Existence - What it is

[Im_A]

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.

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?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

For which purpose?

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.

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.

I agree that further deduction of exactly which things caused what effect is another matter involving potential speculation, probabilities, and limited perception.

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.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

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?

OH VERY much so. You have pointed out the one and ONLY problem man really has in my opinion.

There is a reason or cause-effect that requires a degree of bias in every thought man has, but limiting those biases enough so as to build useful logical speculation is needed.

Again, this one definition is merely a way of narrowing biased speculation to things that can actually affect something. Further definitions and cause-effect relations begin to help build a solid foundation for reasoning or thinking.

But it all has to begin somewhere.

Believe it or not, I argued for hours with a man who proposed that something could exist that had absolutely no affect on anything, yet still popped in and out of the universe such as to cause changes that we should watch out for.

He proclaimed that my definition was merely a convenience that I used to escape the reality that nothing is for certain including that there was an existence at all and I should remain in doubt and leery at all times of what might occur without any cause to it at all.

I saw him as merely one of the many fear feeders who chant "Watch out! The sky is falling" but in a new language.

 

[elman]

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?

Science is subject to error. That is why it keeps changing.

 

[michabo]

Science is subject to error. That is why it keeps changing.

Science admits to errors, that's why it keeps changing.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Science is subject to error. That is why it keeps changing.

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 isn’t 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.

 

[Sojourner<><]

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.

I have to confess that I did not read your entire post until after I replied... which is why I came back to edit it later.

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.

Perhaps existence, like possibility and chance, is just an idea.

 

[Sojourner<><]

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".

I dont have time right now to respond to this but I'll come back later tonite.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Sorry, I had missed this posting from earlier..

So then anything that we see exists, since it has the effect of us seeing it?

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.

This gives us no way to differentiate things that exist as concepts
and things that exist in the material world.

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.

The exact verification process is varied among different people. Most people have to accept what they see directly and most people attempt logical reasoning within the limits of what their mind understands as reasonable logic. Many, if not all, make mistakes in this verification process and end up accepting that something matches the material world when it really doesn't.

This doesn't mean that no one can ever be right about anything. It only means that people must be careful when speculating on reality.

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 a good point to discuss.

I agree that for there to be affect there must already be something to affect. And thus, the property of affect relies on something already existing. But this isn't really a problem.

There is a point and purpose for anyone to think. That purpose is to enable them to be able to rationally know what to expect and to make decisions. But in order for even that to be a concern, the person must first exist in an environment that might respond to anything that the person might do. Else what would be the point in making a decision if nothing was going to be affected by it anyway?

Thus you can begin simply by saying that "I exist". At this point all you are saying is that you must have affect, but on what, is yet to be determined. The rest of existence is then declared to be all of what other things you can affect and might have affect on you.

At this point, you have a complete universe within which to be active and begin analyzing further so as to make decisions as to what you might want to do next.

So the conundrum gets resolved by accepting that the first object to have affect is you. Then by accepting that there must be something else besides yourself in the universe, then that rest can be added to the total sum of all affect - you and all that is not you - existence.

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.

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?"

For something to NOT exist, by your usage, what property must it be lacking?

You can say that something is merely a mental image. But okay, it is a mental image and that is a property that it DOES have. But what property does it NOT have such as to not really exist as anything BUT a mental image? Or what could you add to it such that the mental image became something more than just a mental image?

I am proposing that you must give it the property of having affect on something other than your mental construct in order for it to exist in reality. Else it only exists as a component of your mental construct and can have no other existence.

I guess I would say existence is something that has properties independent of those we give it.

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.

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).

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.

The apple, as you say, continues to exist or have affect whether we are thinking about it or not. Remember that at this point, I am not concerned with just how much affect it has on anything, but rather just that it must have SOME affect on something, else it isn't really there.

I agree that many people confuse what is no more than a mental construct or image with what is actually real. This is the very reason Science holds to multiple and repeatable observations so as to help remove possible presumptions being made by individuals.

