Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

Oh !

ūüôÉ

Yes , My Lady ! 

I am able to see a pool's tiled floor through the water's thickness.

I don't see the floor  despite the water and reflections; I see it because of them.

As a result , if there were no distortions, no ripples  of sunlight, if I could see the geometry of the world without the productive processes , then I’d stop to see their existence almost totally . .. .. Conceptuality arises thus from corporeality and results , in its own turn , in the back-and-forth of repercussive EXISTENCE.  Being actualizes from virtuality. 

 

ūü§™ūü§™

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I wish it was as simple as you seem to think. First off 'does' is the present tense of a verb. Are you including other tenses Will my dinner exist tomorrow ? Did the dinosaurs exis

That would be the same as arguing physics is BS, because there are so many crackpot theories (see our Speculations section). One should look what professional, academic philosophers have to say a

I can't see any relevence of your reply to my post whatsoever. This thread is about existence in general. Any sort of type of existence. Mostly something exists in one type of existence

Posted Images

On 3/27/2021 at 9:07 AM, Alex Mercer said:

What does it mean for something to exist? Does it even make sense to define 'non-existence'?

It would mean that something is objectively real, not subjectively reasoned.  Yes, it makes sense for something not to exist, and defining non-existence also makes sense.  Non existence could easily mean "something that is not objectively real".   But existence also has MUCH to do with context.  Do Oompa Loompas exist?   Not in the world as actual beings, but they do exist in a book.  


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnSSM said:

It would mean that something is objectively real, not subjectively reasoned. 

Apply to the prior discussion of shadows and holes. Are they objectively real, or reasoned?

 

A lot of this points to the need to carefully define terms and context. ¬†Discussion of what is¬†‚Äúreal‚ÄĚ is meaningless without clarifying if you mean real vs illusion, or real vs imagined.¬†

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread is about existence and non existence, not whether that is a physical or something else.

Anyone who suggests that holes do not exist should invite me to bring my trusty pin to their next balloon party.

As for shadows, has anyone tried growing a peach or an apricot against a North wall  in the northern hemisphere?

The OP, Alex, has a reputation for week long absences between appearance here (probably has better things to do in reality) so we are all awaiting extra context to be supplied.

But at least he has provided a worthwhile discussion thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beecee said:

I exist and I'm anything but controversial!¬†ūüėú

 

You have brought up a brand of beer, sir, you have implied without proof that it exists, and I can think of few things nearly as controversial as discussing beer! Enough said! ūü§£

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Math is both process and product. I am NOT suggesting that processes do not exist in actuality. Any process is deemed to possess an epi"phenomenological  existence prior and  exterior to the form of its own expression. Expressivity brings products out of processes. Content is accurately conveyed through expression, which re-presents it at a contextual distance. This facilitates contact, which is described as a reliable exchange of contents transmitted at a reasonable distance from their intended destination (brought over into the realm of Actuality). As a result, content is both the cause and the effect of communicative expression: it is both the external cause and the pledge of authenticity.

Remembering this thread is about existence not actuality nor virtuality nor reality nor any other 'ality.

Processes present an interesting aspect of existence.

That of time.

Finite processes have at least a beginning a middle and an end.

Unless these all occur simultaneously so the process is independent of time, the question arises

"Can the process ever be said to exist ?"

This is because only part of the process 'exists' at any one point in time ie at any present.

 

One small point.

Whilst I am flattered that you choose to be so polite to me, I am not female ie I am not a 'Lady'.
I am sorry if anything I have said has lead you to believe otherwise.
I often say she did this or Jane did that as well as Jack did this etc, in order to promote gender equality in my small way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2021 at 8:59 PM, beecee said:

Speaking for myself, not so much taking a "dim view", more an exercise in futility [sometimes] I'm in the Lawrence Krauss school.

 

On 3/29/2021 at 10:12 AM, Eise said:

That would be the same as arguing physics is BS, because there are so many crackpot theories (see our Speculations section).

One should look what professional, academic philosophers have to say about 'existence', not at philosophical 'hip shots' of people who are not knowledgeable about what philosophy has to say about the topic.

I see, from the two responses above, that I expressed my self badly. I was, perhaps, overly keen on not offending. Had I posted more directly I would have said, "Many (most? all?) of the posts in this thread appear to be devoid of anything other than the most simplistic, ill-informed, nonsense, quite devoid of philosophy. It is exchanges like this that give actual philosophy a bad name."

