A better question that: "Does god exist"

To do is to be - Descartes
To be is to do - Voltaire
Do be do be do - Frank Sinatra

Just trying to help Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

if we gota separate ourselves from our enviroment to exist then my computer doesn't exist!

No you misunderstand. "You" and "your environment" mutually exist. but neither "exists" without the other. Existence is relationship.

Your computer doesn't exist except in relationship to you.

A computer may exist relative to an observer familiar with discriminating such "an object" but relative to a dog what would be the nature of its "existence" ?...d'ya get it ?

0 Replies

To a dog a computer wouldn't exist. It would just be another meaningless object indistinguishable from all other meaningless objects.

The existence of any given thing comes from what that thing means to us. If you have no concept of something, then to you, the thing you have no concept of does not exist.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

To a dog a computer wouldn't exist. It would just be another meaningless object indistinguishable from all other meaningless objects.

The existence of any given thing comes from what that thing means to us. If you have no concept of something, then to you, the thing you have no concept of does not exist.

What nonsense.

So if you are driving along at night and have no concept that a concrete truck is stalled just ahead of you around the curve, then it doesn't exist?

The existence of something is not dependent on our awareness of it; what it may or may not mean to us; or any interaction (relationship) we may or may not have had with it.

The concrete truck doesn't 'come into existence' the moment you collide with it. It was there already.

btw I see you've changed your sig. The other was rather embarrassing , wasn't it?

0 Replies

Real life is an utter idiot.
But he has no concept of idiocy, so he doesn't know it, and thinks of himself as a reasonable creature...

0 Replies

And I thought my other sig was rather amusing, even though it seemed few got the idea.

It read "I am, or not, that's the question"

and it was a kind of parody of hamlets "to be, or not to be, that's the question".

Wouldn't expect retard life... uh sorry, real life to understand...

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Real life is an utter idiot.
But he has no concept of idiocy, so he doesn't know it, and thinks of himself as a reasonable creature...

Ah good. Ad homs.

That's a reasonable way to answer , isn't it?

Wouldn't it be better simply to defend your position?

Does the truck 'come into existence' when you collide with it, or did it exist before that?

0 Replies

Retard life is, as usual, missing the entire point. If I didn't ignore him I'd tell him to read the last posts again, especially those fresco wrote.

and this:

"Real life is an utter idiot.
But he has no concept of idiocy, so he doesn't know it, and thinks of himself as a reasonable creature..."

...is actually a clarification of what the point actually is.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Retard life is, as usual, missing the entire point...........Real life is an utter idiot. But he has no concept of idiocy, so he doesn't know it, and thinks of himself as a reasonable creature..."

...is actually a clarification of what the point actually is

You continue to make my point with the ad homs, Cyracuz.

Petty insults are a sure indication that one has nothing informative to say.

I gave a very simple example that debunks your 'special' definition of 'existence'.

If something doesn't exist unless we interact with it (i.e. relate to it in some way) , then it must 'come into existence' the moment we begin to interact with it, yes?

The silliness of this is apparent to everyone, except you, who will insist on using your 'special' definition of 'existence'.

The funniest part, Cyracuz, is that you are trying to pretend you are ignoring me while continuing to interact with me.

Are you trying to 'poof' me out of 'existence'?

Better go back and watch a few more hours of Star Wars. Your 'Jedi mind tricks' aren't working to well. Laughing

0 Replies

You're still missing the point.

0 Replies

A quote from earlier that will perhaps clue you in a bit more...

Quote:

To a dog a computer wouldn't exist. It would just be another meaningless object indistinguishable from all other meaningless objects.

That isn't to say that the computer isn't there for the dog. It is, but it isn't a thing that merits a concept, so it's just indistinguishable background to the dog. In that sense, the computer doesn't exist.

Quote:

The existence of any given thing comes from what that thing means to us. If you have no concept of something, then to you, the thing you have no concept of does not exist.

Get it?

0 Replies

Yeah , I get it. I always have.

You want a new definition for the word 'exist'.

(this is, btw, different from the earlier definition of 'existence' you pushed for. That one centered not on the 'meaning' something holds, but on 'contrast'---- the simple ability to separate one thing from another.)

Cyracuz wrote:

If you exist, then you must be clearly distinguishable from the environment you exist in, isn't that right? If not, we would have to say that you exist, but we cannot find you anywhere. But how can we know you exist if we cannot find you.

So in order to say that you exist you must prove that you are separate from everything else

So you actually have campaigned for at least 2 new and different definitions of 'existence'.

This is so that you can continue to use language in the way you described:

Cyracuz wrote:

it serves to strengthen illusions we retain so that we can continue to believe in our lies.

If words mean whatever we want them to mean at any given point, then what have you accomplished?

What benefit do you offer society in exchange for throwing out standardized definitions of words which facilitate communication?

0 Replies

That's not different. It's the same thing from two different angles.

You do not get it.

"Existence" isn't a term easily defined. There are a lot of concepts tied to it, and those concepts aren't always understood.

I would advise you to examine the nature of words and language, how it works, and how our cognition and perception is affected by it. Then I would like it if you took the time to examine the connection between any given word and the thing it represents. Then, perhaps, you would start to see what we are discussing here. It's philosophy.

0 Replies

Quote:

The concrete truck doesn't 'come into existence' the moment you collide with it. It was there already.

real life doesn't seem to understand that he is a third party observer of that scenario. As far as "the car driver" was concerned his co-existence with "the truck" was defined and (perhaps ended) in "the collision". If there had been no collision, real life would not have noticed (i.e. co-existed) with either of the other parties. His "existence" is defined in this instance only as an observer in relationship to "the collision".

Let him try to define "there" in his quotation without reference to "collision" and he will see the meaninglessness of "already" and hence the meaningless of "existence" of objects or events with reference to relationship between them.

0 Replies

Re: A better question that: "Does god exist"

Cyracuz wrote:

If you exist, then you must be clearly distinguishable from the environment you exist in, isn't that right? If not, we would have to say that you exist, but we cannot find you anywhere. But how can we know you exist if we cannot find you.

So in order to say that you exist you must prove that you are separate from everything else...

The concept of self and the concept of god are equal in that they are both beliefs.

Why must I be distinguishable from my environment? I could still exist even if camoflaged to the point that no one could spot me. Or is your question really how can I prove to YOU that I exist? Well, you cannot see me through your computer screen, but someone has to be typing these words.....

Why must I be separate from my environment, and what would that really mean? I am part of it, including the air that I breathe, the food that I eat, the heat and waste products that I produce, and the effects that my presence has on the things and people I touch.

I am consciously aware of my self. I am not in any way aware of any gods, other than the fact that some other people claim to believe in them. How are the concepts comparable?

0 Replies

Quote:

The existence of any given thing comes from what that thing means to us. If you have no concept of something, then to you, the thing you have no concept of does not exist.

Get it?

That's like the age old question about if a tree falls over in a forest, and there is no one to hear it falling over, does it make a sound?

I've always seen little point in these debates. The physical environmental interaction that we perceive as sound exists. Why argue over whether it constitutes a sound or not?

0 Replies

Quote:

Why must I be distinguishable from my environment? I could still exist even if camoflaged to the point that no one could spot me. Or is your question really how can I prove to YOU that I exist?

If you were camoflaged to the point where no one could spot you, then to all eyes scanning there would exist no entity where they looked. Just the background you were indistinguishable from.

Now, if you were that eye scanning, you wouldn't be able to distinguish yourself from your environment, and then saying that you exist as something else than what you're indistinguishable from makes no sense.

Quote:

I am consciously aware of my self. I am not in any way aware of any gods, other than the fact that some other people claim to believe in them. How are the concepts comparable?

You are consciously aware. But this awareness isn't yours alone. It comes from the interaction with the environment you see the self as something distinguishable from. So, if the impression of individuality comes from interaction with what you use to make the distinction, are you truly distinct?
Is "self" as a concept, any more coherent than the concept "god"?

This is NOT an attempt to prove that god is real. I do not think that.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

If you were camoflaged to the point where no one could spot you, then to all eyes scanning there would exist no entity where they looked. Just the background you were indistinguishable from.

Now, if you were that eye scanning, you wouldn't be able to distinguish yourself from your environment, and then saying that you exist as something else than what you're indistinguishable from makes no sense.

That makes no sense. My existence is not predicated on whether anyone else can see me. Viruses exist whether or not anyone can see them.

If I were looking at a video camera scanning my location and didn't see myself, or if I looked directly at my hand and didn't see it (because it was under a blanket or something), but was still aware of my own existence, I would still exist.

Quote:

You are consciously aware. But this awareness isn't yours alone. It comes from the interaction with the environment you see the self as something distinguishable from. So, if the impression of individuality comes from interaction with what you use to make the distinction, are you truly distinct?
Is "self" as a concept, any more coherent than the concept "god"?

This is NOT an attempt to prove that god is real. I do not think that.

No one else shares my own awareness. Yes, it is a function of interaction with my environment (as is every other aspect of my existence) but so what? I already said that I was part of my environment, but my awareness of myself in relation to it IS distinct.

0 Replies

Quote:

I already said that I was part of my environment, but my awareness of myself in relation to it IS distinct.

Are you sure? What constitutes self when you do the act of thinking?
Self is the thinking agent, the thought is what it interacts with.

When you present your thought to someone else.
Self is both the thought and the thinking agent.

No one else shares your own awareness, but you share it with everything you are aware of.

0 Replies

The brain produces both the thinking agent and its thoughts. The self is the conscious awareness that experiences emotions, calls up memories, evaluates thoughts and sensory data, makes plans and has some control over what the body does.

I can be aware of a rock or a politician on TV without either of them sharing my awareness.

0 Replies

A better question that: "Does god exist"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know