Many people even confuse the definition of a word with the actual real thing that the word signifies as though by changing the definition or mental image, you somehow automatically change reality.

These are those steeped in deception methods because most people don't catch how the word has merely changed in usage and thus conclude that something in reality has changed.

The word "reality" itself has had this done to it. Recently people talk about an individual's personal reality. What they have done is redefine what the word "reality" means, into referencing only a person's mental image of reality. Reality can drop an airplane engine on your head regardless of any mental image or perceptions you might believe in.

Such subtle alterations in definition catch many people into confusion and conflict. One person is saying "reality" and referring to the external universe that is independent of what anyone might think about it while the other person uses the same word when referring only to his mental image of that universe. The two can argue for the rest of their lives in heated and dangerous fury because they miss the fact that the word has been changed and used to bring them into conflict.

But my proposed definition of existence requiring the property of affect, would merely say that a mental image has affect on mental construct. If that image does not relate to anything outside the mind that has any affect, then the image is no more than a component of the mind and doesn't represent anything real. Something is only as real as its ability to have affect.

 

[elman]

Science admits to errors, that's why it keeps changing.

If it did not admit to its errors when found it would not be science.

 

[elman]

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 isn’t 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.

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]

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.

Well, I'll grant that.

But I wrote that line in response to your apparent perspective that many things do not affect you. I was relating the idea that even though things might be extremely far away and have no discernable affect, that doesn&#8217;t mean that they actually have no affect at all.

A star in the sky is so far away that it can do nothing to you except that you can see it. What would humanity do if it had not ever seen stars? They might not be much different, but they certainly wouldn't have written books about them.

But even things that man cannot see or feel must in some way affect something which in turn affects something else which eventually leads to something that affects him.

If it is said to exist, yet has no affect, then first, why would you care? But beyond that what property could it have and still have no affect?

Merely having a property means that it has affect. And if it has no properties at all, then what is it to exist?

 

[quatona]

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.

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.
In the given example, my definition of "exist" depends on my basic axioms as well as on the purpose I need a distinction for.
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.
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.
Quite obviously, you are following a different purpose with your definition than the person who accepts the above definition.
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.
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.

I agree that further deduction of exactly which things caused what effect is another matter involving potential speculation, probabilities, and limited perception.

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.

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.

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.
What I am trying to say: "Does X exists?" or "Can this effect be ascribed to X as the cause?" are by and large identical questions, in that answering comes with identical problems.

 

[quatona]

I guess all I´m trying to say is: I could relate to the "Which definition of ´existence" is useful (for which particular purpose)?", whilst the question "Existence - what is it?" already is based on a notion I can not relate to.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

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....

.. 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.

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. ...?

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.


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.

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 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.

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.

I agree and don't propose anything different than that. But notice you used the word "exists" when referring to the thought.

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.

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.

The character of Santa Claus does not have any OTHER existence such as to be independent of anyone's thoughts.

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.

Is this different from what you are saying?

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.

Yes, I agree as noted above.

Quite obviously, you are following a different purpose with your definition than the person who accepts the above definition.

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. ..?

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.

Oh I agree that useful purpose is the only rationale for making any change or acceptance. Although I don&#8217;t really see this proposal as a change, but merely a clarification of what people are already doing anyway without realizing it.

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.

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.

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.

I agree that a house most significantly needs walls and a roof, but if the foundation isn't very solid and clear, then those walls and roof become unreliable. Thus I start with something extremely fundamental so as to ensure the very foundation before more useful concepts are added.

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.

If in English, we had a single word that specifically refers to "existent only as thought" then we probably wouldn't have this issue. I could invent such a word, but then I get into people complaining that I'm inventing words that others don't use, and thus such is irrelevant.

The word "thought" itself should be sufficient, but obviously by the way that society behaves, it needs something more direct to state that a thought is ONLY a thought and has no other affects than what a thought can have. Thoughts can indeed have substantial affect on society and thus on survivability. But that doesn't make them any more than still merely a thought which was allowed to affect many behaviors.

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.

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.

Perhaps a word representing "exists independent of human thought" would help. But right now, merely clarifying that existence requires affect seems to be a mild challenge in itself to some.

Have I even addressed the concern that you were expressing or have I missed entirely?

 

[Danhalen]

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.

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.

For "something" to have no affect, it must not have existence, it has no existence because it has no affect. Sounds circular and paradoxical, because for us to describe a thing which does not exist, is to give it affect.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

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.

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.

For "something" to have no affect, it must not have existence, it has no existence because it has no affect.

And again, this is a restatement of the exact definition.

Sounds circular and paradoxical, because for us to describe a thing which does not exist, is to give it affect.

This is the exact common error spoken of just earlier where the concept is subtly confused with the object itself.

The proposal in this statement is that if I think of a thing, then the thing already exists in my mind. But actually, it is only the mental image or concept that exists in my mind. That mental concept has existence as a thought, but has nothing to do with the physical existence of the thing that the concept might refer to.

This quote is one of those subtle slights of mind that creates deception and conflict because it is often not caught by the people involved.

Something existing in the mind means that it exists only as a thought. The mind contains only thoughts, not objects, unless you're in dire need of a surgeon.

For something to exist as other than a thought, then it must have affects that are other than that of a thought.

A three-headed elephant exists as a thought merely because I thought of it. But for it to exist as anything but a thought, there must be an actual three-headed elephant with affect on the universe that is independent of my thinking of it.

I don't have to think about the dark side of the moon for it to have affect on the universe, therefore it has physical existence beyond mere thought.

For me to know that it has affect, I might indeed need to think about it. But it existed with affect even before I thought about it and my thinking about it only replicated an image of it in my mind creating the existence of a thought of it.

Thus there is the dark side of the moon and there is, separately, my thought of the dark side of the moon. Each having their existence and affects separately from each other and related only by my mental assignment.

 

[quatona]

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, I was pretty tired when writing my last post, and the result was anything but brilliant. Thanks for considering and adressing it nonetheless.
I think that your post has contributed much to my understanding of your approach, and when you tried to paraphrase my ideas, you were pretty close. Things are getting clearer, I think.
Thus, I am enjoying this discussion, even if we might occasionally talk past each other.
May I also ask you to keep in mind that I am not a native English speaker, and expressing abstract concepts doesn´t flow as easily as it would in my mother tongue. On a sidenote, it is interesting to notice, how often the terms in two languages are close, but not congruent, and how a thought that can easily be verbalized in one language, but its verbalization requires a different approach in another.
Lastly, I have a tendency to ramble. I am aware that coming up with a fundamental critique of philosophy does not really do justice to your particular question. Feel free to ignore everything that appears to be off-topic or detracting from the topic you want to discuss.

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. ...?

Yes, that´s close to what I meant to say. I wouldn´t say, though, that &#8222;it serves this purpose&#8220;, 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.

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.

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.

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´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.
If, e.g., someone feels &#8222;a relationship with Santa&#8220; and has encountered Him &#8222;as being real as (or even &#8222;more real&#8220; than) physically existing persons&#8220;, he is unlikely to accept a definition of &#8222;existence&#8220;, that predictably will result in the statement &#8222;Santa does not exist.&#8220; or &#8222;There is no evidence for Santa´s existence&#8220;.

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.

I see.
Well, first of all &#8222;existence&#8220; 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 &#8211; 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 &#8222;existence&#8220;. But maybe I´m too pessimistic.

I agree and don't propose anything different than that. But notice you used the word "exists" when referring to the thought.

Ah, come on.
There is a sufficiently pragmatically useful meaning of &#8222;exist&#8220; in everyday language (even several different ones, depending on the context), but philosophically establishing something to &#8222;exist&#8220; requires a completely different definition. 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 &#8222;is&#8220; (because it can be considered a synonym for &#8222;exists&#8220. I wouldn´t even have a problem with saying &#8222;God exists merely as a thought.&#8220;, although I would use the term &#8222;exist&#8220; when referring to god.

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.