Thank you both for highlighting the ambiguity in my post and thus affording the opportunity to correct it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, studiot said:

Remembering this thread is about existence not actuality nor virtuality nor reality nor any other 'ality.

Processes present an interesting aspect of existence.

That of time.

Finite processes have at least a beginning a middle and an end.

Unless these all occur simultaneously so the process is independent of time, the question arises

"Can the process ever be said to exist ?"

This is because only part of the process 'exists' at any one point in time ie at any present.

 

One small point.

Whilst I am flattered that you choose to be so polite to me, I am not female ie I am not a 'Lady'.
I am sorry if anything I have said has lead you to believe otherwise.
I often say she did this or Jane did that as well as Jack did this etc, in order to promote gender equality in my small way.

Excuse me  //  You simply plainly cannot dodge ontological terminology  AND speak about Existence @ the same time. Much as you cannot enter into particle physix debates and discussions AND prevent yourself ( and others ) from applying terms such as electrons and positrons and quarks  etc  etc  simply  'cauz you wish to not-take the trouble of getting well-versed in them  ,,,,,,  

 

Regards 

REZA

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Excuse me  //  You simply plainly cannot dodge ontological terminology  AND speak about Existence @ the same time. Much as you cannot enter into particle physix debates and discussions AND prevent yourself ( and others ) from applying terms such as electrons and positrons and quarks  etc  etc  simply  'cauz you wish to not-take the trouble of getting well-versed in them  ,,,,,,  

 

Regards 

REZA

 

I can't see any relevence of your reply to my post whatsoever.

This thread is about existence in general.

Any sort of type of existence.

Mostly something exists in one type of existence or another.

However, as always, it is the grey areas that introduce the difficulties.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, studiot said:

 

I can't see any relevence of your reply to my post whatsoever.

This thread is about existence in general.

Any sort of type of existence.

Mostly something exists in one type of existence or another.

However, as always, it is the grey areas that introduce the difficulties.

 

And you so "severely" wish to avoid difficulties . . .. . Yes / You   DO   see   the  relevance of your post to mine ( and the other way around) . . .   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, studiot said:

 

I can't see any relevence of your reply to my post whatsoever.

Yeah, had me also sort of nonplussed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, studiot said:

Remembering this thread is about existence not actuality nor virtuality nor reality nor any other 'ality.

Processes present an interesting aspect of existence.

That of time.

Finite processes have at least a beginning a middle and an end.

Unless these all occur simultaneously so the process is independent of time, the question arises

"Can the process ever be said to exist ?"

This is because only part of the process 'exists' at any one point in time ie at any present.

 

One small point.

Whilst I am flattered that you choose to be so polite to me, I am not female ie I am not a 'Lady'.
I am sorry if anything I have said has lead you to believe otherwise.
I often say she did this or Jane did that as well as Jack did this etc, in order to promote gender equality in my small way.

and there is nothing wrong with that..

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

And you so "severely" wish to avoid difficulties . . .. . Yes / You   DO   see   the  relevance of your post to mine ( and the other way around) . . .   

Actually no I don't see the relevance, which is why I said "I dont see......." , until such time as you enlighten me.

 

I am guessing but you mean subtly rather than severely  ?

Quite the opposite of avoiding difficulties I have by trying to expose them.
Hence my comments on processes and noting that processes necessarily bring time into the definiton of existance.

 

I had a further thought about this.     Consider

The fire was so intense it burned the house to the ground.

Can a burned down house exist ?

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, studiot said:

Actually no I don't see the relevance, which is why I said "I dont see......." , until such time as you enlighten me.

 

I am guessing but you mean subtly rather than severely  ?

Quite the opposite of avoiding difficulties I have by trying to expose them.
Hence my comments on processes and noting that processes necessarily bring time into the definiton of existance.

 

I had a further thought about this.     Consider

The fire was so intense it burned the house to the ground.

Can a burned down house exist ?

Ah ! Now we two are getting into real cooperation...... I am duty-bound to fully appreciate you for this . . .   

You enlighten me much as I'll do my best to enlighten you : Reciprocation 

 

More thanx for your not circumventing philosophical difficulties , too . . . . .   

 

Processual Being is the underlying Existence that manifests itself in the format of instant-to-instant  actual (objective)  "such-ness" ( = haecceity )

Without that Chaosmotic universe of Ontics underlying , the subjective minds of ours shall NOT  be able to perceive. 

