I don't follow how you can say:

X exists in the mind
∴ X doesn't exist — Heracloitus

As I've remarked a number of times, I don't like talking about things "existing as concepts in the mind" (or similar expressions). So I'd rather not use such language at all.

But if I'm humoring people who do use such language, I would point out that Santa Claus is a plump old man living at the North Pole, not a plump old man living "in the mind"- if there is no such person, Santa Claus does not exist. We might say that he "exists only in the mind"- as in, "its all in your head"- as another way that we can and very often say that something doesn't exist. As when someone believes a conspiracy theory, when the conspiracy they believe in isn't real or isn't happening- the conspiracy doesn't exist, it exists "only in the mind", it is "all in your head".

I mean, if your position is that Santa Claus or Pegasus exist, when not existing is what distinguishes fictional characters as such, that's... not a great result.

Maybe a better question is, does theism explain anything? Is theism explanatory at all?

Yep: I'm not sure if this was intended as a counter-example, but I actually think that it is a good example: for one thing, you could come up with a worse summary of the realist/anti-realist debate RE abstract objects than the dispute between those who think that e.g. numbers exist "only in the mind" and those who do not.

You disregard the testimonial evidence given in my argument (in my thread), and ask for evidence, "coming back from irreversible brain death" as proof, as per 180 Proof. You expect me or anyone who has studied the data to take this seriously. I'm always complaining to Christians about their arguments, but these statements are worse. — Sam26

I was responding to the OP, I didn't read your post. But testimonial evidence on this topic is old hat, and is completely inconclusive since the body of testimony RE NDEs is nevertheless consistent with the hallucination hypothesis- cognitive mechanisms like false memory being well-established at this point.

And I'm not sure why you're hyper-focused on the word "irreversible" here since that was beside the point. One thing we would expect to see, if NDEs were veridical and evidence of consciousness absent a physical body and/or life after the physical death of the body, is the occasional ability to perceive some piece of information or evidence, during the event, that can be verified as veridical and would not be available otherwise. And this doesn't happen (there have been studies that did precisely this, and returned a negative result, including studies sympathetic to NDEs such as the AWARE study). But then, if you truly are familiar with the data, and not just the data you think confirms your pre-existing position, you already knew that. Right?

And since its something we would strongly expect to see, on the hypothesis that NDEs are veridical experiences detaching consciousness/the soul from the physical brain/body, the fact that we don't see it is itself strong evidence against this hypothesis.

Still no argument, only statements that reflect your feelings and attitudes. Poor substitution for logic. You're blinded by your metaphysical bias and dogmatism, but I digress. — Sam26

Um... As if you aren't a determined partisan on this topic, given that you've been on this NDE crusade going back to old PF (if not longer). C'mon, man. I just don't think you can credibly play the "bias and dogmatism" card here anymore.

No, I don't see any contradiction in saying that there does not exist a plump old man living at the North Pole delivering presents to children on Christmas, but that there does exist a body of literary/oral traditions involving such a character.

Remember, I was only humoring you with this talk of "existing as a concept in a mind"; this is not the way I would say it- I think reifying concepts in this way is philosophically problematic- I instead would prefer to speak of language/linguistic activity (concepts being inherently linguistic, after all): so Santa Claus does not exist, he is fictional, but stories involving a character named Santa certainly do exist. But as these are not the same, there can't be any contradiction here. And colloquially, to say that something exists only as a concept in your mind is simply a different way of saying that something doesn't exist (consider: a conspiracy theory, an imaginary friend, etc)

Am I back, or am I here, finally? I registered an account when PF went sideways but I'm not sure I ever posted anything.

Either way, I'm happy to be here now (the philosophy-related subreddits I was posting on weren't quite scratching the itch for me) and especially happy to see so many familiar faces, even so many years later. Many thanks to Jamal/Baden/etc for keeping the party going!

The same might be said of the alchemists: that many of their beliefs were childish fantasies unrelated to reality. BUT had the alchemists given up, we might never have discovered chemistry. I feel much the same about the atheist, that they’ve given up the quest to find a deeper reality.

Of course, atheists may be right in that there is no deeper reality to be found, at least, not a reality that could in any sensible way be called “God.” But they may be wrong, too. — Art48

Then we'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it. All the currently available evidence suggests that theism is false. But nothing is preventing us from updating our beliefs pending future evidence. If someday it turns out that theists were onto something after all, then we can adjust our views accordingly.

But it would be extremely unreasonable to reject what the current evidence supports based only on the mere possibility that maybe, some day, the evidence might support something different. Once the evidence does support something different, that is the time to reevaluate and update your views.