I´m afraid this is getting a bit unprecise here. Since you are emphasizing the &#8222;cause &#8211; affect (effect)&#8220; 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.
Whatever. Let´s say you and Peter have a similar idea as to what thoughts are. Now, Peter could simply accept your idea to include thoughts into that which &#8222;exists&#8220;, or I could reject it, pointing to the apparent differences between physical objects and thoughts that he regards relevant (and which you, hypothetically, concede, but do not regard as relevant, for whatever reason). In short, I fail to see what difference it makes to call thoughts &#8222;existing&#8220; or &#8222;non-existing&#8220; &#8211; 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.

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.

Ok, I would have no problem with accepting this definition for the purpose of discussion, although I don´t regard it very useful.

The character of Santa Claus does not have any OTHER existence such as to be independent of anyone's thoughts.

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 &#8211; no matter which approach we choose to determine &#8222;existence&#8220;. 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.

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.

Ok, everyone who agrees that Santa exists only as a thought will agree here.
Whilst the actual &#8222;does god exist&#8220; discussion requires methods to discern whether a god exists only as a thought or as something else.

Is this different from what you are saying?

In a way, yes. Then again I personally am thinking along completely different lines, which make the question whether something exists &#8222;merely as a thought or as something independent of thoughts&#8220; pretty much irrelevant &#8211; philosophically, that is. I have no reason to conclude that anything I am aware of &#8222;exists&#8220; 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. ..?

Oh I agree that useful purpose is the only rationale for making any change or acceptance. Although I don&#8217;t really see this proposal as a change, but merely a clarification of what people are already doing anyway without realizing it.

Apparently those who conclude the existence of gods from a perceived relationship with those entities are doing something else, with or without realizing it.

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.

Indeed, I was unclear about what exactly you were trying to achieve here. I think I have fully understood it by now.

​

The specific purpose in mind is that, if agreed upon by most people, then it provides a fundamental qualifier for saying that something exists.

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.

It offers a beginning point for toning down much of the insanity involved in society today.

Well, ok. I don´t know what specifically you have in mind when talking about the &#8222;insanity involved in society today&#8220;, but generally speaking I understand how toning down insanity can be regarded a valuable purpose. For me personally, the term &#8222;insanity&#8220; does not do much, though.


I agree that a house most significantly needs walls and a roof, but if the foundation isn't very solid and clear, then those walls and roof become unreliable. Thus I start with something extremely fundamental so as to ensure the very foundation before more useful concepts are added.

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.

To be honest, I find your &#8222;cause-affect&#8220; approach to be unnecessarily complicated. For to discern whether the &#8222;devil&#8220; is a phyiscal entity running around in the world or not, the simple down-to-earth request &#8222;Show it to us!&#8220; would do.

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.

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.
On another note, I understand that persons who encounter gods to interact with them consider it a bad idea to to accept that this is just a thought with no reality to be concerned about.

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.

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?
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.
Greetings
quatona

 

[quatona]

Does existence exist?
And if so, does the existence of existence exist?
And how about this existence of the existence of existence? Does it exist?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

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.

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.

I found nowhere in your common usage, any sign of intent different than the proposed definiton. Each time you used the word "exist" or "existence", you were refering to something that has affect on something else.

but philosophically establishing something to „exist“ requires a completely different definition.

How so? What else is required?

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.

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.

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.

He use of words is what is important in that bad usage results in confusion and further clouding issues.

It is important to acknowledge that thoughts do indeed have existence and therefore affect. If you were to leave that idea out, then you would begin to find people who argue that the thought of something brings effect and thus existence is created by thought (non-existence).

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.

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.

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. ..?

Are you saying here that if you cannot perceive it, then it doesn't exist?

That would mean that atoms, electric fields, the dark side of the moon and such don't exist because you can not perceive them. You must deduce their existence from the affects they have. Deduction is different than perception.

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.

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.

What do you propose as means and methods of distinguishing one from the other?

I propose that first a discussion of what constitutes existence be presented.

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.

I certainly don't suspect that I will either, but there IS a way. We might get to that a few threads later.