Does Fiction Exist

[quatona]

No... there are some people who are like that alot, and we generally think they are mentally ill.

I don´t know who YOU guys are - but WE don´t think of people who e.g. cry over a fictional or imagined story as mentally ill.

You said 'pretty irrelevant'... I don't know what that means, if not 'doesn't matter'.

Yes, I agree: It was misunderstandable. I tried to qualify it in my post to KC.

I don't get what your point is. If a car was coming then I'd assume you would stop. You might also stop if you have a hallucination of a car, but if you get that repeatedly, then you might need help.

My point was prior to a car coming or not. My point was about looking left and right in case a car might come.

Do you consider it irrelevant whether you have a mental illness?

It´s possible that I don´t consider it as relevant as you do. Then again, we might not even agree what a mental illness is, in the first place.

Personally, I'd like to live my life based on the real world.

Well, you can´t escape living your life based on your ideas of the real world.

 

[Resha Caner]

This is an important observation. We've been discussing the existence imagined tangible objects like imagined cars or imagined elephants.

But what about the existence of abstract ideas? What about things that can only exist in the mind?

Things like Love, Justice, Beauty, and Hope don't have a physical form... But if we look to mythology, we find that these abstract ideas are personified as gods, demons, spirits, and angels.

I've always considered ideas to have a type of existence. As long as the idea is sustained in a mind, it has some kind of existence (i.e. the structure used to store the idea). I don't see the idea of a god personifying these traits as anything more than a literary device, but for the eternal God to possess these ideas would given them an eternal existence.

However, if the word "exist" is too weak, would "potential" be a better word? These ideas have potential for real consequences.

 

[quatona]

Either way, there is no fictional object.

Yes, that´s why I am opposed to calling them "existing".

Only the idea exists,

What do you mean - "only"?

and the idea isn't the imagined object.

Yes, never. No matter whether the object exists or not.

 

[Paradoxum]

If written descriptions take physical form when read, then books become potentially the most dangerous thing in the world.

They would!

I don´t know who YOU guys are - but WE don´t think of people who e.g. cry over a fictional or imagined story as mentally ill.

Fair point. For some reason I was thinking 'mental construct' referred to the appearance of fictional things as external.

I agree that stories and ideas affect people... but is that the point you are trying to make? What is it you're trying to say?

Yes, I agree: It was misunderstandable. I tried to qualify it in my post to KC.

Okay.

My point was prior to a car coming or not. My point was about looking left and right in case a car might come.

Okay, but I don't know what you're point is.

I agree that people look to see if there is a car before they know if there is a car.

It´s possible that I don´t consider it as relevant as you do. Then again, we might not even agree what a mental illness is, in the first place.

Well if you have a mental illness that affects your perception of reality, then not to care about that would imply that you don't care about truth. If you don't care about truth, then there perhaps isn't any point having a reasoned discussion.

I suspect and hope you do care about truth though.

Well, you can´t escape living your life based on your ideas of the real world.

I don't deny that, but I can try to conform my understanding to reality.

Yes, that´s why I am opposed to calling them "existing".

Well I don't know what point you are trying to make overall. I agree that ideas affect people if that is the point.

What do you mean - "only"?

I mean the idea exist, not the thing it causes us to imagine. The idea of an elephant outside my window exists... the elephant isn't actually there.

Yes, never. No matter whether the object exists or not.

Sure, but when the object does exist, the idea refers to a real thing.

 

[quatona]

Fair point. For some reason I was thinking 'mental construct' referred to the appearance of fictional things as external.

...and in a way it did. I am toying around with the idea that we always react to our mental constructs (as though we reacted to external objects). I am also toying around with the implications of the idea that the existence or non-existence of an external referent to our mental constructs has no or little bearing on the effect the mental construct has on us.

I agree that stories and ideas affect people... but is that the point you are trying to make? What is it you're trying to say?

I´m not necessarily trying to drive home a point. Maybe the above paragraph helps?

I agree that people look to see if there is a car before they know if there is a car.

Ok. So there is no external referent to the mental construct ("a car might come") that determines their behaviour - they look. I wouldn´t call that mental illness or a lack of interest in the truth.

Well if you have a mental illness that affects your perception of reality,

Now, in my conviction our mind always affects our perception of reality, so this, to me, can´t be the criterium for being mentally ill.

then not to care about that would imply that you don't care about truth. If you don't care about truth, then there perhaps isn't any point having a reasoned discussion.

I suspect and hope you do care about truth though.

I tend to feel helpless when I am slapped with those big words.
To which degree I care about "truth" depends greatly on what you mean when saying it. Anyway, the best discussions I had were those when people set aside their fascination with "the truth" for a moment.
But to give you an idea:
I care more for "the truth" that I feel cold than for "the truth" that it´s 22°C in here.
I care more for "the truth" that a placebo helps than for "the truth" that it doesn´t contain anything that can be considered to be an effective medication.

