I believe animals definitely think, but they do not hold or stand by their thinking such that we could say they "have thoughts". this latter comes about only with language where the thoughts can be precisely formulated and therefore "grasped" and "held".
— Janus

That is a great point! For our purposes here, we could say that any thought that can be grasped or held can be called a concept. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's a great point?

:yikes:

That is to say that thinking is not having thoughts. That's nonsense.

We talk about our thought/belief. We have them prior to talking about them(some anyway).

There is an actual distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. The latter requires language, some thought/belief does not.

Janus fails to draw and maintain that distinction.

All use of the term "existence" is language use.
All language use is existentially dependent upon language acquisition. [. . .] The presupposition of existence does not require language use for it happens in autonomous fashion within non-linguistic thought/belief.
That which is prior to language use cannot be existentially dependent upon language use.
The presupposition of existence is not existentially dependent upon language use.
All notions of "existence" are.
— creativesoul


I agree with almost everything you said here. In fact you are onto something good, maybe genius. But if your name is "creativesoul", then you need to put some more creative soul into it. There is something robotic about such formulaic speech, and I think you can 'get down' much better. :grin: Whatever the case, you present an honest and reasonable counterbalance to speculative philosophers like myself, and I value your contributions. — Merkwurdichliebe

Genius and five bucks will get you a cup of coffee just the same as ignorance and five bucks.

The more I engage with this talk of existence as a subject matter in it's own right, the more I abhor the practice.

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

So, these are all different kinds of the same thing... purportedly. That 'thing' is existence itself(whatever that is). That is the problem for me. What do these different 'kinds of existence' all have in common such that having that commonality is what makes them all a kind of existence?

On the face of it I imagine that the kind of existential dependency will vary with the different kinds of existence. I don't generally think in terms of existential dependency though; it's not really my thing. Laying it out in various contexts just seems to consist in elaborating on the basic notion that things are determined by what precedes them, and for me that is something that may safely be taken for granted. — Janus

I'm thinking that all the talk about kinds of existence can be effectively replaced by better language use. The "better" would be earned by keeping all the benefits while losing some of the detriments, maybe all?

There may be mistaken assumptions hard at work. That can happen when we take things for granted.

I cannot agree. The idea of existence comes after something to talk about. Thus, in terms of being basic to human thinking, the idea of existence is attached to something. Prior to talking in terms of a tree's existence, we first learn to talk about the tree.
— creativesoul

No, and you've got me re-considering the best way to parse non linguistic correlation.
— creativesoul

And yet you said this,

The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief does not require language.
— creativesoul

which seems inconsistent with your later avowal of disagreement. — Janus

There is a difference between the presupposition of existence within non-linguistic thought/belief and an idea of existence. The latter is existentially dependent upon language use. The former is not.

"Correlation presupposes it's own content" can replace "correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content" without loss of meaning.

An idea of existence consists entirely of terminological use.

Then it would be correct to say that "the thing's" existence is relative to "other things", other things which it is dependent upon for its existence. — Merkwurdichliebe

Could we also not say that the thing is existentially dependent upon other things?

It may be interesting to compare/contrast our different methods. I mean I'm wondering what would happen if I attempted to translate the practice when one is setting out different kinds of existence into terms of existential dependency and/or vice versa.

Interested?

The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief does not require language.

Thus, there is a sensible way to talk about and/or use the term "existence" without talking about kinds of existence.
— creativesoul

So, you agree that the idea of existence predates language. — Janus

No, and you've got me re-considering the best way to parse non linguistic correlation.

...it remains the case that the idea of existence or being is basic to human thinking... — Janus

I cannot agree. The idea of existence comes after something to talk about. Thus, in terms of being basic to human thinking, the idea of existence is attached to something. Prior to talking in terms of a tree's existence, we first learn to talk about the tree.

All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content. Some correlation is prior to language use. The presupposition of existence is prior to language use. That which is prior to language use cannot be existentially dependent upon language use.

The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief does not require language.

Thus, there is a sensible way to talk about and/or use the term "existence" without talking about kinds of existence. Existential dependency is not a kind of existence, it is a kind of dependency.

If we consider that the external conditions which are necessary for the tree's existence (like a source of water) have no relation to the tree...then, we have to determine by what means the tree accesses water without actually relating to the tree. — Merkwurdichliebe

Existential dependency includes both internal and external elements.

My notion of existential dependency does not require talking in terms of a thing's existence. That's true and is shown.

That argument is taking account of notions of "existence". I cannot effectively stop following the practice of using "existence" as a predicate and/or subject matter in it's own right and remain capable of accurately reporting upon such usage.

