in your line of thought.Banno

    You have no argument against my line of thought. Every point you have made, I have shown to be confused and mistaken. So it is to be expected that you would prefer to take no interest.
  • Merkwurdichliebe
    2.6k
    Ok, so I am presuming that there must be something that each of these kinds has in common, such that they are all the one attribute.Banno

    One thing they all have in common, is that any confirmation of any type of existing thing is dependent upon an observer.
  • Banno
    25.1k
    One thing they all have in common, is that any confirmation of any type of existing thing is dependent upon an observer.Merkwurdichliebe

    Nuh. There are things that no one has seen.
  • Merkwurdichliebe
    2.6k
    Nuh. There are things that no one has seen.Banno

    Like gravity, right? We only infer its existence indirectly through the observation of other things that are affected by it. Nevertheless, it still requires an observer to confirm it.
  • Banno
    25.1k
    Like gravity, right?Merkwurdichliebe

    Nuh. Simpler stuff, like one of the grains of barley in the chook food.

    it still requires an observer to confirm it.Merkwurdichliebe

    Sure - to confirm that it exists.

    But it still exists.
  • EricH
    608
    I cannot philosophically commune with the idea of an 'observer independent world' even though we obviously operate, moment to moment, on that basis as though there were.fresco
    If I'm following, you move about the world and interact with it on the basis that there is an 'observer independent world'. You just don't philosophically commune with it?

    Actually, now that I think about this, I'm sort of in agreement. I also do not philosophically commune with the idea of an 'observer independent world'. I simply accept that this is by far the only rational explanation for the way things are.
  • EricH
    608
    Now is there a 'mind-independent and language independent world'? No one knows — EricH

    I think it couldn't be more obvious that there is, and I see the view that it's a problematic question as pretty juvenile if not infantile (if I'm being honest rather than trying to be PC and not hurt anyone's feelings).
    Terrapin Station

    I could have been clearer there. When I said 'no one knows', I meant that - at least to my knowledge - it cannot be proven philosophically/logically (or any other way) with absolute certainty.

    That said, I have not seen any other explanation that makes any sense. In particular I do not philosophically commune with these notions that existence is some sort of language construct.

    As far as I can tell we are on the same side - at least for this discussion.
  • creativesoul
    12k
    I find that talking in terms of something's existence is just talking about the thing.

    Existential dependency doesn't require talking in terms of something's 'existence'. It's more about a common sense method of approach. It requires talking in terms of something's elemental constituency. If something consists of something else, it is existentially dependent upon that something else. If something exists prior to something else, it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.
    — creativesoul

    Yes, but you are talking about the existence of things both dependent and depending; that is the point.
    Janus

    That's not true, because I'm not talking in such terms. I'm talking about the thing being existentially dependent upon something else. That talk is grounded upon knowledge of what the thing(s) in question consist(s) in/of.

    That is not the same as saying that the thing's existence is existentially dependent upon something else.




    You can say that something depends on something else, but that is not the same as saying that the existence of the thing depends on something else, or the existence of something else.

    Right. It's not the same kind of linguistic practice. So, why did you say otherwise above? You're contradicting yourself. Don't get all para-consistent on me here.

    :wink:






    The idea of existence or being is just the broadest most general concept we can apply to all objects of thought and experience.

    Here's what I've figured out. When people start using the term "existence" as a proxy, as a noun, as a name for something else, it is as vacuous a notion as they come.

    The term "existence" has no referent.
  • Janus
    16.3k
    That's not true, because I'm not talking in such terms.creativesoul

    You are talking in such terms, though. The term 'existential' is an adjective pertaining to the noun 'existence'. So when you talk of existential dependence you are saying that something depends, not for some mere function or other, but for it's very existence, on something else. So, the notion of existence cannot be an empty one if you cannot formulate your distinction between existential dependence and other forms of dependence without using it.

    The term "existence" has no referent.creativesoul

    So, why are you using it? Try formulating your usual arguments without using it, and see how far you get.


    You can say that something depends on something else, but that is not the same as saying that the existence of the thing depends on something else, or the existence of something else.


    Right. It's not the same kind of linguistic practice. So, why did you say otherwise above? You're contradicting yourself.
    creativesoul

    I haven't contradicted myself as far as i can see. If you want to show me that I have, then show me where I "said otherwise"?
  • creativesoul
    12k
    You are talking in such terms, though. The term 'existential' is an adjective pertaining to the noun 'existence'.Janus

    In some uses.

    I use "existentially dependent" and "existential dependency". So here, the term "existential" demarcates a kind of dependency not a kind of existence.

    It is very useful and reliable. I'm sold.
  • creativesoul
    12k
    I haven't contradicted myself as far as i can see. If you want to show me that I have, then show me where I "said otherwise"?Janus

    Nah. I'm not worried if you're ok with it.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.