If I'm reading you correctly, then I understand you to be saying a concept of the number two within the mind is not material, whereas one stone beside another stone is a material display of the number two. I'm saying both are real and both are material. The concept of the number two within the mind has no less material reality than the number two expressed by two stones side-by-side. — ucarr
The argument for this claim says, “No brain, no mind.” The mind, like the brain, is emergent. — ucarr
The ache in the pit of your stomach was real, and so was the pounding of your heart. For these reasons, we go to the movies. The mind and its experiences are physically real. No brain, no mind. — ucarr
My goal in this conversation is to examine the question, "Does saying, "a thing with defining attributes exists" add anything to that collection of attributes? My position, contrary to Meinong's position, answers, "yes" to the question. Saying a thing exists places it within a context; the obverse of this is claiming a thing exists outside of an encircling context. I don't expect anyone to make this claim. Moreover, I claim that existence is the most inclusive context that can be named. — ucarr
My goal in this conversation is to examine the question, "Does saying, "a thing with defining attributes exists" add anything to that collection of attributes? My position, contrary to Meinong's position, answers, "yes" to the question. Saying a thing exists places it within a context; the obverse of this is claiming a thing exists outside of an encircling context. I don't expect anyone to make this claim. Moreover, I claim that existence is the most inclusive context that can be named. — ucarr
then you're in no position to make your supporting claim for your argument: — ucarr
Logically speaking, if your parents cease to exist, you cease to exist. That’s the logical truth of a child being contingent upon their parent. Do you see that this is more evidence that we are neither born nor eventually become dead. With pure logic symbols on paper, we say that if B is contingent upon A, then destruction of A logically demands destruction of B. — ucarr
You over generalize; children's lives are contingent upon their parents, whether dead or alive. — ucarr
Logically speaking, if your parents cease to exist, you cease to exist. That’s the logical truth of a child being contingent upon their parent. — ucarr
You have an understanding that puts "subjective" brackets around knowledge. Why do you not put these same brackets around your birth and your death? By your own words, you cannot know the "(absolute) objective reality" of their presence. — ucarr
That B never knows C is not due to non-existence, but rather due to the bounded infinity of individualized life. — ucarr
Again this may be poetic but it's not true rationally. Normal, logical, philosophical discussion and argument demand a consensus, a shared or agreed upon set of definitions. I was not "alive" 400 years ago. If you want to change the definition of what "always" means or what "alive" means then feel free, that's all you've been doing in your arguments......mixing, fuzzing and altering definitions in a poetic way to make grandiose un-provable assertions which is not philosophy.You, philosch, have always been alive, and you've never been dead. — ucarr
You over generalize; children's lives are contingent upon their parents, whether dead or alive. This gets at my main theme: no existing thing is alone. This especially true of children who, without their ancestors, would scarcely know themselves. — ucarr
then you're in no position to make your supporting claim for your argument:
B in this argument, is dependent on C by definition. Remove C and of course B ceases as well.
— philosch
A, in the context of a given C is by definition the "end" of that C and anything dependent on that C.
— philosch
You over generalize; children's lives are contingent upon their parents, whether dead or alive. This gets at my main theme: no existing thing is alone. This especially true of children who, without their ancestors, would scarcely know themselves. The general fund of existence: mass, matter, energy, space, and time have total reach WRT all existing things. — ucarr
There is neither beginning nor ending of existence. For this reason, no life ever knows death. Why do we not fully know either the world or ourselves; eternity cannot be analyzed whole. — ucarr
The aforementioned context is the hard, un-analyzable fact of existence. If you ask, "Why do I exist?" the only answer is, "You exist because you do exist." This sounds like non-sensical circularity; it's because existence can only be examined by a thinking sentient, and there can only be thinking if the thinking sentient exists.
You, as a thinking person, have never not existed. Even your thinking about not existing is entirely confined to existing. You can only talk about death as a living person. You've never been dead and you never will be dead. When death becomes an objective reality for you, it won't become an objective reality for you because there won't be any you. Our immersion within existence is weirdly infinite in this way — ucarr
I use it as an example of a real predicate. It can be (and is) independently discovered (and not invented) by anything with rudimentary math skills. It, like Fibonacci numbers is found in nature. A pine cone always has rows and columns that number a pair of adjacent Fibonacci numbers. There are many species of cicadas that come out every X years, and the various species have various cycles, but the cycles are always prime numbers (and for a reason). The 17 year ones are numerous where I live now, but we have some 13 year ones as well. Cicadas rely on a real predicate of some numbers being prime that has nothing to do with human concepts. I actually don't know the purpose served by the Fibonacci thing, but it's found in so many places. It has something to do with being an integer approximation of the golden ratio (another non-human-ideal predicate). — noAxioms
et's grant, ex hypothesi, the first and the last sentences. Why would the second sentence follow?: that objective reality is unreachable by subjective knowledge? That seems to import a lot of preconceptions about how objectivity and subjectivity relate, preconceptions which to say the least are controversial. — J
And that may be good enough. Intersubjectivity often makes more sense than "absolute objectivity." Certainly the idea is good enough to establish the distinction I want to make between ambiguous, controversial terms like "existence" and every-day words for things we can verify. We don't need to engage in a debate about whether a table is "objectively a table," as long as we can agree that, unlike "reality" or "being", we know how to verify whether object X is a table or not. And also, we shouldn't be distracted by the fact that any noun can be subject to bizarre exceptions or quibbles. Again, the point is that the problem with "existence" is not bizarre exceptions to an otherwise clear concept; the baseline concept itself is unclear. So while I agree that there is a sort of continuum of imprecision involving language, as you suggest, it doesn't amount to saying that everything is imprecise (or "subjective") in the same way. — J
Trump/Musk are dismantling the American Government before the world's eyes. And right now, the betrayal of Ukraine has begun. — Wayfarer
That said, an apple being an apple is a mental construct, as is its redness. It is actually difficult to identify a predicate of anything that is free from human abstraction. OK, 17 is prime, and while being a human discovery, it is not a human designation/predicate.
Santa is another case: Existing only as a mental construct and not in any way that is free from contradiction. Santa is not a possible thing AFAIK, so any predicate of Santa seems necessarily to be a reference to an ideal, not to a Santa. I acknowledge this unavoidability.
Thank you for your input. I have to agree with much that you post. — noAxioms
The group’s relative lack of experience...especially no previous positions in government work — The Daily Beast
Presidents giving executive orders simply shows their lack of capability to put through actual legislation. — ssu
Many try to desperately promote this view, but I think it's wrong. Trump really means what he says. Once you look at his actions from this viewpoint, it actually makes sense. — ssu
The Trump administration is seeking 50 percent of Ukraine’s current revenues from resource extraction, as well as half the value of “all new [resource extraction] licenses issued to third parties.” Such revenues would be subject to a lien in favor of the U.S. “That clause means ‘pay us first, and then feed your children,’” The Telegraph quoted a source close to the negotiations as saying
Yikes, no! I'm speaking about a particularly troublesome term -- "existence" or "being" -- that has no clearly correct usage — J
So the media shouldn't report on what Trump is doing by executive orders, not by following things as they are usually are done in a Republic with separation of powers? — ssu
Before I was fired, the official DOGE Facebook page started harassing me on my personal Facebook account after I criticized Tesla and Twitter
Having never gone through any kind of vetting or Congressional scrutiny let alone approval. With no published mandate or actual warrant. Deleting programs and withholding funds previously approved by Congress. Nothing remotely like it has ever been attempted. — Wayfarer
That's about how I see it. The term "existence" simply doesn't lend itself to being identified with some particular thing/event/item, which could be checked in the case of disagreement, in the way that, say, "table" does. — J
But the question is, Is there anything further to be said in favor of some particular recommendation? That is, apart from usefulness in laying out a metaphysics, is there a truth of the matter? If there was -- if there was a correct way to conceive of existence, and/or talk about it -- how would we show this? — J
I looked through the SEP article and Santa shows up frequently as an example of properties being assigned to something presumed nonexistent, but by exactly what definition of 'existence' is being used when making this presumption if this property makes no meaningful difference? If Santa can be fat without existing, then it does not follow that Santa exists from the presumption of his girth. So "I think, therefore I am" becomes a non-sequitur in the absence of the subject principle. — noAxioms
It’s still not the case. Any sorta value system you would use to come to that determination is based on emotion. It’s like Hume mentioned reason being a slave to the passions. There is no pure rational case for suicide or against it. — Darkneos
You can disagree but you’d be wrong. Suicide is rooted in emotion same as philosophy. Wanting to end pain is emotional. — Darkneos
You can’t really remove emotion and man made ethics or morality from it since wanting to off yourself is rooted in such things — Darkneos
A thoughtful and reasonable take on a difficult topic. I agree that folks are free to make the best decision for their particular circumstances. I also agree that such an important and especially permanent decision should be made with the utmost care and consideration. The fact that most make the decision relatively spontaneously is a tragedy.
I advised folks professionally who sought to make permanent decisions in situations where experience has shown that those in their demographic who chose to proceed later expressed regret at their decision in high numbers. Obviously I had a professional obligation to point out and underscore this statistic, but ultimately as these were adults, I assisted them should they choose, in spite of this knowledge, to go ahead. I did so with a clear conscience. Though most in my profession refused. — LuckyR
Yet people do things that do not make sense all the time. Indeed, things that are very bad for them, things that ruin their lives, and even things that kill them. We say some of these people are addicts, and that addiction is a disorder or disease. Does everyone who does things that don't make sense have a disorder? — Patterner
I conclude that nature is perceived as true because nature "is" true by definition.
— philosch
Hmmm...
... no, I think I disagree, with that statement. Here's how I would phrase it:
Nature is perceived as true because nature is true, period.
— Arcane Sandwich — Arcane Sandwich
They can do something that is artificial, cultural. They can create artifacts. Cultural objects, so to speak.
Unless of course the OP wishes to define the boundaries of nature
— philosch
The boundaries of nature...
... what would they even be?
Artifice, perhaps.
Divinity, perhaps.
Mathematics, perhaps.
Hmmm...
... I don't like the word "perhaps". Too formal. A better term is "maybe". — Arcane Sandwich
No, I don't want any of this, that's neither benevolence nor malevolence, it's either neutral morality ("neutrevalence", or "neutral balance", if you will), or lack of morality to begin with (which is what I believe defines a machine, at least partially, if not wholly). — Arcane Sandwich