Yes, this exactly. If mystical/religious/dualist/etc interpretation of these experiences were correct, this is something we would expect to see. The fact that we do not see it happen is itself probably the single strongest argument/evidence that these experiences are not veridical.

Santa Claus is a fictional character, and as a fictional character doesn't exist in the world, but as we are discussing Santa Claus, Santa Claus must exist as a concept in our minds.

To argue the blanket statement "fictional characters don't exist", accepting that fictional characters don't exist in the world, you must also be able to argue that fictional characters don't exist as concepts in the mind. — RussellA

Santa Claus is fictional, and fictional people differ from real people precisely in that they don't exist. Its really that straightforward. And leaving aside beetles and boxes and reifying concepts and all that tricky philosophical stuff, to say that something exists only as a "concept in a mind", and not in reality or the world, is just another way of saying that that something doesn't exist.

So the answer to the OP's question is that Santa Claus does not exist, period, full stop, because Santa Claus is fictional.

If I may help you to grasp the point here... People can and do use the same kinds of words (e.g. names) for the purpose of referring to people or objects in some contexts and for the purpose of non-referring word-use in others. — bongo fury

Exactly :up:

Fictional characters don't exist. That's what makes them fictional characters. As far as Santa Claus is concerned, all that exists are the traditions we have of talking/writing about this fictional character Santa Claus. The jolly old man at the North Pole doesn't exist- there is no such person- but the stories, books, words, language, does.

I mean, solving the issue of non-referring expressions at the expense of not being able to differentiate between things that exist and things that don't, or between fiction and non-fiction, strikes me as a very poor bargain. Better to just say that non-existent things like fictional characters don't exist than to have to create a special category of existence for non-existent existents like Santa Claus and unicorns and so forth.

Marcus Miller- Free (2007)

The title track is awesome :love:



(Marcus Miller featuring Corinne Bailey Rae- Free)

Another of my favorite graduates of the Miles Davis Music College...

In what sense does Santa Claus exist? He doesn't. Santa Claus- a plump old man with a long white bear who lives at the North Pole and delivers presents to children on Christmas- does not exist; there is no such person. And I agree with Banno about not reifying concepts. So what does exist is a bunch of loosely associated literary/oral traditions of people talking and writing about this fictional character, Santa Claus. In other words, language. Stories. Words. That's all.

And just because we use words in a similar way (e.g. proper names, definite descriptions, etc) when we talk about people/entities that do exist as we do when we talk about fictional characters (who do not exist) doesn't mean that both cases must be alike in having an existing referent, that there must always be a referent whenever we use such language: language is far more flexible than this, people can and do use the same words or expressions for different purposes in different contexts. And after all, not existing is what distinguishes fictional characters as such.

So I guess I just don't see the advantage of venturing down the Meinongian path towards an ontology littered with non-existent existents (not an ideal result), especially after Russell's analysis. It seems easier and less problematic to just say that fictional characters don't exist.

Maybe all we need is a few more pages of discussion in order to finally land on an acceptable (written/linguistic) account of the ineffable (!!) :roll:

I guess that's the crucial question here, right? The ineffable?

Or are you telling me that after 30 pages you guys still don't have it sorted out? :wink:

I'll bet you are! As you should be- 30 pages on the ineffable is a solid showing!

smh, that was such a ridiculously stacked lineup... Chick and Herbie Hancock on keys/piano? And John McLaughlin on gee-tar? Just unfair. Its honestly sort of crazy how many people played with MD only to go on to become huge stars in their own right. Seems like MD basically functioned like a highly prestigious one-man music college- what a beast!

How long is a thread about what cannot be said? — Banno

(30 pages worth of comments, apparently- an amusing irony)

Logical positvism: the only truths are either mathematical or empirical. All other kinds of truth are 'meaningless.' — jasonm

That's not quite it, though- this is just a rewording of Hume's fork, whereas the LPs went quite a bit further than this. their contention was not just about truths, but about meaning: the meaning of a proposition just is the empirical conditions under which it could be verified.

But that's a demonstrably empirically untenable criterion of meaning, because its just a patent matter of fact that people do other things with language other than assert empirical propositions: we ask questions, we greet, we tell jokes, we curse, we demand, and so on. So LP and the verification criterion fail due to their analysis of language failing to be consistent with how people actually use language... not because the verification principle is itself unverifiable (I agree with you that this is a problem for criteria of meaning and nothing peculiar to LP/the verification principle, and so is NOT why LP or verificationism failed).