I don't deny that, but I can try to conform my understanding to reality.

How do you do that? The same device - your brain - that shapes your "understanding of reality" also shapes your idea of what is real, in the first place. That´s a methodological problem.

I mean the idea exist, not the thing it causes us to imagine. The idea of an elephant outside my window exists... the elephant isn't actually there.

Yes, tautologically true. A thing that isn´t there isn´t there.

 

[Paradoxum]

...and in a way it did. I am toying around with the idea that we always react to our mental constructs (as though we reacted to external objects).

Well your point before what that we only know of the external because it appears to us in our minds. So if a fictional thing appears to us as real as the impression external things cause in our mind, then I suppose we would react to them in the same way.

I am also toying around with the implications of the idea that the existence or non-existence of an external referent to our mental constructs has no or little bearing on the effect the mental construct has on us.

Well I suppose it is possible for fictional things to feel real. I'm not sure if reactions to things we know are fictional would be exactly the same as to things we think are real.

For example, if you cry at the death of a fictional character... is that really crying because the character is dead, or is it empathising with the situation and imagining if it were real. ie: Is the fictional nature of the story still in the back of your mind.

But if you do think a fictional thing is real, then you probably would react the same.

I´m not necessarily trying to drive home a point. Maybe the above paragraph helps?

I think so.

Ok. So there is no external referent to the mental construct ("a car might come") that determines their behaviour - they look. I wouldn´t call that mental illness or a lack of interest in the truth.

Nor would I, and I didn't say otherwise.

Now, in my conviction our mind always affects our perception of reality, so this, to me, can´t be the criterium for being mentally ill.

I agree; I wasn't trying to give a definition of mental illness... I was just trying to say that I meant things like hallucinations.

I tend to feel helpless when I am slapped with those big words.
To which degree I care about "truth" depends greatly on what you mean when saying it. Anyway, the best discussions I had were those when people set aside their fascination with "the truth" for a moment.

Like, if magic were real, what would that be like? I don't know what you mean.

But to give you an idea:
I care more for "the truth" that I feel cold than for "the truth" that it´s 22°C in here.
I care more for "the truth" that a placebo helps than for "the truth" that it doesn´t contain anything that can be considered to be an effective medication.

Isn't that because you care about your welfare, which is an additional value? ie: You care more about your health than about an insignificant truth.

How do you do that? The same device - your brain - that shapes your "understanding of reality" also shapes your idea of what is real, in the first place. That´s a methodological problem.

Well people do it all the time, so it doesn't appear to be much of a problem. We use evidence and reason.

Yes, tautologically true. A thing that isn´t there isn´t there.

 

[morningstar2651]

I've always considered ideas to have a type of existence. As long as the idea is sustained in a mind, it has some kind of existence (i.e. the structure used to store the idea). I don't see the idea of a god personifying these traits as anything more than a literary device, but for the eternal God to possess these ideas would given them an eternal existence.

However, if the word "exist" is too weak, would "potential" be a better word? These ideas have potential for real consequences.

I find it interesting how common of a literary device the personification of ideas is in disparate cultures - especially how similar their depictions of these ideas can be without communication between these cultures.

Joseph Campbell wrote about The Hero with 1000 Faces and The Masks of God, and one of the big take-aways from these books is how surprisingly similar the stories told by different cultures are.

The existence of these archetypal stories and characters that transcend cultural boundaries is fascinating. Are the storytellers tapping into some universal source, or is it simply a case of great minds thinking alike?

 

[quatona]

Well I suppose it is possible for fictional things to feel real. I'm not sure if reactions to things we know are fictional would be exactly the same as to things we think are real.

Of course not. Not any two reactions are exactly the same.

For example, if you cry at the death of a fictional character... is that really crying because the character is dead, or is it empathising with the situation and imagining if it were real. ie: Is the fictional nature of the story still in the back of your mind.

Actually, when I look at movies or theater the greater the pleasure the more I forget about the fictionality.

Nor would I, and I didn't say otherwise.

Then I don´t know why you bring up mental illness when we were actually speaking of ideas.

Isn't that because you care about your welfare, which is an additional value? ie: You care more about your health than about an insignificant truth.

Rather, I care about stuff only insofar as it affects me and/or others. This includes ideas.

Well people do it all the time, so it doesn't appear to be much of a problem. We use evidence and reason.

A lot of things people do all the time are not as indicative of their validity as they may appear. The problem with using evidence and reason is that you use the same faculty that I have mentioned.
You know, some people believe in gods and others don´t.

 

[Paradoxum]

Of course not. Not any two reactions are exactly the same.

