How do you determine something exists?

I am agreeing with you that nothing can do anything unless it exists.

What I am saying is that you cannot attribute thinking as necessary to existence. Something CAN exist without being able to think.


Sorry for double post, but it is a completely separate subject from my previous

That is to say, Gx -> (x exists), is a tautology for any and every property G.
(all G)(Gx -> (some F)(Fx)) is a theorem of predicate logic.

I'll note that science is largely a bourgeois pursuit for those with the leisure and privilege of a rich educational background and a supporting market that can support the effete snobs who generate the tests, proofs, and data for the existence of ideas on the world around them.

URL: http://able2know.org/topic/152804-1

Quote:

I'll note that science is largely a bourgeois pursuit for those with the leisure and privilege of a rich educational background and a supporting market that can support the effete snobs who generate the tests, proofs, and data for the existence of ideas on the world around them.

URL: http://able2know.org/topic/152804-1

I rely upon effete snobs.

I'm way too busy philosophising to know anything.

I really don't see why you think that. Certainly it is true that for me to determine anything at all, I have to exist to determine it. But why should that mean that any argument that shows that X exist must be someone's argument? Consider the argument: there is something that is the square root of nine because three multiplied by itself is nine. Now, that argument is perfectly sound even if no one exist, including you and me. No one has to make the argument for the argument to be a sound argument.

When YOU say "unicorns" what you are talking about is your relationship with the concept "unicorn". Like me, you presumably have a relationship involving "positive visual image", "negative materiality", etc such that you don't expect to see one in a zoo. Consider however a young child and his relationship with "Santa". Consider too a scientist and his relationship with "electrons" or even "atoms" (which nobody has ever seen).

Try taking off your "naive realist" hat. and investigate the history of terms like "the humours of the body", "phlogiston", the "luminiferous ether" etc . Was the use of such terms "word magic" or was it about social paradigms (semantic networks) in the sense of Kuhn and a shifting zeitgeist ? Isn't it self-evident, irrespective of recent support from physics, that observer and observed are two sides of the same coin ?

The fact that we operate on a daily basis as though there were "an objective reality" is a pragmatic position at the same level of thinking such as that of "the sun circling the earth" for everyday purposes (for all except astronauts), in accordance with the words "sunrise" and "sunset".

Mindlapse wrote:

The problem with using Descartesian affirmation of existence in the attempt to prove all existence is that Descartes' solution only applies to something with thought capacity (ie: humans). A rock, however, does not have thought. This rock's existence is not necessarily related to its absence of thought.

This is the Descartes logic-
If I think, I am.
if X then Y

This is the flawed assumption-
If a rock can think, it is.
If Z then Y

I don't understand that. Certainly it is true that if a rock thinks it exists. In fact, if a rock does the Irish jig, then it exists. Nothing can do anything unless it exists.

It amazes me that those advocate "existence without observers" haven't worked out that it is they themselves who cannot but continue to observe such existence "in their minds eye", thereby assigning such a concept to oxymoron department.

When I say, "unicorn" I am talking about an animal, which if it existed, would have certain properties. I am not talking about a concept. The concept of unicorn exists. Unicorns do not exist.

The argument:

All even numbers are divisible by 2.
4 is an even number,

Therefore, 4 is divisible by 2.

Is a sound argument. It would be a sound argument even if everyone vanished. I was a sound argument 2 billion years ago. It is a sound argument because of of its premises are true, and its conclusion follow from its premises. I did not say the concept of the argument exists. I said the argument exists.

Quote:

When I say, "unicorn" I am talking about an animal, which if it existed, would have certain properties. I am not talking about a concept. The concept of unicorn exists. Unicorns do not exist.

So when asked what is on a particular heraldic shield and you SAY "a lion and a unicorn" you are claiming that at the time of saying you are making an "existential distinction in your mind" between the two ? I don't think so...and that is the point I'm making. All we have is concepts whose linkage with materiality (another concept) or any other concept is dynamically context dependent. Existence is not about "things", it is about the relationship between concepts.

My answer is from the point of view of "reality" as a social construction. All we have are concepts, i.e. nodes of inter-relationship within a semantic network conveyed by a common language. Some of those relationships are enmeshed with the concept of "materiality" and some are not. The concept "theist" and the concept "God" are enmeshed in a particular network in which a positive linkage to "material evidence" may play a role, whereas the concepts "atheist" and "God" have a negative relationship with respect to such a concept of "evidence".

So from this point of view , "existence" is about social agreement regarding relationship between concepts. There are no "things in themselves". All concepts are related. "Properties of material things" translates as "agreed expectancies of concurrent inter-relationships between "observer" and "observed". e.g. "tree-ness" implies concurrent "green and brown-ness", "hardness", "shadiness", etc with respect to common human physiology. The implication is that "trees" do not exist as such for non-humans, nor would "trees" exist without the concept of human observers to "thing" them.

Commonality of physiology and social functioning is abstracted within a common language. Language is a priori with respect "higher thinking". It is the abstract persistence of words which the thinker confuses with the persistence of "things", when in essence all is in flux (particularly " trees" !).
Asking whether X "exists" is futile, the fact that X has already been thinged (conceptualized) has already given it "existence" (relational utility) for at least one "thinger". What we do is negotiate agreement or disagreement about the utility of X. Beyond that, all we can do when X is cited is say "I don't know what you are talking about". Thus atheists who are prepared to discuss "God" at all, have already acknowledged existence of the concept (and remember concepts are all we have.)

Well, when I say that X exists, I mean that X exists, and not that some facsimile of X exists. A facsimile of X would be: an idea of X; the concept of X; picture of X; or a "noumenal, the phenomenal, the realm of the mind, as a physical object, as a spiritual thing" and whatever can be invented that may be like X, but still not X. A facsimile of X may, indeed, be like X in some ways, and not like X in other ways; that would, presumably depend on what the particular facsimile of X was. But one thing is sure. A facsimile of an X is not an X. Otherwise, it would not be a facsimile of X, but the real thing (like Classic Coke). So, a facsimile of X may be close....but no cigar.

Basically, I would venture or hazard a claim that all the disciplines are a branch of philosophy except they have specialized into that corner of the world. Science is natural philosophy but developed special methods that deal with the observable world we live in. If a philosopher wants to criticize or makes observations in that field it should be necessary that he avails himself with the basics of that field to make any kind of assertion. To speak about existence it is necessary to learn a bit of science not necessarily be a scientist. After all at the formation of any real discovery all the fundamentals of philosophic thoughts are required which Aristotle and others developed such as to how non-contradictory sentences can be correct constructed and so on. Syllogism is the word isn't it. A good example would be the question of God. Does He/She exist or not? It be proven mathematically that God would be an improbable being. What is the basis of mathematics. It is an abstraction of the real world though simplified. No things are alike, really. Use an electronic microscope or even look at snow flakes. All are different. We simplify things and give equality therefore even mathematics does not reflect the real world.

Finding it usually suffices...

Ever wonder why you don't see jobs for philosophers on Monster or Dice??

Consider too a scientist and his relationship with "electrons" or even "atoms" (which nobody has ever seen).

I rely upon effete snobs.

I'm way too busy philosophising to know anything.

we know that the Moon predates the existence of people

kennethamy wrote:

we know that the Moon predates the existence of people

We certainly dont know that numbers do.

ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

we know that the Moon predates the existence of people

We certainly dont know that numbers do.

I never realized that numbers were active. What do you think numbers do? Not the back-stroke, I think.

kennethamy wrote:

ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

we know that the Moon predates the existence of people

We certainly dont know that numbers do.

I never realized that numbers were active. What do you think numbers do? Not the back-stroke, I think.

What the hell is that meant to mean?
As your "argument" concerned numbers, your analogy of the moon is daft.

No idea what you mean.