What — Banno

Right? That's what you wrote. How ridiculous.

That's an end to it. — Banno

Oh. Ok. There it is everyone. Hear here, far and wide: Banno has put an end to it all. Please disperse and return to your homes.

@Banno

The question was:

actually exists" does not include the term "actually"? — Banno

You seem to have no understanding of what you mean. How tragic :cry:

MerkwurdichliebeOoh! Eh, uh, b-- b-- now-- now hear this! Blessed are they...

...who convert their neighbour's ox, for they shall inhibit their girth,... — Banno

Still not understanding.

Oh, he's terrible! — Banno

Still not understanding.

Actual existence" might be distinguishable from "possible existence".
— Merkwurdichliebe
Ohh. — Banno

I see you are impressed with my bold claim, huhhh... ahhhh. :nerd:

"actually exists" does not include the term "actually"? — Banno

I don't understand, please explain.

First, how does exists differ from actually exists? — Banno

I wanted to add:

"Actual existence" might be distinguishable from "possible existence".

It doesn't include the term "actually".

To be honest, I was merely using "actually" to accentuate "exists", but I should have simply put "exists" in italics. Sorry for the confusion.

Basically we desire to be better people. Even those that believe there is no ‘better’ deem such a position ‘better’; even if due to ignorance of ignorance.

A baby can learn to walk. We struggle onward - seems dumb not to doesn’t it? Who am I to say though, a conceit unto myself! — I like sushi

"The will to POWER!!!"

:grin:

Why? He's not wrong. — Shamshir

About what?

That comment is going to piss off @Banno. Ooooooooo!!! :grin:

Well then, is the absolute not as blue? — Banno

Does blue actually exist?

What is added to our understanding by talking in terms of something's existence? — creativesoul

Existence is a fancy word that philosophers use to talk about being, or what is. For example, if I say "my finger itches", I am inferring that there is an itchy sensation in my finger. It is something that has the status of being - it exists.

Now it is very easy to discount "existence" as a redundant and unnecessary term in philosophy, but it definitely has important psychological application - especially in regard to the delusional psychotic, like the hypochondriac, paranoid schizophrenic, chronic liar &c.

Most importantly, I can make bold genereal claims in terms of "existence", e.g.: "in all of existence, no distinct objects can be identical in their external properties".

Because we're banking on them being convinced otherwise by something they initially take to be themselves? — Terrapin Station

More like, we are studying their particular ways.

The problem for me here is that you keep refering to 'existence' as a noun. — fresco

How should we use it. As a verb? An adjective?

the only realities possible are realities brought forth by an observer's operations of distinction.

The observer's operations of distinction are in cognition.

cognition is not a means to acquire knowledge of an objective reality but serves the active organism in its adaptation to its experiential world

This cognitive adaptation to the experiential world is, as you say, a network of focal nodes that comprise the functional knowledge of the world.

The focal nodes that constitute the observers experiential world may or may not persist over time. Yet one focal node is essential to it all:
that of a distinct observer experience, which is necessary to all subsequent operations of distinction.

I forgot to mention that most who move beyond never look back, and that is a tragedy of another kind, one of too much knowledge.

I would never discount the immediate part of my own partly-immediate cohesion; partly because I don't know how. — Shamshir

That immediate part that you mention is all that matters to the solipsist, partly because he does not know how to move beyond that part with any confidence.

The difference between the solipsist and everybody else, is everybody else moves beyond it.

As a whole, the solipsist is incapable. — Shamshir

I completely agree.

But don't discount the importance of your own immediacy just because the solipsist takes it overboard. Immediacy is the fundamental relation? of the individual. I hold the individual in high esteem. The more original, the higher.

the configuration and recognition of cards is independent of its immediate certainty — Shamshir

That is not a concern for the solipsist, unless this thought happens to occur in his immediacy. For normal chumps like you, TPF, and me, that the configuration and identity of the cards is maintained independent of my immediate certainty is essential, and quite fun to discuss philosophically.

Regarding 'fundamental ontic reality' bear in mind that 'the observer' is not a fixed entity but may be multifaceted and transient. — fresco

That the observer is multifaceted and transient, although possibly essential attributes, are beyond the point of the observer. The observer is essential to it all.

Now let's try an experiment. I am not clever enough to do it alone, but you seem smart enough to carry me along. Let's say existence is dependent on the observer (which is transient and multifaceted), what next?

One thing, I think we must determine is how the observer recognizes "existence" within the medium of it's immediate cognitive experience.

But that would mean the configuration and recognition of cards is independent of its immediate certainty; is it? — Shamshir

This is a broad issue. But, sticking to solipsism, nothing exists beyond my immediacy, which may or may not include my recognition of an object, or an object's attributes and relations.

Solipsim is one of the most complete and coherent perspectives. But, this does not equate to the best perspective.

Aren't they both certain and nuanced?
Both are immediate and both are dependent.

Whichever you remove, you would be removing the whole thing; no? — Shamshir

Perfect model.

Two cards. Their relation, and the necessary dynamic (they are equally balanced; by removing one the opposite will fall; &c) are determined epistemically. Any certainty of this system is nuanced, it is dependent upon its particular status (however it may be determined).

The certainty of immediacy is independent of the configuration of the cards, and even of the recognition of cards. And although the ignorance to the objects of distinction (there being cards) is overshadowing, it is secondary to the particularity of immediacy. As soon as the solipsist projects beyond his immediacy, he is no longer solipsist.

Well, regardless if you're a solipsist or not, when doubting - you are certain of your doubt. So at all times of doubt, you implore and explore certainty and its possibilities.

...your doubt is just nuanced certainty. — Shamshir

You really have to enter the mind of the solipsist to understand it.

There are two things that will help to clarify. There is the epistemic certainty, in which I know my doubt is true - that it definitively corresponds to something that warrants doubting. Then there is the existential certainty of immediacy - that what I am experiencing in the "here" and "now" is present to me: viz. my doubting. The first mode of doubting is a nuanced certainty -
dependent on the epistemic status of my doubting. The second mode is a certain certainty - it is existentially bound to my immediacy, and independent of epistemic concerns.

doubt is impossible, regardless if you're a solipsist or not. — Shamshir

Please explain. Solipsism is a very particular and morbid way of being.

Yeah, basically "If solipsism is true, then only I exist or at least I can only know that I exist. But I don't believe this. So either solipsism isn't true or no one believes it, no one believes there's any good reason to entertain it, and so there's no reason to worry about it/waste any time on it." — Terrapin Station

There are certain individuals who entertain solipsistic reasoning, and it is definitely worth wasting time on them. :grin:

But can he doubt his doubting?
— Merkwurdichliebe
If he can doubt, he can doubt his doubt.
And if he can doubt his doubt, he is intrinsically doing so. — Shamshir

But then he is only doubting, which again he cannot doubt. He is certain of the reality of his immediacy, and nothing else. This is what makes him solipsistic.

That's not true. A solipsist can always doubt his free will. :gasp: — Shamshir

But can he doubt his doubting? I think not. To him, all that is real is immediate, and all that is immediate is real, nothing else.

No, Existence blue, not red. — Banno

Existence?!?!? What's that?

Thanks for the link. I read it and found some relevant points:

the only realities possible are realities brought forth by an observer's operations of distinction.

cognition is not a means to acquire knowledge of an objective reality but serves the active organism in its adaptation to its experiential world.

[...] if we reflect upon our experience as observers, we discover that our experience is what we find ourselves observing, talking, or acting, and that any explanation or description of what we do is secondary to our experience of finding ourselves in the doing of what we do.

From this article, Mantura comes off, in the philosophical sense, as a phenomenologist, regardless of his scientific qualifications. In fact, in the philosophical sense, science is fundamentally phenomenological, as corroborated in the article: "[...] like Maturana, they [physicists] have realized that it is their own concepts, their own operations of distinction that bring forth the experiential world which they describe in their science." So even if the coherence of his system is valid, it still suffers from the same criticisms that plague phenomenology, as was pointed out in the article.

Nevertheless, I think he is on the right track in reducing reality/existence to the experiential world of the observer, or, cognitive immediacy. Whatever can be explained/described has its reality only in cognitive immediacy as the linguistic form. Even the reality of the meaning of the linguistic form can be reduced to my cognitive immediacy.

