Reply
Thu 7 Jun, 2012 08:24 am
Motivated by my interest in the philosophy of mind, I’m trying to understand the conflicting positions concerning the existence of abstract entities, to which category the states of mind belong.
What baffles me is that in the discussions around the existence/non-existence of abstract things, I could found no clear definition of the concept of existence itself ! How can I then ask if something exists , if I don’t define what I mean by that ?
Of course , Cartesian devil notwithstanding, there is ,apparently , no need for such a definition , in order to decide if things falling under my sensorial capabilities, exist (even the elementary particles are included this category, they can be “observed”, albeit indirectly, by their effect or by the effect of their interaction products, on dedicated detectors) . By adding to this sensorial observabillity, the space localization , we get also a working definition of “concrete”, physical ,things . Thus , concrete things simply exist ,because they are there for me to see, touch, experiment with, etc.
This situation seems to be different for abstract things ,which appear to be defined by their lack of the above observabillity .Obviously,their existence, does not result from the definition !
Surely, the capability of the abstracta to provide explanations ,discussed in relevant papers (see for example [1])), make us to desire for them some kind of existence ,whatever it means . And this rise a new problem : is there any reason to ask for the same kind of existence for all the abstract things , do we have to equivalate a certain taxonomy with an ontological commitment ?
Another ,related trouble can be put as follows :
The liberalism in discussing the abstracta existence can be explained by the lack of a true definition of the existence concept. But how it comes that this undefined , liberally used existence, is requested to have also an objective character !
If in my research in the interaction of high energy particles, as often happens, I build a physical model of a certain system and than I translate it in its mathematical equivalent ( to run it on a computer ,for instance) , a certain differential equation with partial derivatives can result. As It can be difficult to solve it , before starting to look for a solution I use precise mathematical rules which test the “existence conditions” of such a solution. If in my equation specific case, these conditions are satisfied, than the equation solution exists and I have to find it .With a negative answer, the physical model I built is bad ! (Unfortunately , even if a solution exists the model can be physically inadequate!) .
In the above example, I know exactly what it means that a solution “exists”: Namely, it satisfies my equation . An intensional definition ,providing a necessary and sufficient condition to assert the existence of an abstract entity !
But, could it be the case that this solution has an objective existence ?
I’ll be a rather happy person if I could believe that my possible wrong models together with their solutions , all of these abstract things, have an objective existence , not related to my ,possible confused, mind ! But ,I’m afraid , I have no reason to be such a happy person !
Also , to use an much favored example of abstract entity, it appears difficult to me to accept that a numerical system , be it decimal, binary , octal ,etc ., I use in order to solve practical life problems ,is not a creation of my mind , an invention, but is the “discovery” of a pre-existent to me ,objective entity ,waiting “somewhere there” ,for me to pick it up !
After a global cataclysm which, God forbid, destroys our planet , what will remain will only be the numbers ,propositions (of whom ?) and properties (of what ?) ?
[1] * Abstract Entities
Chris Swoyer
Penultimate draft of a paper for Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics, eds., Theodore Sider, John
Hawthorne, and Dean W. Zimmerman, Blackwell, 2008; pp 1-31.
@pedestrian,
Quote:I’m trying to understand the conflicting positions concerning the existence of abstract entities
Interesting you should so speculate since in my latter years I’ve thought much about this very issue
Quote:…...I could found no clear definition of the concept of existence itself !
That’s because nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else; thus no clear dividing line over the range of concrete near one end (maybe a rock) and abstract near the other (maybe God)
I say “near” because their exact positions are somewhat arbitrary; same reason for “somewhat"
Quote:How can I then ask if something exists , if I don’t define what I mean by that?
Don’t even try ‘cause you’ll be running around in circles
Quote:This situation seems to be different for abstract things ,which appear to be defined by their lack of the above observabillity. Obviously,their existence, does not result from the definition !
Agains there’s no clear dividing line. Consider for instance “objects" lying between the rock and God--like CostCo or the Catholic Church which we think of as concrete entities whereas each one is merely a number of humanoids moving about in and out of structures whilst moving objects from one location to another and uttering sounds
Quote: is there any reason to ask for the same kind of existence for all the abstract things , do we have to equivalate a certain taxonomy with an ontological commitment ?
http://onelook.com/?w=taxonomy&ls=a
http://onelook.com/?w=ontological&ls=a
Certainly not, there’s no need to compare organization with existence any more than (insert any adjective) with (insert any noun)
Quote:Another ,related trouble can be put as follows :…...But how it comes that this undefined , liberally used existence, is requested to have also an objective character !
It’s just the way we’re built to think, with digital implications in an analogue world, we have to
Quote:If in my research in the interaction of high energy particles……...a certain differential equation with partial derivatives can result…...before starting to look for a solution I…... test the “existence conditions” ……. If…...satisfied, …..solution exists…...With a negative answer……. is bad ! (……. physically inadequate!)
You could spend the rest of your life trying to decide whether a toothpick exists
Quote:……..an objective existence ?
