Must all that is concievable exist?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Mind
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Some say that anything that can be concieved must exist. I agree that this is true in that if you can concieve it then it must exist, at least in your conception, however, I think that some would take this to the extreem in saying that whatever you concieve must exist in reality outside of the mind.

It seems clear to me that a concept can represent things that actually exist or abstracts that have no real existance outside of the mind. Words are symbols (concepts) that represent something. Sometimes they represent something physical like tree, but sometimes thay represent something that exists in relative realation like motion or speed, and still others represent things that are from our imagination, like theories or idealizations. The later exist only in the mind. Therefore, all that is concievable does not exist neccessarily.

Some would argue that imaginations are compound component truths that are liable to be false but that these are combinations of sungular component truths that cannot be conjured. I'm not sure I know what a singular component truth is. The example I'm familar with is "pink elephant". Pink is real and elephant is real, but pink elephants are not real. I agree even though components are real or true that a synthesized combination of them can create something that is false or nonexistant in reality. Ths is a logical and strong argument. So I can concieve of compound component truths that represent something in physical reality, like green tree, and something relational, like big green tree, and even something from imagination like Sherlock Holmes.

So it IS possible to concieve of fictional characters that DO NOT EXIST outside of the mind.

Is it possible then to concieve of (or conjure) a singular component truth that exists only in the mind? NO, I guess not because I really cant think of any:D. I cannot think of one thing or concept that is NOT represented by using words that in themselves represent something (physical or relational) that exists. I could make up a nonsensicle (meaningless) word, but as soon as it represents something that exists it is just a component truth.

Now it must be said that to use this argument to prove that somethng exists, you must first prove that it is NOT a compound component truth because it has already been shown that compound component truths can be conjured. This I think shows the flaw in any argument that something neccissarily exists because you can concieve it, without also proving it is a singular component truth.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,198 • Replies: 23

No top replies

@ogden,

Exactly, defining the properties of something does not mean that it exists.

0 Replies

@ogden,

Real beings - beings that have actual existence, they exist outside the mind independent of any conceiving and perceiving mind.

Ideal beings - beings that exist inside the mind, without contradictory notes, that are don't necessarily have ontological existence though may and are expected to resemble ontological entities.

1 Reply

@Patty phil,

Hi Patty

A nice question, baffled why so few responses. What about putting it this way, Is it possible to imagine an impossibility?

Maybe there is an entity god if you like so hugely advanced from our best human minds that they are performing what we consider as inconceivable all the time

In an eternity given enough time, everything that can happen will happen, or will it?

However my answer is no, because what we think is conceivable might in the greater reality be impossible

0 Replies

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

It seems clear to me that a concept can represent things that actually exist or abstracts that have no real existance outside of the mind. Words are symbols (concepts) that represent something. Sometimes they represent something physical like tree, but sometimes thay represent something that exists in relative realation like motion or speed, and still others represent things that are from our imagination, like theories or idealizations. The later exist only in the mind. Therefore, all that is concievable does not exist neccessarily.

...So it IS possible to concieve of fictional characters that DO NOT EXIST outside of the mind.

[/B]

What exists outside the mind? If anything, how do you know? I would suggest that 'external reality,' or that which exists independent of our conception of it (so we assume), consists of a different, more comprehensive sort of experience, not that it is in fact independently existent (as far as we know: i.e. it may be, but 'empirical evidence' proves nothing). For example, consider Descartes mountain metaphor; a mountain appears to be the size of my hand, but when I approach it, it is obviously much larger. Which experience of the mountain was real? I think the problem of this disparity is the result of imagining A mountain. Rather, we should say that the mountain we saw standing on a hill a mile away was tiny, and that the other mountain that we saw up close was enormous. We tend to assume that the latter has reality because it can be both touched, tasted, smelt and heard, whereas the former can only be seen; i.e. when we are in a position to experience the mountain with all senses, it appears large. My point is that an 'illusion', the tiny mountain, is not any less real than the 'reality,' the large mountain, only lacking in certain qualia. That we call only what can be sensed comphrensively (by all senses) 'real' is an arbitrary decision. Emprical science appears true because it summarizes that comprehensive experience (all senses), which summary is useful to be able to predict what 'the' mountain would be like if we were to approach it, so we say that it is that way. However, utility is not truth. A belief without which life is impossible may still be a false belief.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

Hi,

There was group of people who decided to get together and do a seance. During the seance

It is possible to really create an imaginary entity as the below should indicate

Imagery Ghosts,

During 1974 a small group gathered in a room at the New Horizon Foundation in Toronto, they came from varied backgrounds

The experiment was to see if they could create an imaginary fictitious, ghost or spirit being

"Hello Philip hello Philip Sue said to a non existent Philip, hello, hello Philip hello Philip............