Although he rejects the notion of an ontic reality, he can not escape the inference to one, and in his case, the fundamental ontic reality is the experiential world of the observer. Nevertheless, he seems to emphasize the individual as the primary unit of existence, regardless of its cognitive dependency on biology or subjection to the species. . . And I'm ok with that.

Nietzsche had a mental breakdown upon seeing a horse being beaten. — Wittgenstein

At least it wasn't a dead horse. But still, not very Ubermensch, was it?

Nevertheless the ideas of Nietzsche can be twisted and turn into nazi propaganda, so his ideas were way more powerful than Russell's. He was also an atheist who did not ramble on about disproving God all the time but also discussed the problems which will rise if society forgets God.Russell was too cocky to see any social problems,he was more on the autistic side when it came to philosophy. — Wittgenstein

That is a good assessment.

Nietschze's philosophy was a lot more concerned with the ethical than Russell's. And I have always found ethical philosophy to be much more powerful than epistemology/metaphysics, given that it has direct application to life, whereas the latter is pretty much confined to thought/speculation.

observer-observed — fresco

Do you mean: that which exists being aware of its existence?

Thanks. I'm studying it.

I'm on vacation and have just scanned the recent exchanges.

You appear to know where I'm coming from with the language focus, but in order to avoid being caught in a word regress, I turn to Maturana's view of 'languaging' as a form of behavior which enables 'structural coupling'. This avoids representational issues by taking a 'systems view' of cognition. — fresco

I hope you're enjoying your vacation.

I am not at all acquainted with Maturana. But I took a quick tour on wikipedia. I found this caption that might be relevant:

an autopoietic system is autonomous and operationally closed, in the sense that there are sufficient processes within it to maintain the whole. Autopoietic systems are "structurally coupled" with their medium, embedded in a dynamic of changes that can be recalled as sensory-motor coupling.[5] This continuous dynamic is considered as a rudimentary form of knowledge or cognition and can be observed throughout life-forms.

It seems to me, the notion of structural coupling is applicable to the relation between actual existing and the concept of existence. The concept of existence is structurally coupled with the knowledge/cognition of one's own existing, and this link becomes evident somewhere in the recall of sensory-motor coupling.

So, when discussing existence, we are not discussing a concept that represents a seperate reality. Rather, we are discussing a concept that is predicated on itself as the premise, e.g. the concept of existence can only arise (in all its details) as a result of my own existing. Structural coupling means that my existing is entirely apprehended in my cognition, to which I apply greater significance by rendering it as the concept of existence, and my concept of existence can never exceed my existing.

Maybe you can help clarify.

Belief is necessary for knowledge. It's basic epistemology. — Hanover

Belief is constituted by our pressuppositions. For everything we know, there are things we pressuppose.

Two...I do not give a rat's ass what you venture to call it. — Frank Apisa

Oooweee...someone is testes. :yikes:

That's what the theory of evolution is, right?
That some random fish mutated in to humans.

And then, enters the fool, voicing out - that it was due to the mutagen they ate, as described in the Bible. — Shamshir

Well, that just sounds ridiculous. But there is some type of aesthetic metaphor that has irrational meaning that is valuable to the human psyche. For anything that cannot be accounted for in scientific, logical, systematic terms, there is no other way of understanding it than with some type of illustrative allegory.

Think about it, how different is it from telling your infant child to not put its fingers in the electricity socket, to not eat detergent, to not drink 'dad's special water'? — Shamshir

They aren't supposed to do that? Oops. :yikes:

Let me ask you, what do you think the name APOLON means?
What is its etymology? — Shamshir

I don't know. Tell me please.

what if the Fruit of Good and Evil was just mutagen?
What if they gulped down vials of DNA and the sort? — Shamshir

That is hard to swallow. But, I cannot help but think that everything is the result of a mutagen. I love whacky suggestions

I feel you are being a little too ad hommed about Nietzsche. Even if he is as despicable as Hitler, you cannot discount his historic contribution to the philosophic tradition.

I'm not interested in Wagner's wife, sorry. — ernestm

I am, she was probably a super hot babe (intellectually speaking, of course :wink: :up: )