Hamstrung.

Does being justified require being argued for, or does it require being well-grounded by/within personal experience regardless of whether or not the thinking/believing creature is capable of offering subsequent explanation?
— creativesoul

There is no distinction here. We argue by referencing our empirically gained knowledge. I know the butler did it because I either saw him do it or I saw other evidence implicating him. — Hanover

Non-linguistic creatures can know that touching fire causes pain. There is no stronger justificatory ground than getting burned. Are we to say that they do not know touching fire causes pain simply because they cannot tell us about it?

The presupposition of existence does not require language use for it happens in autonomous fashion within non-linguistic thought/belief.
— creativesoul

Right, so it is not an empty concept, that adds nothing to our understanding of things, at all. — Janus

I was mentioning it.

It can be completely removed from the argument without losing meaning. This can be shown if you'd like. Because it can be dropped without loss, it's use as a noun/predicate is shown to be a superfluous and/or redundant use of language.

My position explains this...

Just don't call me on it...

I may be overstating the case by overestimating my current ability. :wink:

For example something which has only fictional existence is existentially dependent on an author, and you might argue, since its existence is only imagined and if it obtains its existence only in the act of imagining, by those who imagine it; that is, the readers. — Janus

What happens when we lose the talk about kinds of existence?

Clarity.

For example fiction is existentially dependent upon an author.

I think you're being a bit slippery here. The term 'existential' demarcates a kind of dependency which is understood in terms of existence, not of some or other mere function. — Janus

Not on my view.

Try formulating your usual arguments without using it, and see how far you get. — Janus

There it is. Let's critique it.

All use of the term "existence" is language use.
All language use is existentially dependent upon language acquisition.
All language acquisition is existentially dependent upon rudimentary level non-linguistic thought/belief. All rudimentary level non-linguistic thought/belief is existentially dependent upon something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing correlations and/or associations between different things.
All use of the term "existence" is existentially dependent upon something to become sign/symbol, something to become significant/symbolized, and a creature capable of drawing a correlation and/or associations between different things.
All thought/belief is meaningful to the thinking/believing creature.
All use of the term "existence" is existentially dependent upon non-linguistic rudimentary level thought/belief that is meaningful to the thinking/believing creature.
All non-linguistic meaningful thought/belief consists entirely of correlations drawn between different things.
All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content.
The presupposition of existence does not require language use for it happens in autonomous fashion within non-linguistic thought/belief.
That which is prior to language use cannot be existentially dependent upon language use.
The presupposition of existence is not existentially dependent upon language use.
All notions of "existence" are.

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.

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.

Hmmm...

Good thread topic my friend. Could be a bit of fun.

In order for a belief to be sensibly called "justified"...fill in the blank. Does being justified require being argued for, or does it require being well-grounded by/within personal experience regardless of whether or not the thinking/believing creature is capable of offering subsequent explanation?

The fire example...

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.

Sure.

True statements are so regardless of whether or not any particular individual speaker believes them.

With that in mind, some folk will say that truths(true statements) are universal, because they are true regardless of who utters them.

As before, it all depends upon the terminological framework of the speaker.

The exchange was interesting. Too bad it has to end prior to getting into the details. I'm not sure about what much of your latest reply means, because it seems chock full of presuppositions and/or unspoken thought/belief much of which seems to be about me and/or my intentions...

which is rather puzzling given who I am

...but thank you for the pleasantries.

Intellectual property rights?

:wink:

It's funny you mention those here. I've had a few people express similar concerns to me, going as far as to ask if I was worried about it, and suggest that I ought be. I'm not. I've no dog in the fight, and I have no expectation regarding any sort of financial rewards or academic accolades.

I just find it all entertaining, stimulating, and in some weird sense soothing... especially when expectation consistently matches reality.

Be well.

:smile:

Would you accept that "no truths are universal" is a self defeating proposition? — Theologian

I personally do not call true statements "truths". That's more a practice of logicians and those who do not draw and maintain the distinction between what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so. I find calling true statements and/or valid conclusions "truths" a bad habit. On my view truth is correspondence with what's happened and/or is happening, and it is presupposed within all thought/belief and statements thereof.

The assertion "truth is relative" could be saying something along the lines of correspondence is a kind of relationship between thought/belief about what's happened/happening and what's happened/happening. If correspondence is a relationship, and all relationships are relative, and truth is correspondence, then truth is relative.

I would have no issue at all with such a claim.

However, it is quite often the case that when someone says "truth is relative" they are working from a conflation of truth and belief. Such talk is accompanied by saying things like "his truth", "her truth", "your truth", and "my truth"...

I agree with you that "no truths are universal" can be self-defeating. Just not always.

Perhaps I should specify normal situational dispute. — fresco

Banno foresaw/predicted the no true scotsman earlier.

I'm simply pointing out that there is nothing - NOTHING AT ALL - added to our understanding by using the term "existence" as a predicate.

Well...

Aside from unnecessary confusion.

Nothing I've said is a dispute like 'existence of God'.

In my view, the ‘groupings making a difference to themselves’ make more sense understood in terms of basic chemistry... [snip] ...But chemical process (as I see it) establishes a relationship of interaction between particles (I prefer to call it a relationship system) that produces entropy (‘awareness’ of time directional ‘time’ information). This relationship is finite and dependent on the elements involved, their respective positions and velocity in spacetime, available energy, etc. — Possibility

I've no obvious issue with the above revised version, aside from maybe a quibble regarding what sorts of things can be sensibly said to "establish a relationship".

However, all interaction has a duration. So, I cannot agree with the following snippet taken out of the above...

With physical stimulus-response, the interaction is instantaneous: there is no experience of time.

While the process is active, the relationship system (or ‘grouping’) functions as an entity: it is able to interact with other particles or relationship systems and integrate information - and all of its elements have potential access to that information (ie. awareness) for as long as the chemical process lasts. Depending on the nature of that process, it could be over in an instant or last long enough for the relationship system to interact with several other entities across spacetime - and possibly even engage in other chemical processes, establishing a complex relationship system that has relationship systems operating within it...

Not all interaction is experience.

What is the minimum criterion, which when met by a candidate of our choosing, will offer offer solid ground upon which to claim that all such candidates are capable of 'integrating information'?

What does all information consist of, at a bare minimum. What does integrating that entail?

I will attempt to emphasize that the word 'existence' matters only in particular contexts like disputes about 'existence of God — fresco

And yet... I've shown how it matters and I've not once invoked God. Thus, the above is not true.

It's the same as saying "All truths are relative." The most obvious problem with that being that merely by the use of the universal quantifier, "All," you have explicitly stated that this is not a relative, but universal truth. Again, it's self defeating. — Theologian

It would be self-defeating if being relative and being universal are mutually exclusive. They are not always. Depends entirely upon how one is using the terms "truths" and "relative".

Meaning is relative to language use. Truths(on some views) are a product thereof.

...

I also invoked the consideration of whether or not a thing's existence is dependent upon its relations. — Merkwurdichliebe

What are we counting as a tree's relations?
— creativesoul

One example would be all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for its existence. — Merkwurdichliebe

So...

Verbatim...

A tree's relations are described as...

..all necessary conditions that are not inherent to the tree itself, which are nonetheless required for it's existence. — Merkwurdichliebe

I've no need to mutilate something already so butchered. I'm trying to help.

Anyway, are there any threads around at the moment that are not full of such stuff?

I've a little time on my hands over the next few days.

Or do I start my own? — Banno

Go for it. You typically draw a better/larger crowd than others.

That which is prior to something else cannot be intrinsically bound up in that something else. The presupposition of existence is prior to language. Thus, on that level, it is not bound up in language.
— creativesoul

But we are talking about existence. So how is it not "bound up" in language. — Merkwurdichliebe

Nah. You're confused. I was talking about that which exists prior to language. I was using language to take account of it.

That which happens prior to language cannot be bound up in language.

Water is not a relation.
— creativesoul

Then you agree that a tree provides it's own water. Peculiar. I wonder how that happens. — Merkwurdichliebe

I'll hold off for a while...

You can do better than this.

Is a tree dependent upon it's relations?

Is a tree's existence dependent upon it's relations?

How are we to make sense of this?
— creativesoul

Is a tree dependent on water for its existence? Does a tree provide it's own water? — Merkwurdichliebe

Water is not a relation.

The presupposition of existence is not existentially dependent upon language use.
All notions of "existence" are.
— creativesoul

That is also a very good point to consider.

Language is certainly not existence as such. Yet each are it intrinsically bound up in the other. — Merkwurdichliebe

You've this very odd habit of claiming agreement, and/or offering praise and then immediately asserting something that does not follow.

Weird.

That which is prior to something else cannot be intrinsically bound up in that something else. The presupposition of existence inherent to all thought/belief is prior to language. Thus, on that level, it is not bound up in language.

Yup. I'm beginning to arrive at the same conclusion.

I also invoked the consideration of whether or not a thing's existence is dependent upon its relations. — Merkwurdichliebe

Is a tree dependent upon it's relations?

Is a tree's existence dependent upon it's relations?

How are we to make sense of this?