Can the mind think about non-existing things?

[shinbits]

well, humans do have imagination. Cartoonists think about the behaviours and actions of thier cartoons, thought they don't really exist. Humans can conjure mythical creatures in thier mind that don't really exist.

So maybe they can. *shrug*

 

[Osiris]

well, humans do have imagination. Cartoonists think about the behaviours and actions of thier cartoons, thought they don't really exist. Humans can conjure mythical creatures in thier mind that don't really exist.

So maybe they can. *shrug*

that is not what the OP meant.

what cartoonists do is put different impressions together. cartoons are a combination of impressions.

talking + mouse = mickey mouse

what the OP meant was...

is there anything which does not use impressions at all?

or

no impression + no impression = idea

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Thanks, Osiris, for helping me out.

I also want to extend that question to 'God' as in what impressions are put together to think of God.

Of course, whoever is free to discuss God as a 'thought in mind' can give their opinions.

 

[Osiris]

Thanks, Osiris, for helping me out.

I also want to extend that question to 'God' as in what impressions are put together to think of God.

Of course, whoever is free to discuss God as a 'thought in mind' can give their opinions.

well, gods originally started out with being limited to a specific power.

[man can control somethings] + man + [sea] = Poseidon

[controlling everything] + person = God/Allah , etc..

at least that is the way i think it would work...

 

[shinbits]

that is not what the OP meant.

what cartoonists do is put different impressions together. cartoons are a combination of impressions.

talking + mouse = mickey mouse

what the OP meant was...

is there anything which does not use impressions at all?

or

no impression + no impression = idea

I think ideas, by definition, are impressions.

 

[Osiris]

I think ideas, by definition, are impressions.

no, impressions are a result of sense experience.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

well, gods originally started out with being limited to a specific power.

[man can control somethings] + man + [sea] = Poseidon

[controlling everything] + person = God/Allah , etc..

at least that is the way i think it would work...

Yeah, that's what I think too.

I strongly agree with the opinion that gods originally started out with limited powers, and then evolved into a monotheistic God, a monistic absolute and so on.

I would welcome others' inputs on this subject.

 

[quatona]

Can the mind think of something which, as a whole has no proof for its existence, and whose parts(constituents) also have no proof for their existence?

Yes, that´s one of the most amazing capabilities of our minds. We see that happening here all the time. Abstraction and negation and thinking of relational processes as things that exist in their own right are the tools we use, and they often are used to create concepts that are not only not existing, but downright illogical in a way that raises doubts that the person speaking actually has a concept of the things he is talking about, and give me the impression that he´s merely forming sentences, that - though grammatically correct and full of actually meaningful words - have no meaning at all, not even to himself. Non-concepts.
Examples "before the beginning of time", "outside space", "beyond logic".
A less drastic process works like this:
I dislike something. I call it "evil". I make a noun of it: "evil". I start thinking of "evil" as existing. I ask questions like "What created evil?. Lost in absurd abstractions.

 

[elman]

no, impressions are a result of sense experience.

So caroons are the result of sense experience?

 

[elman]

Yes, that´s one of the most amazing capabilities of our minds. We see that happening here all the time. Abstraction and negation and thinking of relational processes as things that exist in their own right are the tools we use, and they often are used to create concepts that are not only not existing, but downright illogical in a way that raises doubts that the person speaking actually has a concept of the things he is talking about, and give me the impression that he´s merely forming sentences, that - though grammatically correct and full of actually meaningful words - have no meaning at all, not even to himself. Non-concepts.
Examples "before the beginning of time", "outside space", "beyond logic".
A less drastic process works like this:
I dislike something. I call it "evil". I make a noun of it: "evil". I start thinking of "evil" as existing. I ask questions like "What created evil?. Lost in absurd abstractions.

But evil is real, not an abstraction, if evil is being unloving. However I do agree with you that we can think of non existing things.

 

[Blackmarch]

I'll frame my question in three parts:

1) What is a non-existing thing?
2)Is it limited only to physical existence?
3) Can the mind think about non-existing things?

Dunno do thoughts have physical form?

 

[TLFM]

I'll frame my question in three parts:

1) What is a non-existing thing?
2)Is it limited only to physical existence?
3) Can the mind think about non-existing things?

One can not think about that which doesn't exist and has no basis in something that exists. Even when something does have a basis in something that exists, it is impossible to think about it if it is self contradictory.