I agree.

Actually, when I look at movies or theater the greater the pleasure the more I forget about the fictionality.

Maybe that's how it works, or it works differently for people at different times. I haven't reflected on it much.

Then I don´t know why you bring up mental illness when we were actually speaking of ideas.

There was a reason, but I forget now.

Rather, I care about stuff only insofar as it affects me and/or others. This includes ideas.

I suppose I care about the truth (particularly important truths) as value in itself. Of course there are other things I value too.

A lot of things people do all the time are not as indicative of their validity as they may appear. The problem with using evidence and reason is that you use the same faculty that I have mentioned.
You know, some people believe in gods and others don´t.

What is the problem though? You just try to based you understanding on reason and evidence. The fact that you might get different results from a device doesn't mean that there isn't a way to get the correct results from a device.

You can input a question incorrectly into a calculator. Is the fact that you can use a calculator to come to incorrect conclusions a reason to think that calculators aren't good for coming to correct math results? Instead, I'd say that we just need to make sure we are using the calculator correctly.

Using reason and evidence is the correct use of the brain... the fact that we came to incorrect conclusions before doesn't cause a problem... it just means we didn't use the device properly.

I used to believe in God, then I came to the conclusion that the reasons I had weren't good enough to justify belief. Commitment and bias towards beliefs may affect how well we use reason to examine our beliefs, but that doesn't mean reason and evidence aren't good ways to conform our understanding to what is real. Perhaps it just means we must try to be more careful and unbiased.

 

[quatona]

I suppose I care about the truth (particularly important truths) as value in itself. Of course there are other things I value too.

Values and truth don´t exist - according to the definition we have agreed upon. So you, too, care about non-existing things, and even put them on a high pedestal.

What is the problem though? You just try to based you understanding on reason and evidence. The fact that you might get different results from a device doesn't mean that there isn't a way to get the correct results from a device.

You can input a question incorrectly into a calculator. Is the fact that you can use a calculator to come to incorrect conclusions a reason to think that calculators aren't good for coming to correct math results? Instead, I'd say that we just need to make sure we are using the calculator correctly.

Using reason and evidence is the correct use of the brain... the fact that we came to incorrect conclusions before doesn't cause a problem... it just means we didn't use the device properly.

Well, your analogy ignores the very problem. It would be better, if all you had to check whether your calculator works properly and whether you used it correctly was your calculator.

I used to believe in God, then I came to the conclusion that the reasons I had weren't good enough to justify belief.

Yes, they aren´t good enough for you and for me. That´s got nothing to do with the truth on the matter, though.

Commitment and bias towards beliefs may affect how well we use reason to examine our beliefs,

The interesting part is: Now you are referring to "beliefs". If "truth" in a particular issue can be had, we won´t even discuss beliefs in this context.
but that doesn't mean reason and evidence aren't good ways to conform our understanding to what is real.[/quote]
That´s undisputed. Although, personally, I´d prefer to say "they are good ways to conform our understanding of what is real to our needs".

Perhaps it just means we must try to be more careful and unbiased.

Or: we must learn to admit our collective and individual biases.

 

[Paradoxum]

Values and truth don´t exist - according to the definition we have agreed upon. So you, too, care about non-existing things, and even put them on a high pedestal.

I don't remember agreeing to such a definition. I know that values exist in my mind, more than I know that the chair I sit on exists. If anything exists, our feelings exist.

Truth isn't a thing floating in the sky, but that isn't what I mean when I say truth. I suppose I mean something along the lines of, having my understanding of reality correctly represent reality. Such an understanding can exist.

Well, your analogy ignores the very problem. It would be better, if all you had to check whether your calculator works properly and whether you used it correctly was your calculator.

Well I did ask you to explain what the problem is in your mind. You've only hinted at the problem up till now. What is the problem?

I did write out an improved analogy, but I don't know what it is you think the problem is. Reason and evidence are the best way to understand reality... and I don't know what your problem with that is.

Yes, they aren´t good enough for you and for me. That´s got nothing to do with the truth on the matter, though.

What do you mean by the truth on the matter? The matter on whether God exists, or whether there is sufficient evidence for God?

You said that some people believe in God, and some don't... I assume implying that this is goes against reason and evidence being useful for understanding reality. (You didn't say what your point was, so I'm just guessing).

Maybe there is a God, but the wise thing to do is to base our beliefs on reason and evidence, since that most often leads us to truth (and away from untruth). To do otherwise is just to make things up. If it turns out there is a God, that could just be because of ignorance... not because trying to understand things with reason and evidence is a bad way of doing things.

The interesting part is: Now you are referring to "beliefs". If "truth" in a particular issue can be had, we won´t even discuss beliefs in this context.

It depends what you mean by the word belief.

We will have to accept that we are fallible in most things.

That´s undisputed. Although, personally, I´d prefer to say "they are good ways to conform our understanding of what is real to our needs".

I don't know why you'd say that. Reason and evidence can tell us things regardless of our needs.

Or: we must learn to admit our collective and individual biases.

Well I suppose that is similar to what I said. Trying to be unbiased might involve understanding our biases.

 

[quatona]

I don't remember agreeing to such a definition. I know that values exist in my mind, more than I know that the chair I sit on exists. If anything exists, our feelings exist.

Ok, so stuff - even if it is but in our minds (ideas, values, gods) - does exist?

Truth isn't a thing floating in the sky, but that isn't what I mean when I say truth. I suppose I mean something along the lines of, having my understanding of reality correctly represent reality. Such an understanding can exist.

How do you tell if or if not your understanding of reality is a "correct" representation? And what does "correct" mean when used as in conjunction with "representation"?

Well I did ask you to explain what the problem is in your mind. You've only hinted at the problem up till now. What is the problem?

I thought I had mentioned it before: using the same device to determine what makes a representation "correct", and to determine which representation is correct is a circular method - particularly when even the representation is delivered to you by the same device.

I did write out an improved analogy, but I don't know what it is you think the problem is.

I tried to explain it to you, using your analogy.

Reason and evidence are the best way to understand reality... and I don't know what your problem with that is.

Reason and evidence are the best way to understand reality because we don´t have any other to our disposal (at least when it comes to meaningless cold hard facts).
The superiority of reason and evidence, however, is determined by reason and evidence. That is a methodological problem - it is circular. This is where big words like "truth" become questionable - regardless the fact that the method leads to usable results (in areas where we value reason and evidence).

What do you mean by the truth on the matter? The matter on whether God exists, or whether there is sufficient evidence for God?

Both.

You said that some people believe in God, and some don't... I assume implying that this is goes against reason and evidence being useful for understanding reality. (You didn't say what your point was, so I'm just guessing).

First of all, I never said they weren´t "good" nor they weren´t "useful". Your operational term was "truth".

Well, both groups don´t seem to run into major problems dealing with reality (rather - both find their beliefs usable and helpful in dealing with reality); both groups apparently have different ideas what sort of evidence is sufficient for assuming that there is an external referent to their ideas; the scientific method is, by it´s very definition not suited to answer the question, so there.

Maybe there is a God, but the wise thing to do is to base our beliefs on reason and evidence, since that most often leads us to truth (and away from untruth).

You would have to substantiate this.
For the time being I would be willing to give you this: Reason and evidence lead to results that are best if we preassume reason and evidence lead to the best results (they lead to reasonable results, based on our idea of evidence).

To do otherwise is just to make things up. If it turns out there is a God, that could just be because of ignorance... not because trying to understand things with reason and evidence is a bad way of doing things.

If it turned out that there is a god this may well indicate that reason and evidence (in the scientific sense) aren´t as powerful as we´d like them to be, i.e. that there are areas in which they don´t lead to "correct" results.
Actually, we can already know that beforehand - if we look at the definition of "reason", "(scientific) evidence" and "god".

I don't know why you'd say that. Reason and evidence can tell us things regardless of our needs.

Yes, insignificant things. Only if they meet our needs in one way or the other the results are significant and useful.

Well I suppose that is similar to what I said. Trying to be unbiased might involve understanding our biases.

Not really. We, collectively, are humans, and what we understand to be reality is probably very different than what a dog or spider understands to be reality. This would be our collective bias - and, frankly, I am not even interested in seeing reality as a dog or spider does, because that´s useless for me as a human. I want to understand reality as I need it, as is useful to me. Now, assuming that not all humans have the exact same needs, this systemic bias might even exist within a species - without being a problem, in my view.

 

[morningstar2651]

It exists as fiction.

True, but I think that this tautology doesn't answer the question sufficiently.

This discussion has uncovered some really interesting questions such as the existence of objective truth and other abstract concepts and ideas such as love and justice.

Does something require a physical form in order to exist or be real? Are concepts like love, truth, and justice any less real if they only exist in your mind?

We're generally unwilling to accept that fictional characters are real (e.g. Harry Potter isn't real, Hogwarts isn't real, etc.) but are willing to believe that other things that exist only in our minds are real (e.g. love, truth, justice, hope, etc.). Why is that?

What is it that gives some things that exist only in our minds the credibility we need to believe they are real? Why do different cultures tell so many similar fictional stories? Why do different cultures believe in the existence of the same abstract concepts and ideas?

 

[morningstar2651]

Although love and trust are abstract and exist only in the mind, they can be approached scientifically through biology & neuroscience.

Biological basis of love - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Neuroanatomy of intimacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia