Proof of Me

[Received]

No, I'm not trying to compare this to God, where if I can't prove my own existence, God's existence can't be ruled out either. What I'm trying to point out is that my existence is not reducible to any set of facts or concepts, and the same thing goes for anything that exists in this world. (I've always found phenomenology to be fascinating, especially when contrasted with empiricism.)

If you think otherwise, try and point out every single facet of my existence. Even if you could do this, given the very fact that I exist in real time, you wouldn't be able to tag me through a collection of descriptors simply because the moment you describe, I already exist a step ahead of your attempt-at-describing. Even if you could do this, the whole is greater than the sum of my parts. Even if somehow you could suspend this latter rule as well, how do you know that there aren't more facts than your senses allow you to record, which means you would therefore be excluding more potential details?

So, with this in mind, what does it mean to even describe something? Where do we draw the line in saying something is sufficiently described or not?

 

[quatona]

No, I'm not trying to compare this to God, where if I can't prove my own existence, God's existence can't be ruled out either. What I'm trying to point out is that my existence is not reducible to any set of facts or concepts, and the same thing goes for anything that exists in this world. (I've always found phenomenology to be fascinating, especially when contrasted with empiricism.)

If you think otherwise, try and point out every single facet of my existence. Even if you could do this, given the very fact that I exist in real time, you wouldn't be able to tag me through a collection of descriptors simply because the moment you describe, I already exist a step ahead of your attempt-at-describing. Even if you could do this, the whole is greater than the sum of my parts. Even if somehow you could suspend this latter rule as well, how do you know that there aren't more facts than your senses allow you to record, which means you would therefore be excluding more potential details?

Well, yes, we love to ignore impernanence.

So, with this in mind, what does it mean to even describe something? Where do we draw the line in saying something is sufficiently described or not?

Entirely depends on the given purpose.

 

[KCfromNC]

So, with this in mind, what does it mean to even describe something? Where do we draw the line in saying something is sufficiently described or not?

When your intended audience is able to consistently identify the thing from other things, or perhaps the thing from nothing at all.

Is this really a problem anyone has in everyday life?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is this really a problem anyone has in everyday life?

Hurray for practical questions!


eudaimonia,

Makr

 

[Received]

I suppose my point of this thread was that if nothing is reducible to its properties, nothing can ever fully be described. There's always an element of mystery in the world that our experience ascertains but our conceptualizations fail to express. Like Nietzsche said: there is always a grain of contempt in the act of speaking.

 

[juvenissun]

I suppose my point of this thread was that if nothing is reducible to its properties, nothing can ever fully be described. There's always an element of mystery in the world that our experience ascertains but our conceptualizations fail to express. Like Nietzsche said: there is always a grain of contempt in the act of speaking.

If I described you by two ways: things of you which do not change, and rules which govern the changing part of you, then how much of you left and are still not described? That means those parts that are changing in real random pattern.

This argument is based on a full understanding of human nature. To God, this is impossible. Otherwise, by definition, He is not God anymore.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, I'm not trying to compare this to God, where if I can't prove my own existence, God's existence can't be ruled out either. What I'm trying to point out is that my existence is not reducible to any set of facts or concepts, and the same thing goes for anything that exists in this world. (I've always found phenomenology to be fascinating, especially when contrasted with empiricism.)

If you think otherwise, try and point out every single facet of my existence. Even if you could do this, given the very fact that I exist in real time, you wouldn't be able to tag me through a collection of descriptors simply because the moment you describe, I already exist a step ahead of your attempt-at-describing. Even if you could do this, the whole is greater than the sum of my parts. Even if somehow you could suspend this latter rule as well, how do you know that there aren't more facts than your senses allow you to record, which means you would therefore be excluding more potential details?

So, with this in mind, what does it mean to even describe something? Where do we draw the line in saying something is sufficiently described or not?

(reply)
If I can detect your existence using one or more of my five sences (taste, touch, hearing, smelling, or sight) That will be all the proof I need to believe in your exitence.
If I could detect God's existence using one or more of my five sences, that would be all the proof I need to believe in his existence.
So I ask you; if I were in your presence, would I be able to detect your existence that way? I know I can't do it with any of the God concepts I've heard of thus far.....

Ken

 

[Chatter]

So, with this in mind, what does it mean to even describe something? Where do we draw the line in saying something is sufficiently described or not?

In a post suggesting that nothing is ever fully described, the consistent answer is "we don't draw that line or any other".

But you can see how tempting it is for us humans. One poster goes with "purposes", another with the "intended audience". But this just leads to more line-drawing, and we can do that indefinitely in a continuous world. Eventually, we will have to show our pictures to the judges, and they'll comment about how pretty they are. But let's not kid ourselves. No one will have drawn a map.

Stretching the metaphor further, when we draw lines, we are discretising a space, dividing space in two. Language does this generally, each word a discrete unit. Western philosophy are its worst excesses in its quest for Truth with a capital "T", the ultimate discretisation.

When we realise we live in a continuous and messy world, this sort of language can only be used with contempt, or as I prefer, with a sense of irony.

 

[sandwiches]

In a post suggesting that nothing is ever fully described, the consistent answer is "we don't draw that line or any other".

But you can see how tempting it is for us humans. One poster goes with "purposes", another with the "intended audience". But this just leads to more line-drawing, and we can do that indefinitely in a continuous world. Eventually, we will have to show our pictures to the judges, and they'll comment about how pretty they are. But let's not kid ourselves. No one will have drawn a map.

Stretching the metaphor further, when we draw lines, we are discretising a space, dividing space in two. Language does this generally, each word a discrete unit. Western philosophy are its worst excesses in its quest for Truth with a capital "T", the ultimate discretisation.

When we realise we live in a continuous and messy world, this sort of language can only be used with contempt, or as I prefer, with a sense of irony.

Very well said. The universe and everything in it is a continuum. From atoms to molecules to compounds to cells to people. From hot to cold, from darkness to brightness, from far and close.

However, while I agree with all that, I disagree with on that we don't draw lines. In fact, that's all we do as humans to be able to communicate to one another. We constantly see lines, borders, and silhouettes were there are none. We arbitrarily separate life from non-life. We call one thing moving and another stationary. We are constantly doing nothing but drawing imaginary lines. However, despite all this, we are able to understand one another with enough meaning to have practical use.

Now, to the OP: People like to talk about how a watch is more than the sum of its parts or a human is more than the sum of his/her parts. This is untrue. We are EXACTLY the inevitable consequence of the specific arrangement of our parts. Nothing more. That functions and properties arise from the compound not found in the component is another matter entirely but to say that something cannot be described merely because not every single property can be described or even recognized is a fallacy. Anything can be described within a specific set of constraints as demonstrated by the many posts in this thread.

So, within the constraints that I use to decide whether something is real or not (my senses and reasoning,) every idea of a god I've read or heard about is not demonstrably true.

 

[Shabby]

If you think otherwise, try and point out every single facet of my existence.

What does it mean to "point out every single facet of your existence"?

Also: what does it mean to say that you are "greater than the sum of your parts"? What else is there?

 

[The Paul]

No, I'm not trying to compare this to God, where if I can't prove my own existence, God's existence can't be ruled out either. What I'm trying to point out is that my existence is not reducible to any set of facts or concepts, and the same thing goes for anything that exists in this world. (I've always found phenomenology to be fascinating, especially when contrasted with empiricism.)

If you think otherwise, try and point out every single facet of my existence. Even if you could do this, given the very fact that I exist in real time, you wouldn't be able to tag me through a collection of descriptors simply because the moment you describe, I already exist a step ahead of your attempt-at-describing. Even if you could do this, the whole is greater than the sum of my parts. Even if somehow you could suspend this latter rule as well, how do you know that there aren't more facts than your senses allow you to record, which means you would therefore be excluding more potential details?

So, with this in mind, what does it mean to even describe something? Where do we draw the line in saying something is sufficiently described or not?

You're pretty much claiming the uncertainty principle applies to familiar-scale objects (such as yourself)

But the uncertainty principle, even as you have described it, only means we can't perfectly know the details of something, not that we can't know whether or not it exists.

We (and even you) could make errors in describing you, but that means we've made errors in our description. Nothing more.

 

[Xenocide]

Ok This Is So Stupid, Let Me Show You Why You Are Completely Wrong. It Was Emmanual Kant That Said "i Think Therefore I Exist" Amirite? Therefore Since You Think Then You Must Exist. Ok But Now You Might Be Saying What Is Thinking? Ok First Of All, If You Didnt Think You Wouldnt Be Able To Do Any Of The Things You Do. How Did You Manage To Go On Christianforums And Think Fo All This Stuff? Tell Me, This Is Irrefutable Evidence That You Think Therefore You Exist. Now You Might Be Saying What If I Dont Call That Thinking, Well Then You're Completely OFF BASE Because You're Just Messing With Semantics Now

 

[Received]

Now, to the OP: People like to talk about how a watch is more than the sum of its parts or a human is more than the sum of his/her parts. This is untrue. We are EXACTLY the inevitable consequence of the specific arrangement of our parts. Nothing more.

It's one thing to say that I am the sum of my parts, and quite another to say that I am the result of the relations between my parts -- i.e., a process, as you mentioned previously. My brand of holism is virtually identical with systems theory.

That functions and properties arise from the compound not found in the component is another matter entirely but to say that something cannot be described merely because not every single property can be described or even recognized is a fallacy. Anything can be described within a specific set of constraints as demonstrated by the many posts in this thread.

The bold seems to support the holism you're rejecting. I'm also not limiting the problem of description to whether or not holism is true; I'm also saying that the moment you describe something, even if this magically involved stating every single facet of its existence (and this cataloging of particulars was sufficient and holism was false), you're still essentially speaking in the past given that by the time you've described, the thing described is existing one step ahead of you. This is especially the case with that complicated system called the human being, where there are a potentially infinite number of actions the individual could be doing, thereby adding that much more complexity to the description process.

So, within the constraints that I use to decide whether something is real or not (my senses and reasoning,) every idea of a god I've read or heard about is not demonstrably true.

This ain't no theological thread, f'shizz.

 

[Received]

You're pretty much claiming the uncertainty principle applies to familiar-scale objects (such as yourself)

But the uncertainty principle, even as you have described it, only means we can't perfectly know the details of something, not that we can't know whether or not it exists.

We (and even you) could make errors in describing you, but that means we've made errors in our description. Nothing more.

I don't think knowing whether or not something exists is limited to a sufficient description of it. This is true by definition when we're speaking of what philosophers call knowledge by acquaintance.

I think I would say (and I'm having a joyfully hard time with this problem, so I probably am not saying it well) that since you can't describe anything by conceptualization given that this would involve stating every facet of something's existence, and that people generally accept something to be true anyways on a limited description, they are therefore accepting it arbitrarily according to a purely conceptually-mediated standard of description. In other words, since I accept something as existing while having a limited number of described facets presented to me, I'm not determining the existence of something purely by reason -- which means that, by definition, there's a nonrational element to description, and even perhaps all types of argumentation. Call it intuition, if you like, or unconscious practicality at work.