We can use the famous "square circle" to illustrate this. Though both circles and squares have actual existence, we have no way of thinking about a square circle. We can say it would be a circle that was also a square, but that is thinking about the properties of a square circle and not thinking about a square circle, itself. In the same way one can not think about a "firtlenter". What is a "firtlenter" you ask? Beats me, it doesn't exist. I could think about the properties of a "firtlenter", maybe it has nine hundred dimensions and eats the number 3, but this does not mean I can think about the "firtlenter", itself.

Saying this, however, does not mean because we can not think about something, presently, that it does not exist. We can base our understanding of what can and cannot exist on our understanding of the physical laws under which we live but this only gives us a guide by which to judge the probabitlity of somethings existence and not any absolute answer to whether or not it can exist.

This has a lot to do with what truth is and the possibility of absolute knowledge of truth. While truth may have actual existence, absolute knowledge of truth is, as far as I can reason, impossible.

*EDIT: Perhaps I should have said we can think about the conceptual properties of something that doesn't exist, but we can not think about its true properties. When we think about things that do exist all we are actually considering is the things true properties. This, of course, would require that things do have true properties which would require truth having actual existence.

 

[quatona]

But evil is real, not an abstraction, if evil is being unloving.

"Evil" is another word for our expectations not matched, an way to express our frustration or sadness, our means of judging things. I´m not sure I understand what you mean when saying "real" (particularly if used in a dichotomy "real vs. abstraction").

 

[I <3 Abraham]

One can not think about that which doesn't exist and has no basis in something that exists. Even when something does have a basis in something that exists, it is impossible to think about it if it is self contradictory.

We can use the famous "square circle" to illustrate this. Though both circles and squares have actual existence, we have no way of thinking about a square circle. We can say it would be a circle that was also a square, but that is thinking about the properties of a square circle and not thinking about a square circle, itself. In the same way one can not think about a "firtlenter". What is a "firtlenter" you ask? Beats me, it doesn't exist. I could think about the properties of a "firtlenter", maybe it has nine hundred dimensions and eats the number 3, but this does not mean I can think about the "firtlenter", itself.

Saying this, however, does not mean because we can not think about something, presently, that it does not exist. We can base our understanding of what can and cannot exist on our understanding of the physical laws under which we live but this only gives us a guide by which to judge the probabitlity of somethings existence and not any absolute answer to whether or not it can exist.

This has a lot to do with what truth is and the possibility of absolute knowledge of truth. While truth may have actual existence, absolute knowledge of truth is, as far as I can reason, impossible.

*EDIT: Perhaps I should have said we can think about the conceptual properties of something that doesn't exist, but we can not think about its true properties. When we think about things that do exist all we are actually considering is the things true properties. This, of course, would require that things do have true properties which would require truth having actual existence.

This is a long way to say that all our ideas are based on our sense impressions. As a Kantian, I can get down with that to a certain degree. However, I deny the idea that the mind cannot contemplate things which we cannot comprehend. For instance, we can have an idea of "infinity", in the numerical sense. We cannot, however, form a "picture" of an instance of infinity in our mind, we simply think of something that might be infinite (a string of numbers, say) and then ascribe the attribute infinity to it without actually doing so in our mind.

In this way the question becomes more difficult. The concept of infinity shows that there can be something with definite attributes that can be thought of in the abstract but about which a single instance cannot be thought. Nor can a physical instance of it be verified. Does infinity exist outside of our abstraction of it?

Mmm...the Mathematically Sublime...

 

[TLFM]

This is a long way to say that all our ideas are based on our sense impressions.

Yeah, I can be unnecessarily wordy and somewhat rambling. That was actually a good summation of what I was trying to say. You should work with the coherence impaired. I would sign up.

However, I deny the idea that the mind cannot contemplate things which we cannot comprehend. For instance, we can have an idea of "infinity", in the numerical sense. We cannot, however, form a "picture" of an instance of infinity in our mind, we simply think of something that might be infinite (a string of numbers, say) and then ascribe the attribute infinity to it without actually doing so in our mind.

I'm not really sure we can have a concept of infinity even in the numerical sense. No matter how much of the infinite number series we think we are comprehending there is an infinite amount more that we are not considering. It is one thing to say we can realize the property of infinity , that it goes on forever, it is a completely different thing to be able to understand or even contemplate what that "going on forever" is. It is the difference between having a concept of something's definition and having an actual concept of the "something".