Perception of Being (Existence) is completely differing from perception of   beings ( Extants). 

In the former case , we are dealing with Abstracts(Virtuals) 

In the latter case , we are perceiving Tangibles 

Contrary to common view , neither abstraction nor deduction gives rise to beings

It is , in fact , abduction that brings true ontology playing on the arena in front of our eyes  

A burned house   is an example very suitably chosen 

 I suppose I am making the claim that Existence is a natural and universal extension of the realization that some things  exist, and furthermore that life exists [a truth that defies all logical systems] to perceive the said Existence 

Let's refer to :  https://www.philosophie.fb05.uni-mainz.de/files/2018/09/Metzinger_VR_Phil_2018_frobt-05-00101.pdf  

 

INTRODUCTION 

What are the most promising future directions for an intensified cooperation between the philosophical community and virtual reality research (VR), potentially also including other disciplines like cognitive neuroscience or experimental psychology? The purpose of this contribution is to take a fresh look, from a philosopher‚Äôs perspective, at some specific research areas in the field of VR, isolating and highlighting aspects of particular interest from a conceptual and metatheoretical perspective. This article is intended as a source of inspiration for an interdisciplinary audience; if each reader finds just one of the ideas presented below useful, it will have served its purpose. Hence the article was not written as a technical contribution by one philosopher for other philosophers and is not meant as an exhaustive list of philosophical research targets. I simply draw attention to a selection of topics that are, I believe, characterized by an exceptionally high degree of heuristic fecundity. To make these issues accessible to an interdisciplinary readership, I will briefly introduce some central concepts as I go (see Box 1), and sometimes use a more essayistic style. The hope is that these topics, deliberately presented along with a series of concrete examples, can serve as contact points between both disciplines and mark out promising subfields in which VR researchers and the philosophical community could profit from intensified future interaction. I will briefly highlight the theoretical relevance of most examples, along with the potential future benefits of intensified cooperation. Sometimes, I will also try to sketch a specific technological realization that would interestingly constrain philosophical theory formation, open new routes, or constitute the ‚Äúperfect‚ÄĚ or ‚Äúmaximal‚ÄĚ VR-experience in a given context.¬† ¬†

 

A burnt-down house presents the haecceity as representation of a mind that has either seen the non-burnt house (presentation) or has not. If she has , then Virtuality for her has the implication of more than one suchness( ie , more than one haecceity ) : the burned  AND the non-burned house.  

 

In case she hasn't , she is only picturing(Re-presenting) the house that has once been // and NOW is not . . . .  

The difference between (or , rather , amongst) haecceities is , indeed , the Extant-as-perceived : Not in the universe of beings,  BUT in the world of Being . .. . . .

 

image.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think I am going to buy a dictionary of philosophy.

Have you any recommendations,

Do you know the Cambridge, or Oxford or Harper - Collins ones ?

 

13 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

A burned house   is an example very suitably chosen

I'm glad you like my example.

It also serves as an example  of the point I am still trying to make.

This is that some existences can only said to be extant if the extend over a period of time.

Burning is a chemical reaction and the house burning occurs over a period of time so for many istants it is obvious that there can be said

"to be a burning house" (present tense).

However for some chemical reactions for example the reaction between two molecules, say hydrogen and iodine, the situation is different.

The beginning of the reaction is somewhere along the trajectories of the two molecules.
If they collide they may coalesce to some intermediate compound
This itself may either decay back to the original reactants or new products may fly forth.

If they decay back, can a chemical reaction be said to exist ?

If products are formed how much of the beginning the middle and the end do you include in the statement

A chemical process takes place (ie exists) between the beginning the middle and the end ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I think I am going to buy a dictionary of philosophy.

Have you any recommendations,

Do you know the Cambridge, or Oxford or Harper - Collins ones ?

 

I'm glad you like my example.

It also serves as an example  of the point I am still trying to make.

This is that some existences can only said to be extant if the extend over a period of time.

Burning is a chemical reaction and the house burning occurs over a period of time so for many istants it is obvious that there can be said

"to be a burning house" (present tense).

However for some chemical reactions for example the reaction between two molecules, say hydrogen and iodine, the situation is different.

The beginning of the reaction is somewhere along the trajectories of the two molecules.
If they collide they may coalesce to some intermediate compound
This itself may either decay back to the original reactants or new products may fly forth.

If they decay back, can a chemical reaction be said to exist ?