I’ll be a rather happy person if …...all of these abstract things, have an objective existence …...But ,I’m afraid , I have no reason……..
Yes, no, you don’t but I’m impressed with your determination
Quote:Also , to use an much favored example…….a numerical system ……...is not a creation of my mind …...but is the “discovery” of…….objective entity ,waiting …….
Entire lengthy threads have been generated on this very subject. Best you can say is, numbers are a largely abstract concept and let it go at that
There’s hardly a definite number of anything anywhere. Of course under the circumstances you understand my use of “hardly”
Quote:After a global cataclysm which, God forbid, destroys our planet , what will remain will only be the numbers ,propositions (of whom ?) and properties (of what ?) ?
As apodictical existential pantheists my No. 2 Son and I consider us mostly Her brain cells. However the entire Universe is Her body while all the activity can be considered Her thinking
You can see the use of “considereed………
Oops my BH just came in with a report of loud humming outside while our waterfall has stopped…….Chat with you later
@dalehileman,
Philosophy certainly does curtail yardwork. But returning to the abstract….
Other more absolutist participants will insist that the above, or at least my part in it, is entire nonsense. However they are clearly wrong because nothing is entirely anything
….forgiving any typos above since the software folks—bless their cruel little hearts--in a not entirely unsuccessful attempt to demonstrate their superiority by making everything difficult for us, let us have only a few minutes dto edit
As if to taunt us, however, their editing routines are so massively incompetent as not to recognize for instance “dto” as a misspelling of “to”
But that’s widely OT though deserving a thread of its own
@pedestrian,
If you have the inclination to read up my posting history here, you will find that I define existence as a relationship between
concepts. For example, the concept "rock" exists by virtue of its relationship with "self" or "human". Concepts are embodied as verbal tokens or "words" which predict expectancies of relationship. Thus "I" exists relative to "rock" insofar that "I" has an expectancy of a form of physical relationship with "rock". The illusion is that "I" or "rock" persists as an entity in its own right, and that fallacy is projected by the time independent nature( i.e persistence of) "words". Concepts are co-existent and co-extensive.
Insofar that "humans" have a common physiology and many needs in common, language is assumed (incorrectly) to be representational of an observer independent "reality". This view has been deconstructed by Quine, Wittgenstein, Rorty and others in the last 40 years or so. "Objectivity" merely relates to the concept of "expected
de facto agreement" and has no ontological validity.
As far as your "abstract entities" are concerned, in this view they are merely concepts lacking the expectancy of "physicality". Thus words like "duty" involve the expectancy of
general behavioural modification on the part of "self" without any specific requirement for a particular manifestation of such behaviour.
@fresco,
Fres thank you for that but far too abstract for your Average Clod (me)
@dalehileman,
Instead of "existence", consider the question of how you know you are "conscious". The difference between the dream state and consciousness involves the perceived persistence of "other objects"...i.e. the renewed
expectancies of "things being where they were or should be". If you agree. that expectrancy is central to consciousness it therefore involves the
memory of an observer. It is but a short step in reasoning to replace "consciousness of existence" to "existence" per se, which implies that existence is observer dependent. And since the physiology of the observer coupled with the language of his culture, segments "the world", you can move to a position that "existence" resides in "observer concepts", codified by "words".
The idea the "clod" must discard is that "things" exist in their own right without
a selective observer of persistence.
@fresco,
...I would honestly loved to understand your reasoning but it doesn't make sense to me I am sorry I must be slow...what is it that the observer observes that not existing in itself if not through the observer conception it is being observed ???
What other meaning is the word observer acquiring here so that one can make some sense of this soup of words ?
@Fil Albuquerque,
As far as logic goes X observing X doesn't inform anything...either X observes Y which is not X and thus exists either in itself or in something else which is not X or the word observing might just as well be thrown out of the window once it brings deliberate confusion instead of clarity...
@dalehileman,
It is not all that abstract, dale. It perhaps only requires a different premise to start with. Think of reality as not what we relate to, but the relationship itself. Once you got that figured out, the "classical" view of reality seems naive and self-centered.
@Fil Albuquerque,
There is NO separation of "observer" and "observed". There is only a "verbalizing" which
evokes "existence of an object/entity separate from self". If in doubt consider the verbalization "my arm". Such a verbalization implying a "separate entity to self" hardly ever arises in normal movement, except in exercise programmes. In the event of an amputation, the argument that "self" remains
intact turns out to be
de facto false, since the psychological trauma results in an alteration of "the self concept".
Now writers like Merleau-Ponty have pointed out that there is no logical boundary for the concept of "person". Thus the blind man perceives with the end of his stick, or the motorist turns the corner (not just his car). So by extrapolation, all "objects" observed by "self" are ultimately co-existent with that self and vice versa. What we call "observation" can be deconstructed in behavioural terms as "
post hoc verbalization", such that social transactions (including internal debate) can proceed with words/concepts as a common currency. Currency (monetary or linguistic) has no value in its own right...its value is relative to user agreement. For the motorist who turned the corner with no (conscious) problem "the car" had no (transactional) existence/value. But in the event of a conscious failure to turn the corner, "the car" and/or its sub-components will be cited/observed/verbalized in the ensuing social transaction.
