• 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.

Existence - What it is

ReluctantProphet

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2006
3,296
61
✟26,373.00
Faith
Christian
This part I consider to be superb reasoning and exactly correct.

This part seems to have skipped some steps somewhere.....?

I see the mentioned problem of leaving out the things that we can not perceive directly. Although I don't see why you are leaving those out. Perception occurs through a minimal process of reasoning in itself. Direct perception implies the least amount of speculation by the senses or reasoning.

The degree of directness attainable has a limit. But this limit has nothing to do with whether something existed or had affect. It only says that we can not perceive with absolutely no process of deduction at all. Even a single nerve only transfers a pulse by, in effect, deducing that a trigger preceded its continued response. It deduces by consequence of affects as though to say, "Because I am urged to respond, then I will pass the urge along."

The deduction processing is biochemical in nature, but is still deduction in concept.


Ha ha..
Well maybe it will help the slavery aspect of your mind to realize that in ancient Hebrew, the words for "I AM that I AM" are EXACTLY the same words for "I AM that WHICH IS"

So that now maybe your can start making progress toward the resolve of ALL of it?
 
Upvote 0
E

exploring

Guest
ReluctantProphet said:
Could you offer a little clarification on this?

Are you saying that existence includes anything conceivable even though those things might not exist in reality? I would agree that they exist as thoughts, but nothing more than thoughts or dreams.
Its a semantic question. I have just, slightly unclearly, divided existence into three categories: is the case, is not the case, and inconceivable. This is helpful when you consider things like the picture problem, since if existence was just what is the case, then you can represent existence as the negation of everything that is the case, in which case(!) you run into problems like "does a negation exist" which is inconvenient.

So your definition is everything that is the case, which I wouldn't disagree with. I just added an extra category of non-existence


In this case I would say that "someone", being subject to the logic of our universe, would not actually be able to conceive of the illogical thing, just some self deception or whatnot ... (the crowd murmur unconvincedly)


ReluctantProphet said:
And "affect" is the property. "Effect" is the casual result of the property.
Thanks for the grammar advice
 
Upvote 0

ReluctantProphet

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2006
3,296
61
✟26,373.00
Faith
Christian
exploring said:
.. you can represent existence as the negation of everything that is the case, in which case(!) you run into problems like "does a negation exist" which is inconvenient.
I assume in this, you are saying that a person can paint a picture of something by painting a picture of everything that the something isn't, it's "negation".

A person cannot conceive without contrast thus to see how one thing is different than anything else is essentially what perception and conception are all about. In the case of existence, the negation would be the void of nothingness. But the picture of the void is not the void itself. A person can picture a void regardless of its existence just as the 10 foot man. The thought of the void exists, but the reality of it is another matter.


exploring said:
In this case I would say that "someone", being subject to the logic of our universe, would not actually be able to conceive of the illogical thing, just some self deception or whatnot ... (the crowd murmur unconvincedly)
So your saying that a person cannot truly conceive of something which cannot possibly exist, but rather has only conceived of something that he thought was possible.

I can agree with that if we accept that "truly conceiving" means "conceiving of truth". More typically it is still called conceiving even when it involves a fictional object. But I'm not picky on that subject (yet )
 
Upvote 0

Emmy

Senior Veteran
Feb 15, 2004
10,200
940
✟66,005.00
Faith
Salvation Army
Dear ReluctantProphet, I have read your replies, and come to the conclusion, Existence is Life, to exist-to live. All living things exist, and human-beings can make their existence more, or less, meaningless, or meaningfull. Until I was middle-aged, my existence consisted of work and boring routine, than I realised that only I could make it more, MEANINGFUL, is what I chose. I found it in Jesus, and now my Existence is filled with Love, Joy, and Peace. But instead of calling it existence, I like to call it "Life on Earth." Sincere greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
42
Visit site
✟53,594.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't think we need to look past the etymology: exist: from exsistere: "to come forth, to be made manifest". Something exists if it stands against a backdrop of nothingness. This cup exists; I see it and nothing else. More importantly, it exists because I name it, and perceiving it under the auspices of its name is to work through consciousness. Esse est percipi?

But limiting to the sensate is good and well except in one particular instance: when dealing with people. We are quick to call someone else a self judging by the body alone; when surely the self is not the body; the self is qualified by consciousness, and is thus an inward quality.
 
Upvote 0