In this way the question becomes more difficult. The concept of infinity shows that there can be something with definite attributes that can be thought of in the abstract but about which a single instance cannot be thought. Nor can a physical instance of it be verified. Does infinity exist outside of our abstraction of it?

Mmm...the Mathematically Sublime...

I would say no, infinity does not exist outside of our abstraction of it. What's more I don't think we can actually form a real concept of it at all. We can use the word but that is different than having any understanding of the concept.

Infinity is so far removed from anything we could possibly experience that at some point the concept becomes absurd and at that point it ceases to be something we have a concept of. In other words, our concept of infinity must be finite, as that is all we can understand, and it is therefor not a concept of infinity. The fact that a one with an infinite number of zeros behind it is no closer to the end of the infinite number string than any other number makes the concept absurd and unfathomable. The concept breaks down and we realize we never had a concept of it to begin with. We only had the illusion of a concept.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Examples "before the beginning of time", "outside space", "beyond logic".

I should have framed my question more clearly.

"Can the mind think of non-existing things without having to use something existing as a reference?"

The following are wrong examples:

before time
outside space
beyond logic

A square circle does not exist, as we all know. But to even think of(or pretend to think of) it we need a square and a circle as a reference.

It seems like I can speculate about non-existence only using the context of existence. So is there really something that is non-existent?(seems like a contradictory statement to me.)

 

[freelight]

I should have framed my question more clearly.

"Can the mind think of non-existing things without having to use something existing as a reference?"


A square circle does not exist, as we all know. But to even think of(or pretend to think of) it we need a square and a circle as a reference.

It seems like I can speculate about non-existence only using the context of existence. So is there really something that is non-existent?(seems like a contradictory statement to me.)

Hi Born,


You've apparently resolved ur own inquiry. Some-thing non-existent does not exist......so such a thing could not be known, conceptualized or realized in truth.


If we look at non-existence itself......such cannot be realized for such does exist as real. We may contemplate existence itself...because it is actual/real.....having existence.


It is Existence itself that the mind or consciousness knows as 'being' even though the intellect may cloud, obscure this primal pure awareness.


You will also note that this Existence is Self-evident and exists before the mind articulates what it is or might be.....which is the genesis of the religious definitions of 'God'.





paul

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

Hi Born,


You've apparently resolved ur own inquiry.
Some-thing non-existent does not exist......so such a thing could not be known, conceptualized or realized in truth.

I agree completely with what you said. I just did not want to openly declare my opinion on the subject but instead framed it as a set of questions to invite interesting discussion.

If we look at non-existence itself......such cannot be realized for such does not exist as real. We may contemplate existence itself...because it is actual/real.....having existence.

Agreed. Existence is real.

It is Existence itself that the mind or consciousness knows as 'being' even though the intellect may cloud, obscure this primal pure awareness.

I share your pov.

You will also note that this Existence is Self-evident and exists before the mind articulates what it is or might be.....which is the genesis of the religious definitions of 'God'.

IT evades the mind's speculations. And the mind settles for 'God' as a pragmatic definition for it.




paul[/quote]

 

[quatona]

I should have framed my question more clearly.

"Can the mind think of non-existing things without having to use something existing as a reference?"

The following are wrong examples:

before time
outside space
beyond logic

A square circle does not exist, as we all know. But to even think of(or pretend to think of) it we need a square and a circle as a reference.

It seems like I can speculate about non-existence only using the context of existence. So is there really something that is non-existent?(seems like a contradictory statement to me.)

Apparently I am still not even able to see the rabbit you are chasing, sorry.
I don&#180;t understand the question "Is there something that is non-existent?". "There is X" and "X is existent" are synonyms for me, so no, something that is non-existent is not there, by the very definitions I understand these words to have.
I can&#180;t help feeling that either your approach is so particularly deep that goes completely over my head, or that it comes down to mere semantics. For the time being I am assuming the first, but admittedly I don&#180;t get the idea.

As for the first part: Using existing things for a reference in order to think of non-existing things is what I would simply call abstraction.

 

[elman]

"Evil" is another word for our expectations not matched, an way to express our frustration or sadness, our means of judging things. I´m not sure I understand what you mean when saying "real" (particularly if used in a dichotomy "real vs. abstraction").

Real in this context refers to existence. Evil is unloving acts, not unmatched expectations.