@fresco,
I guess you missed my point...is X observing X itself ? Then you have no information added value...is X observing Y ? Then Y is not X...which one Fresco ?
...these are honest and fairly straightforward questions that I am posing to you...try to think out of your educational paradigm and simply answer...what is it that this "self" is implying here ? it is known that we have several selfs, that there's no single self...that this so called continuity it is in many aspects deceiving...that X to observe something cannot be observing itself seams fairly an honest conclusion, X is always differentiating itself from the background to make sense of data...X is always observing something else other then itself...observing is acquiring awareness off...surely it can't be of itself....X observing X ads nothing to X...another thing completely different is to state that X is observing Y through the mechanisms and processes and filters of X....or to say that X competence and limitations shape the information retrieved from Y...
@Fil Albuquerque,
Read his post. Your question is neither here nor there..
@Cyracuz,
Correct ! There is no "point" to be made because "observation"has been deconstructed and equals
verbal behaviour. The layman's separation of X and Y is equal to the fallacy of thinking that a dollar bill (Y) has "value" independent of the conventional behavioural interaction of users (X's).
@fresco,
No problem with that if the word doesn't make a good job on describing what is happening in your view just replace it for the correct one...is not much to ask is it ? All that I want is a coherent construction of whatever your view is trying to assert...so far none of that has been done nor do I see any inclination for a honest go on clarifying your conceptual frame of work...
@Fil Albuquerque,
I can only refer you to Maturana's view of observation as "languaging". I may already have supplied you with this reference.
http://www.oikos.org/vonobserv.htm
@fresco,
I suppose by "languaging" you mean transit of information right ?
...again words are meaningless if we don't provide a clear definition on what we meant with them...transit of information is not the same as we creating our own information...or do you mean we are informing ourselves over our own constructs ? Such statement bottom line would be self contradictory once mind as no defined location and whatever itself constitutes makes it different from whatever it is trying to get informed upon...X cannot be informing X to X...X must inform Y or Z or whatever to be informing anything at all...X must be distinct of Y to gain interest upon it and acquire something from it...and so I ask, what is the mechanical model you are proposing and what is interacting in it ? because I can't figure neither...
Shoving the word "languaging" into the talk as some sort of mystical symbol implying a hidden superior meaning which is not clear if not for the enlightened can throw a good show for the layman but ultimately won't convince any of the intelligent folks around which I suppose should be the ones you should be trying to convince that your theory's have any juice at all...forgive me for my ready harshness on your belief system but the fact is and remains that I am honestly conveying the general feeling and state of mind to which your obscure posts have brought me to...
@Fil Albuquerque,
Abstruse philosophical jargon tends to discourage the Commonplace Bonehead (me) who might otherwise comprehend or even participate were the posts instead composed in everyday language
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:All that I want is a coherent construction of whatever your view is trying to assert
Actually, Fresco's first post in this thread does supply that very adequately.
Quote:so far none of that has been done nor do I see any inclination for a honest go on clarifying your conceptual frame of work
Perhaps you should distinguish between people's ability to explain and your ability to understand. You seem to assume that if something doesn't make sense to you immediately it has to be bullshit. The fact of the matter is that you are asking for something Fresco has already given you. You just didn't notice because you are busy asking the wrong questions...
I mean no insult. Just saying that you can't fill a cup that's already full.
Consciousness or awareness by definition implies in its very core concept that some entity, a mind perhaps, gains knowledge upon something else other then itself, that is to say, that X gains knowledge upon Y...if as implied by some beliefs Y is part of X, or the product of X, then seams fairly logical to conclude that there is no additional informational update to the status of X once X already contains Y...from there several problematic direct questions arise, let me number a few :
If Y it is already contained in X and awareness of Y is informatively irrelevant to X why would X need to be aware of Y, or be aware at all, and why would X differentiate itself from Y ? Informational awareness precisely comes by distinguishing what mind is being at any given moment as an "I", from that which mind is accessing or processing so this separation rather seams an a priori given, what good reason do we have to believe otherwise ?...when we say "imagination", a troublesome word in itself, produces concepts, or some sort of conceptual reality, out of nothingness instead of a relational observation process in which data is retrieved from something else and consequently meaningfully assembled, what we are implying is that such differentiated entity's such as Y come to mind magically without any particular causal explanation or reason that not even will alone can justify once will has no a priori target to aim for given Y as not yet emerged, further, emerging from nothingness, or from non being, is onto itself a logical paradox once nothingness by its own conceptual definition cannot be or it is not about anything, such that things must a priori exist and have the potential to become or to emerge therefore being even in potential, distinct from mind...if we are to really support the idea that nothingness gives rise to something, on that account one might just as well justify any sort of crazy assumption such as the likes of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pink Elephants or any sort of similar absurd...again what reason do we have to pursue such extraordinary views ?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace