ReluctantProphet said:
but don't you think biased notions get in the way of this? i'm asking this cause what happens when our biased views distort the affects to give us what "we" think is reality?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
ReluctantProphet said:We DO have a need to quantify and measure affect so as to have an idea of how and to what degree something affects us. But first, it needs to be clear that something can ONLY exist if it actually has SOME affect on us directly or indirectly by some means.
The ability to sense something tells us that there is something there having affect. To "know" what that thing is, is another matter. We give things groupings, concepts, and names based on the properties that we perceive or speculate that they have.
But how much we can know of something is an entirely separate issue from whether something has affect or exists simply because the lack of our ability to perceive or speculate can easily be limited such as to never "see" what is actually there and perhaps been there all along.
I agree that we have a "need to know" and thus Science, philosophers, logicians, and priests all attempt to resolve what actually exists and how it behaves.
for the purpose of limiting the scope of thought from which we can begin to deduce. It is only a beginning point so as to keep a foundation for reasoning. Other deducements and rationales are not yet of concern. We must start with axioms that can be accepted by all before any continued rationale can build.quatona said:For which purpose?
I agree that further deduction of exactly which things caused what effect is another matter involving potential speculation, probabilities, and limited perception.quatona said:I see a certain problem with concluding from an effect (change etc.) on a particular thing to be that which affected it, i.e. I do not really see a good reason to assume that this thing exists without further information.
Thus, if I feel the FSM has affected me and cured me from a disease, the effect is not in doubt, we may not even doubt that there is a cause, but the identification of the cause is at least discussable.
OH VERY much so. You have pointed out the one and ONLY problem man really has in my opinion.tattedsaint said:but don't you think biased notions get in the way of this? i'm asking this cause what happens when our biased views distort the affects to give us what "we" think is reality?
Science is subject to error. That is why it keeps changing.ReluctantProphet said:Having affect and being perceived are very different. You can easily be affected by something that you never perceived except in speculation after the consequence.
Science has accepted for a very long time that nothing can exist anywhere throughout the universe without technically having affect on all other things.
Total, 100% separation of one thing from having any affect at all on something else cannot be accomplished. We perceive separation because distance reduces affects to a point of no concern.
In the long run, even if something could exist without any affect at all, why would you care?
But more to the point, if something can exist without affect, then what properties CAN it have? Any examples even speculative?
Yes, but what does that have to do with the definition of existence?elman said:Science is subject to error. That is why it keeps changing.
ReluctantProphet said:Well, as is so very common, you're over speculating as to where I am "trying" to lead. I am really only trying to lead to a degree of sanity. If this thought that existence must have the property of affect leads to something else, then I say lets deal with that something else when it shows up (and it indeed will). My only intent now is to see if there is any sensible objection to this one starting point simply for the sake of maintaining sanity toward any other conclusion.
I don't accept that by merely accepting this one thought, you can jump straight to any conclusion about the various other concerns about what exists, if God exists, or even if something can be perceived.
With this I totally agree.
At this point, we are only talking about a mental axiom to begin a reasoning process. It has nothing to do with the finer and more concerning details of reality. In effect, it is suggesting that we keep our minds only on things that actually have affect and clear the clouds of all of the possibilities concerning what might exist without having affect.
If something truly has absolutely no affect, then we hardly have need to waste time talking about it other than to verify that it could not have affect.
Simply looking with care at all of the things that man has speculated, whether accurate or not, it is the potential affect of those things that is the obvious concern.
We say that this or that isn't there simply because we detect no affect coming from that area. We know that our ability to perceive can be distorted and limited, thus we attempt to use tools and equipment to help. We also use reverse deductions and speculative hypothesis to explore the possibilities of something being there but merely not perceived.
The objective in any such endeavor is still that same concern of whether something is there which might have affect on us.
I dont have time right now to respond to this but I'll come back later tonite.ReluctantProphet said:What do you mean by "fulfilled"?
To me that word indicates a destination and thus a course and a travel. I can accept that there is a destination for many things and even all things, but how does that relate to existence having affect or not?
If anything, I would think that it implies that because there is a destination, then there must have been something affecting the travel to it.
But I actually don't see much relation between "fulfilled" and "existence".
Perceiving something says that there was something to perceive, but it says nothing for certain as to what was really there. The perception process itself could be affected such as to make an appearance of something even though in reality the only thing that existed was perhaps a chemical that caused the misperception.bob135 said:So then anything that we see exists, since it has the effect of us seeing it?
Oh but it does. Mental things exist or have affect on mental things. Material things have affect and exist to material things. The effort of the mind is to find a mental model that would match the material world such that the mental model can be used to predict cause and effect in the material world. The mental model is a guess of the mind that it later attempts to verify. Confidence is what is yielded through verification.bob135 said:This gives us no way to differentiate things that exist as concepts
and things that exist in the material world.
This is a good point to discuss.bob135 said:Also, for things to have effects, they have to alter things that exist. For those things to exist, they have to affect other things that exist, and so on. It seems you run into a circular definition.
This is contrary to the proposed definition, so I must ask, "If having real affect is not a property of what you are calling existence, then by what means do you determine what exists and what doesn't?"bob135 said:Something that does nothing, like an invisible, massless, etc object could exist, although existence would be its only property, so you might run into problems there.
But we don't actually give properties. We try to assess properties and sometimes make mistakes and presume properties that are not really there and never were.bob135 said:I guess I would say existence is something that has properties independent of those we give it.
You are talking about the difference between an actual object versus a mental image or thought. The number is just a mental image that is used in handling things that actually exist. The number isn't an object but rather a component of mental construct.bob135 said:An apple, for example, exists in part because it remains red and shiny and made up of atoms even when we aren't looking at it. The number four, or any idea, ceases to exist when we stop thinking about it (except for some remaining physical traces of it in our brain).
If it did not admit to its errors when found it would not be science.michabo said:Science admits to errors, that's why it keeps changing.
I did not say science was my enemy but when you say: "Science has accepted for a very long time that nothing can exist anywhere throughout the universe without technically having affect on all other things." then it needs to be said or at least acknowledged that science is man's knowledge and therefore not perfect and subject to being wrong.ReluctantProphet said:Yes, but what does that have to do with the definition of existence?
Science is aware that all that it speculates are just theories of speculation. It abides by the rule that any proposed law of the universe must be observed by multiple independant observers and any speculation that extends beyond the direct observation, is a matter of logic.
Science sees logic as merely the observed principles (possibly flawed) of how the sum of a collection of accepted notions must lead to another. But in doing this, it still accepts that even that logic is mere speculation from observations.
Science, in a sense, is being honest (traditional science anyway). It accepts that all that it theorizes is just probably true based on direct observations which take care to avoid the possibilities of misperception.
Science willingly, although hesitantly, accepts any new evidence to the contrary of its speculated theories as long as that evidence is obtained by the same set of rules regarding observation and logical deduction.
When a scientist takes his speculations beyond observable occurances, then it is no longer science, but merely the added speculation of the scientist and cannot be included as scientific theory.
When a scientist proclaims that there is no God, for example, he has over-shot the principles of science and has speculated into an area where he can not observe directly.
The first error in this kind of speculation comes from the mere lack of definition. Without defining exactly what it is that is to be observed, a scientist cannot say anything about its existence or any characteristic of it.
Those who proclaim to be scientists yet also proclaim that there is no God, are simply not really being scientific about it because without definition, science can say nothing.
Scientists used to be required to include definitions in any theory so as to be more clear on exactly what they were talking about. But apparently that left things too boring and easy, so now they misuse words and alter the meaning of words so as to make something sound interesting, fun, and have influence on who will go to which kind of church. In a sense, today we have many scientists who are much like priests that manipulate for the sake of gaining more influence rather than preaching any real truth.
But the basic foundation of science is not about gaining influence over a population. REAL science is about sticking to the rules of multiple, independent, and repeatable observation and deduction.
One has to accept that if Jesus was about real truth, then Jesus would be in favor of Science in that real Science is merely doing as Paul suggested when he commented on having at least more than one witness to something before it was accepted as factual and seeing that the person being heard at least accepted the basic principles by which you live before being qualified to surmise anything else.
Science has nothing against faith nor love, but recently people speaking in the name of Science have taken it upon themselves to attack religion and more specifically Christianity. In this effort, they intentionally speak of love as no more than a biochemical reaction so as to make it appear insignificant.
They speak of faith as being only blind faith that can only be a bad thing. But real Science cannot state that love is no more than a chemical reaction simply because the logician states otherwise. Nor can they state that faith is a bad thing because again, the logician states that no progress can be made toward anything without faith of one type or another.
Condemning Science for those who falsely use its reputation and name is no different than condemning Jesus or Christianity due to the many people who preach the wrong message.
Your enemy isnt Science, but the liars and deceivers who use both Science and Christian message so as to manipulate. They exist in both camps. Deception is the enemy, not those honestly trying to discover real truth. The deceiver says, THEY are the real liars when in fact, it is only him who is lying.
So just to begin addressing whom those liars really are, we can begin with things that cannot be reasonably denied. I have proposed that one very basic thing is beyond reasonable or rational doubt and that is that existence equates to the property of affect. This in itself says nothing for nor against any religious concern nor Scientific concern as far as I can tell, yet gives a place to begin understanding.
I am waiting to see if there is any sensible argument against the notion.
Well, I'll grant that.elman said:I did not say science was my enemy but when you say: "Science has accepted for a very long time that nothing can exist anywhere throughout the universe without technically having affect on all other things." then it needs to be said or at least acknowledged that science is man's knowledge and therefore not perfect and subject to being wrong.
Yes, I do understand this. On the other hand I think a fundamental problem of philosophy is that definition, distinctions and concepts are axiomatically designed in the very way that warrants my axioms to be reaffirmated. Indeed I increasingly tend to the notion that this is all philosophy does.ReluctantProphet said:for the purpose of limiting the scope of thought from which we can begin to deduce. It is only a beginning point so as to keep a foundation for reasoning. Other deducements and rationales are not yet of concern. We must start with axioms that can be accepted by all before any continued rationale can build.
Since, as far as I can see, this is the very problem the category "existence" is meant to deal with, starting from something that we may consider an effect of something, does not really help much with telling whether something (which someone regards the cause of the phenomenon in question) exists. We observe a believer to be more humble than a non-believer, yet we still cannot tell whether this is caused by the god he beliefs in or by his belief in this god (or by something completely different). So we are still at square one: a description of something that we regard an effect of something else, just like we would be without this definition from affect.I agree that further deduction of exactly which things caused what effect is another matter involving potential speculation, probabilities, and limited perception.
Again, I do not see how this approach provides me with anything than reaffirmation of the most banal, trivial, self-evident. Something that has no effect won´t even be perceived, discussed, imagined, conceptualized. As soon as something "is going to be said to exist" we have already observed an effect: It has been said to exist. Now, the person who says it to exist is likely to ascribe such an effect to the subject of his belief being the cause, why someone else will doubt it and might ascribe it to the person´s brain activity.This one definition does not propose anything about which thing or things might have caused which effect on what. It merely suggests that if something is going to be said to exist, then that thing must indeed have affect on something by some means, else it is only imaginary and does not actually exist in reality.
By this I think you are saying that philosophy only serves the purpose of changing axiomatical construct in such a way as to cause you to readdress axioms of your own to ensure that you were right from the start. ...?quatona said:.. I think a fundamental problem of philosophy is that definition, distinctions and concepts are axiomatically designed in the very way that warrants my axioms to be reaffirmated. Indeed I increasingly tend to the notion that this is all philosophy does.
I think that I am saying that the concept of existence needs to be an axiom in itself rather than a conclusion created from more basic axioms. I don't think you can come up with much more basic if anything.quatona said:In the given example, my definition of "exist" depends on my basic axioms as well as on the purpose I need a distinction for.
I agree and don't propose anything different than that. But notice you used the word "exists" when referring to the thought.quatona said:In the physical realm, where the concept of "existence" has its origins, it usually serves the purpose of distinguishing that which is physically existent from that which exists only as an idea or concept.
I personally feel this is a useful distinction and purpose in many ways.
Yes, I agree as noted above.quatona said:Now, if you are in favour of define that to "exist" which affects someone, you include thoughts, ideas, concept into the group of that which exists.
This is where I am losing your train of thought. I don't understand how my definition would be different than the norm in this regard. ..?quatona said:Quite obviously, you are following a different purpose with your definition than the person who accepts the above definition.
Oh I agree that useful purpose is the only rationale for making any change or acceptance. Although I don’t really see this proposal as a change, but merely a clarification of what people are already doing anyway without realizing it.quatona said:For me, the question is more: Is a particular distinction useful?
So far, I don´t see what your definition and distinction might help me with - as opposed to the merely phyiscal definition.
People experience thoughts, feelings, emotions - we all know that, and we all know that these affect them and others. I have no clue why I would want to establish a category that includes physical objects as well as thoughts, feelings, and emotions - two sorts of things that I actually have a higher interest in keeping carefully apart than lumping together.
The specific purpose in mind is that, if agreed upon by most people, then it provides a fundamental qualifier for saying that something exists. It offers a beginning point for toning down much of the insanity involved in society today.quatona said:Thus, if you want me to adopt this definition/category/distinction, you would have to convince me that adopting it is useful, beneficial, advantageous for certain purposes.
For us to know "something" has affect, it must exist. Therefore it has affect because it exists, and it exists because it has affect. Sounds circular.ReluctantProphet said:Existence is that which has the property of affect.
If something has affect, then it exists. If something has no affect, it does not exist.
This isn't circular. It is the very proof of the definition. It is saying that to exist is to have affect and vice-versa. Which was exactly the point.Danhalen said:For us to know "something" has affect, it must exist. Therefore it has affect because it exists, and it exists because it has affect. Sounds circular.
And again, this is a restatement of the exact definition.Danhalen said:For "something" to have no affect, it must not have existence, it has no existence because it has no affect.
This is the exact common error spoken of just earlier where the concept is subtly confused with the object itself.Danhalen said:Sounds circular and paradoxical, because for us to describe a thing which does not exist, is to give it affect.
Yes, I was pretty tired when writing my last post, and the result was anything but brilliant. Thanks for considering and adressing it nonetheless.I'm not 100% certain that I am following what you are saying and maybe you are not following what I'm trying to say either. But I would like to get it clear between us as to who's trying to say what....
Yes, that´s close to what I meant to say. I wouldn´t say, though, that „it serves this purpose“, and I don´t insinuate that this is the conscious intention of those engaging in it. It´s just what I seem to observe to be the mere result of philosophy.By this I think you are saying that philosophy only serves the purpose of changing axiomatical construct in such a way as to cause you to readdress axioms of your own to ensure that you were right from the start. ...?
Let me say it differently: Philosophy often pretends to think freely, is very quick to point out how another philosophy is merely a product of axioms (and how it collapses if we question its axioms), but is not aware of how axiomatic it is itself. In other words: Once I have found out about the axioms that a philosophy is based upon, and once I have found them to be different than mine, discussing the details of this philosophy is obsolete. We´d better agree on that we start from different axioms, and that our results and approaches are therefore necessarily different.I agree that philosophy addresses proposed axioms and constructs such as to potentially benefit someone by having them think in different terms than they had been. Often they fail in such attempts as it requires very little to be a boisterous philosopher.
I´m not sure this is what I meant to say. I think, I rather and merely wanted to sharpen the awareness as to what we are doing when discussing these things. I don´t think that defining a term changes or affects our axioms; it does not even necessarily affect our concepts. It is simply a semantics issue, and imo it´s pretty safe to say that the way we define terms (and the degree to which we accept alternate definitions and redefinitions) is itself a product of our axioms.And as you pointed out (I think), by having many erroneous ideas floating about, the re-addressing of the issues does help to a degree to ensure that your axioms are sufficient. Too much of this testing of your thoughts becomes destructive in that it occupies time that could have been spent on more useful endeavors.
I see.I think that I am saying that the concept of existence needs to be an axiom in itself rather than a conclusion created from more basic axioms. I don't think you can come up with much more basic if anything.
Ah, come on.I agree and don't propose anything different than that. But notice you used the word "exists" when referring to the thought.
I´m afraid this is getting a bit unprecise here. Since you are emphasizing the „cause – affect (effect)“ aspect in your approach, I would have to ask whether thoughts are those very biochemical processes or whether we would have to regard them their effect already.Thoughts exist as physical things much like computer programs. The computer program exists as a defined pattern of flow for the energy involved in computer calculating. Your thoughts are similar in that they are a pattern of bioelectric flow within your brain.
Such programs and thoughts have physical existence simply because they affect physical things starting with the brain itself, but then lead to alterations in behavior which in turn lead to reactions from society, which then lead back to affecting your opportunities or threats from society.
Ok, I would have no problem with accepting this definition for the purpose of discussion, although I don´t regard it very useful.The distinction that I consider to be most important is that a thought might represent an image of a fictional entity, Santa Claus for example. Merely the thought will have a degree of physical affect even though the character being imagined is fictional. This is what makes the thought an actually existent entity regardless of what is being thought about.
Sure. As long as we all agree that a certain object of a thought has no other existence than being the thought itself, we won´t face major problems – no matter which approach we choose to determine „existence“. Unfortunately, the entire discussion whether something exists or not, is caused by the very disagreement as to whether certain entities have an existence other than being thoughts.The character of Santa Claus does not have any OTHER existence such as to be independent of anyone's thoughts.
Ok, everyone who agrees that Santa exists only as a thought will agree here.What I am proposing as a definition would conclude that Santa Claus exists only as a thought with only the power derivable from thought. Santa Claus does not exist as an entity.
In a way, yes. Then again I personally am thinking along completely different lines, which make the question whether something exists „merely as a thought or as something independent of thoughts“ pretty much irrelevant – philosophically, that is. I have no reason to conclude that anything I am aware of „exists“ as something beyond my perception, thoughts and feelings. Everything I encounter is brought to me by my brain activity.Is this different from what you are saying?
Apparently those who conclude the existence of gods from a perceived relationship with those entities are doing something else, with or without realizing it.Oh I agree that useful purpose is the only rationale for making any change or acceptance. Although I don’t really see this proposal as a change, but merely a clarification of what people are already doing anyway without realizing it.
Indeed, I was unclear about what exactly you were trying to achieve here. I think I have fully understood it by now.I propose this definition not to those who have it clear in their minds the distinction between the existence of a thought versus the existence in what the thought represents, but rather to those who get the two concepts confused and get into mental struggles and debates with others about something existing even though that something can have no affect at all other than as a thought.
I am not proposing that thoughts and more independent entities be given equal regard or properties. In fact, I would think that the very next thing to get into would be that very distinction.
But I cannot propose that existence exclude thoughts because thoughts actually DO affect physical things and behaviors even if the thoughts are about fictional characters.
As said before, I doubt that you will convince those who disagree with your purpose to change their idea of what defines and constitutes existence.The specific purpose in mind is that, if agreed upon by most people, then it provides a fundamental qualifier for saying that something exists.
Well, ok. I don´t know what specifically you have in mind when talking about the „insanity involved in society today“, but generally speaking I understand how toning down insanity can be regarded a valuable purpose. For me personally, the term „insanity“ does not do much, though.It offers a beginning point for toning down much of the insanity involved in society today.
To be honest, I find your „cause-affect“ approach to be unnecessarily complicated. For to discern whether the „devil“ is a phyiscal entity running around in the world or not, the simple down-to-earth request „Show it to us!“ would do.For example, if someone proclaims that "the devil made me do it". Then they need to provide evidence that whatever they are calling "the devil" actually has the property of affect. If that evidence shows that "the devil" only has affect on the mind as a mental construct, thought or image, then it can be handled as such and the concern of "the devil" being a physical entity running around in the world can be exposed as invalid.
Certainly. Then again, I fail to see how the fact that I encounter something to be traveling at 100mph at my head does anything for the conclusion whether it is a baseball or something else.It would be a bad idea to accept that a baseball exists but the fact that it is traveling at 100 mph at your head is just a thought with no reality to be concerned about.
Succeeding in arriving at an agreement how to distinguish one from the other might indeed be beneficial. I guess, my key question would be: What do you propose as means and methods of distinguishing one from the other?A thought is the traveling of the energies involved in thinking. They exist with affect. The fact that they might concern a fictional image must be addressed separately.
Yes, we are only talking about the definition of a word. We are not talking about the more relevant break downs of what constitutes existence - yet.quatona said:I see.
Well, first of all existence is merely a word. I am inclined to think that different people use it to signify (partly fundamentally) different concepts. And, talking about myself, I notice that I use it in at least a handful of various meanings depending on the context and the purpose.
Thus, I highly doubt that you will succeed in establishing an agreed upon axiom that everybody is willing to signify as existence. But maybe I´m too pessimistic.
How so? What else is required?quatona said:but philosophically establishing something to exist requires a completely different definition.
I don't see how you would have to change anything that you seem to do currently. Those who need to change would be those similar to the prior post who confuse the idea of a thing with the things existence and do so very readily such as to bring argument and cloud issues.quatona said:Thus, although I see the problem with mixing those two languages, I do not really see how it would be possible to avoid that altogether. I would even have to be extremely careful when using the word is (because it can be considered a synonym for exists). I wouldn´t even have a problem with saying God exists merely as a thought., although I would use the term exist when referring to god.
He use of words is what is important in that bad usage results in confusion and further clouding issues.quatona said:I fail to see what difference it makes to call thoughts existing or non-existing Peter´s way of understanding the nature and origin of thoughts won´t change if he accepts your definition. He will merely change his use of words.
There is a form of "magic" trickery that causes something to come into existence as a real thing simply because of the thoughts and what they affect. Those who are familiar with this type of thing tend to argue that the thought of the thing, being its cause, is the same as the object itself. Thus it is important to begin by clarifying that any existence is quantified, not by what it will bring later, but by what affect it has at the moment being discussed.quatona said:As long as we all agree that a certain object of a thought has no other existence than being the thought itself, we won´t face major problems no matter which approach we choose to determine existence. Unfortunately, the entire discussion whether something exists or not, is caused by the very disagreement as to whether certain entities have an existence other than being thoughts.
Are you saying here that if you cannot perceive it, then it doesn't exist?quatona said:I have no reason to conclude that anything I am aware of exists as something beyond my perception, thoughts and feelings. Everything I encounter is brought to me by my brain activity.
be different than the norm in this regard. ..?
They reply, "He can't be seen, he just IS." I am proposing that they then explain what affects define the thing they are calling "the devil" else it is to be concluded that such a thing is merely a thought and no more.quatona said:To be honest, I find your cause-affect approach to be unnecessarily complicated. For to discern whether the devil is a phyiscal entity running around in the world or not, the simple down-to-earth request Show it to us! would do.
I propose that first a discussion of what constitutes existence be presented.quatona said:What do you propose as means and methods of distinguishing one from the other?
I certainly don't suspect that I will either, but there IS a way. We might get to that a few threads later.quatona said:I suspect that you won´t come to a universal agreement on those means and methods, and that is for the same reasons why people don´t come to an agreement on the existence or non-existence of gods and such: Their different realities.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?