Philip who did not exist outside of their imaginations, came to life and began to speak to the group via moving glass and table, letter method

Philip quickly took on a real personality and the group happily dialogued for a number of weeks, with this imaginary being they had created.

Philip took on a character and life of his own , very dissimilar to any of the participants at the table

They were unbelievers

Parapsychology

The Controversial Science (Richard S Broughton) I have his book in my private library

Must all that is conceivable exist?, I think that could happen, but in reality does not happen.

For instance a winged giraffe could exist on a planet with very low gravity, say on thousand of that of the earth, this planet could have a dense atmosphere, the giraffe could have huge wings a thousand yards apart and use immense muscles to drive and flat the enormous wing and fly.. That might be conceivable

On the other hand "is it possible to imgagine an impossiblity"?, maybe we humans cant, but a higher life form could. Hollywood comes up with some really bizarre movies especially the way out sci-fi which I love

0 Replies

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

Some say that anything that can be concieved must exist. I agree that this is true in that if you can concieve it then it must exist, at least in your conception, however, I think that some would take this to the extreem in saying that whatever you concieve must exist in reality outside of the mind.

I would say that there are things that cannot exist outside the mind such as, for example, thoughs. Imagine a dimension so weird that from our human position here we can only describe it as "abstract" and that our minds are there. Perhaps we would be able to sense and interact with thoughs of other minds, but still these thoughs would be object to us, not real thoughs, that is, our own thoughs.

I think that anything else that can be conceived as existing outside the mind exists, including pink elephants and crying stones, though off course this doesnt means we will find these things in the universe as we perceive it (the big void with galaxies inside), there are things that we can imagine but would probally be unable to sense with the senses we have.

Things such as characters, lets say, Sherlock Holmes, are troublesome though, because... lets say we found someone called Sherlock Holmes whose personality and appareance are exactly like those conceived by the author... could we say "This is the Sherlock Holmes from the books!" rather than "This is a man that is exactly like Sherlock Holmes from the books!"? I mean, could we really say that it is the character even if all evidence point towards it? If I die and re-encounter someone in afterlife, can I consider it the same person or it must be someone just like it?

The way in wich we seen unable to rationally be certain of anything is troublesome Smile

Alan McDougall wrote:

On the other hand "is it possible to imgagine an impossiblity"?, maybe we humans cant, but a higher life form could. Hollywood comes up with some really bizarre movies especially the way out sci-fi which I love

I think not, that would be like visualing the color red even though you never saw it. We cannot create new "information units", we can only recombine then.

With "information units" I am trying to mean fundamental pieces of information, that is, that we must adquire through the senses as we cannot adquire it through mere thinking. For example knowing what the color blue is and what a wall is I will know what a blue wall is, but there is nothing that will lead me to knowing red: I must see it.

1 Reply

@manored,

It is useful and pragmatic to make a distinction about the demarcation of imaginary possibility and practical reality. Would any of us reach out and expect to grab hold of a tiny mountain and be surprised that it is many kilometers away? No. Not because we don't perceive it, but because we apply a spatial relationship to it. We would hardly then doubt its existence.

If you looked at me right now you would not be able to perceive what I was imagining at this moment because what I am imagining is imperceptible until I convey it into a form that is perceivable, like words or art. The resulting from depends entirely on how it is conveyed and how it (the conveyance) is perceived. So what I imagine can only exist, outside my mind, in the practical world, when it is transmuted into something that exists outside of my mind. Now it may be that what I convey and how it is perceived never fully match my idea, and in that respect my idea can never fully exist in a practical form. This does not necessarily mean all that we can conceive does not exist, but that it does not exists in the same way that other things exist.

So then that being said; anything that is conceived must necessarily exist in the form of thought.

I thought it, therefore it is.

0 Replies

@ogden,

ah, here we get into another mind screw about "what is existence?" I think what your getting at is, can something that exists ideologically, not exist literally? So saying something like "it is a fact that Harry Potter got off with Ginny Weasley", which is true cos he did...ideologically at least, so is it possible for this to be the case and yet for it also to be true, that there literally is no Harry Potter to get off with Ginny Weasley? I think so, but the question is how? How does this work?

I think it it lies in the same vein as, "how can an electrochemical signal induce an experiance of emotion?", which is a good question. I think the answer is, "in the same way an electrical signal in a computer can play an mp3 file of Mozart" in other words it's all a matter of information, and the way in which it is carried. I mean I guess there is some scientific reason why if you have a certain arrangment of cells and chemicals and electrical signals and the like you will have all the components to form a consciousness, science accounts for some wacky stuff so I don't see how that is any different...so I guess the idea there would be that technically speaking all ideological facts are actually physical facts in terms of them being an electrical signal, its just that we experiance these cognitive sensations in a certain way as we decode the information. Tis an idea at least.

So when you ask "Is it true that Harry Potter got off with Ginny Weasley" I guess the answer is "it is true that that is imagined happening" meaning there literally exists the cognitive messages carrying that idea (information) from neuron to neuron.

This is assuming however, that our mind exists completely in this bubble of space/time called a universe though, which it might not of course. I don't think there is any doubt that there is causal relation between mind and body but mere causal relation doesn't nessasarily suggest they are utterly dependant on each other. In this case it is very possible that things can exist ideologically but not literally as they are of a different substance alltogthar. One is still left with the problem of how these causal relations between physical and mental actually work of course, I guess the answer there would be "well it's a mystery, but then so much is, take quantum physics for example! If you think you understand it you really don't!"

1 Reply

@ogden,

Conceptual existence =/= physical existence

I think that's been agreed on. But I do think that truth lies where conceptual existence and physical existence meet. In other words, if a concept completely conforms to reality, then that concept is necessarily true.

1 Reply

@parker pyne,

parker pyne;79242 wrote:

Conceptual existence =/= physical existence

I think that's been agreed on. But I do think that truth lies where conceptual existence and physical existence meet. In other words, if a concept completely conforms to reality, then that concept is necessarily true.

I didnt quite understand what you meant.

0 Replies

@ogden,

Well two people (or even one nutty person) could conceive of things that are somehow contradictory to each other or even internally incoherent

Like an omnipotent being

Could such a thing make a boulder it can't move?

bla bla bla

0 Replies

@ogden,

Perhaps only affirmations about the "absolutism" of anything are wrong. As in: An omnipotent being and an impossible to move rock cannot exist, however a very powerfull being and a rock that is nearly impossible to move can...

0 Replies

@ogden,

Perhaps the greatest education you can undertake in your lifetime, is to uneducate.

Consider that physics is simply measurement of torsion space. So, at root cause, we have energy and spacetime (Flux). Humans have an advanced tool set to measure the potential future set, in sequitur from past tensors (see: vector tensor theory).

So, essentially, any idea in/ex your mind, is a potentially expandable or contractable, modular and scalar sequitur. And just because a random idea fails to extend from its limited, random source, it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be expanded upon in an ordered, sustainable future set.

Hierarchically venning consistency can equally reveal random value sets, and vice-versa. This is why highly valued philosophers consistently apply math at root cause function.

Math (logic data) can be soulful, because emotion (torsion energy waves) is contained in the spacetime Flux set.

0 Replies

@ogden,

Are you Gene Ray in disguise

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;80116 wrote:

Are you Gene Ray in disguise

Perhaps you'd be equally rewarded by asking Ken Wilbur if his quadrants are a non-sequitur in a timecube matrix?

Vector that? ;-)

0 Replies

@ogden,

Stringing together technical terms in ways that don't make sense is cool

That's how Dan Brown wrote his bestseller Digital Fortress

You could become a millionaire bro

A millionare

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;80122 wrote:

Stringing together technical terms in ways that don't make sense is cool

Does that mean you need to warm up to venning consistencies in your own physics reality?

You might try Wiki with Set Theory (B is contained by A, in modular, scalar reality), then Topology.

Then sequitur to why philosophers inevitably turn to math...

Or you could do the same things over and over again, and expect different results. But hey, lots of people limit themselves to basic necessities, so...

:phone:

1 Reply

@ValueRanger,

ValueRanger;80180 wrote:

You might try Wiki with Set Theory (B is contained by A, in modular, scalar reality), then Topology.

Then sequitur to why philosophers inevitably turn to math...

Or you could do the same things over and over again, and expect different results. But hey, lots of people limit themselves to basic necessities, so...

:phone:

Oh I like math. I intend to become a computational neuroscientist and we use a lot of math. I just don't like bulls**t.

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;80230 wrote:

Oh I like math. I intend to become a computational neuroscientist and we use a lot of math. I just don't like bulls**t.

I understand ignorance as a prerequisite to sustainable knowledge.

Here's to your more valuable transition, and potentially outdoing your betters!

May you somehow find eloquence along the way.

Good luck!

1 Reply

Must all that is concievable exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know