If products are formed how much of the beginning the middle and the end do you include in the statement

A chemical process takes place (ie exists) between the beginning the middle and the end ?

Dear Comrade !  

A dozen terms you MAY not know well here 

I generally do not buy a Dic for not knowing so many words 

I mostly google 

When I wanted to learn Farsi and Arabic for my Islamology studies , however , I bought two huge Dics. 

You may also ask  ME  your Qs ( I'v gotten a post"Doc in comparative philosophy) 

Anyway , many thanks for your eagerness to know more and more 

 

Either in the case of immediate (chemical) reactions or in the case of very slow ones , either in the case of a reaction or as regards back-reaction(s) , in any case , you are dealing with some processual event. 

A human observer cannot determine the beginning and the end of such-nesses . 

You ask : 

" A chemical process takes place (ie exists) between the beginning the middle and the end ? " 

 

Answer : this-ness of the , say , beginning as contrasted with that-ness of the middle ( or the end ) : All of these are merely anthropomorphic/anthropic standpoints. These are only RE_presentations. We simply cannot arrive at the Presentation(s)  {beings} of  Beginning/middle/End . .  . . 

We can only name them names . . .  . 

Haecceities are here , there , everywhere , , , , , , 

In order for us to grasp at their Being ,  we have to start considering them as "Phenomena" rather than as objects of perception. 

The Duality deeply rooted in Western methodology of Philosophical/Scientific thinking plainly does not meet our ontological demands here as human observers.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about it a little. Existence requires an observer, to say something exists means to say 'I observe it', it starts out with what we observe with our senses and saying "that exists/I can observe it" then people say the same about thoughts that they observe. I don't know maybe too simplistic but am I going to read a 1000 page book written by a philosopher that could be utterly wrong and looked to deep into. No.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Alex Mercer said:

I thought about it a little. Existence requires an observer, to say something exists means to say 'I observe it', it starts out with what we observe with our senses and saying "that exists/I can observe it" then people say the same about thoughts that they observe. I don't know maybe too simplistic but am I going to read a 1000 page book written by a philosopher that could be utterly wrong and looked to deep into. No.

Some of us have object permanence, and realize that things still exist even when we aren't able to see/detect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2021 at 10:16 AM, studiot said:

I note from all these replies that my original contention that the definition and meaning of existence depends upon context has been borne out.

Yes, pity isn't it? Because the context in which somebody declares the existence of something is essential. 'Things' (the quotes are there to do a warm-up for what is coming...) exist in totally different ways, depending on the kind of 'things' we are talking about.

So let's try a few examples, with my comments.

Existence of a ball

This would fall under what I would call physical existence. It means that a ball can exist independently from its immediate surroundings, and can play a role in causal relationships. It can be moved by another physical object, and it's movement can move other objects

Existence of rain

Rain is an example of a process. One could defend, a bit exaggerated, that if the above description of 'existence' is the only correct one, then rain does not exist: what exists are water drops (physical objects), falling down from clouds. But I think this comparison shows at least a difference with the previous one: without some physically existing things, processes cannot exist.

Existence of a hole

Holes cannot exist independently. E.g. if you have a cannon ball, you can completely remove all its surroundings, and it is still a cannon ball (fire it up to the sky with more than escape velocity, and it will further exist in vacuum). Remove the complete surroundings of a hole, and there is no hole anymore. 'Holes' are more or less a byproduct of what we conceive as normal. Say we have a golf ball, rolling over the lawn. The hole in which it drops is on one side very real: in the end, dropping is a physical process. But physically it is better described as the absence of supporting ground, as it is around the hole. Having the hole under the ball, the ball van continue its natural movement, which is following gravity.

Existence of the one Ring

One could say it has narrative existence. In cases of stories, e.g. one can even reach some kind of objective existence in these stories. One can answer questions about an imaginary object, and the answer can be right or wrong. "Does the one Ring of Sauron has a jewel in it?" If you read the Lord of the Rings, you know it hasn't. Does the Ring exist? Well, not physically, in our physical world. But it definitely exists in the context of the story.

Existence of rules and laws

Does there exist a law that you should drive on the right side of the road? In many countries (sorry Studiot ;-)), yes. But such 'human laws' exist in the sense that people made it, and act accordingly (and might be fined if they do not).

Existence of laws of nature

That is pity enough a very tough one. It is clear (otherwise science would not be possible) that there exist (!) regularities in nature. However the laws of nature are our formulations of these regularities. And we can be wrong about these formulations. But one could say they exist, at least in the sense that scientists discuss about them, technicians apply them, and describe at least partially the observations and experiments we have done.

Existence of other cultural phenomena

Does science exist? Science, from the viewpoint of 'existence', is a meaningful conglomerate of all the above. 

I think we could make this list longer and longer (I left out mathematics, that would become a topic in itself). But moral of the story is: there is no general concept of 'existence'. But in our daily life, using the concept, it often is pretty clear what we mean, and is not problematic at all.

Seeing the concept 'existence' as something having a well defined meaning, leads to all kind of philosophical diseases. I think I have said nothing revolutionary in this post, but a lot of the confusion in such kinds of 'fundamental questions' arise because the seemingly simple structure of language put a spell on our way of thinking: in this case 'one word - one concept'). Philosophy is a way to free us from these kind of spells. Just having a philosophical opinion (or better an opinion about a philosophical subject) doesn't help a bit in reaching intellectual clarity. 

On 3/30/2021 at 1:09 PM, studiot said:

Whilst I am flattered that you choose to be so polite to me, I am not female ie I am not a 'Lady'.

Psst... I think it is your Avatar...

Edited by Eise
many minor edits for readability
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

Some of us have object permanence, and realize that things still exist even when we aren't able to see/detect them.

Completely ruins the game of peek-a-boo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Eise said:

Psst... I think it is your Avatar...

ūüôā

 

Thank's Eise  for this and all the rest +1.

It's good to see you back and on top form.

Lots of cogent food for thought in your post.

 

However there is one thing I would like your opinion on, though you perhaps missed it,

The link I drew between existence and time.

Your rain example an my process examples for instance.

 

On 3/31/2021 at 2:59 PM, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Processual Being is the underlying Existence that manifests itself in the format of instant-to-instant  actual (objective)  "such-ness" ( = haecceity )

Interestingly there is a parallel between Eise removing the material round a hole and the notion of removing all the haecceities.
If these are removed, does the object still exist ?

For instance if I remove all the sweetener from a child's sweet does it still exist despite the excipients ?
What about the placebo in a drug  trial?
A  tablet is a small lump given to a patient against a particular condition.

The placebo is still a tablet, despite the absense of active ingredients.

Thank you by the way for introducing me to yet another new word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, studiot said:

ūüôā

 

Thank's Eise  for this and all the rest +1.

It's good to see you back and on top form.

Lots of cogent food for thought in your post.

 

However there is one thing I would like your opinion on, though you perhaps missed it,

The link I drew between existence and time.

Your rain example an my process examples for instance.

 

Interestingly there is a parallel between Eise removing the material round a hole and the notion of removing all the haecceities.
If these are removed, does the object still exist ?

For instance if I remove all the sweetener from a child's sweet does it still exist despite the excipients ?
What about the placebo in a drug  trial?
A  tablet is a small lump given to a patient against a particular condition.

The placebo is still a tablet, despite the absense of active ingredients.

Thank you by the way for introducing me to yet another new word.

Problem is  we have "beforehand" readymade naming of such-nesses in order to make it as easy as possible for ourselves ( and for others , most of the time ) to not be coerced by the objective world surrounding us to experience absolutely  FRESH  experiences. Maybe , as Chomskians may so believe , this is because we feel lost in non-conventional non-traditional calling of entities around us.  We , then , resort to metaphors to name  beings  AND  this makes entities even much more unnecessarily entangled into each other. This does happen even is science and in very elaborately developed humanities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really mean contemplating whether a hole or space exists. I am asking more like WHAT IS existence. Does that still need context because I am talking about the word pretty much and how humans define 'existence'. So that is why I say existence is what we can observe and say that is 'it' existing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2021 at 3:59 PM, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

This facilitates contact, which is described as a reliable exchange of contents transmitted at a reasonable distance from their intended destination (brought over into the realm of Actuality). As a result, content is both the cause and the effect of communicative expression: it is both the external cause and the pledge of authenticity.

Yet this moment keeps slipping away...

9 minutes ago, Alex Mercer said:

I don't really mean contemplating whether a hole or space exists. I am asking more like WHAT IS existence. Does that still need context because I am talking about the word pretty much and how humans define 'existence'. So that is why I say existence is what we can observe and say that is 'it' existing. 

Sorry, I meant to include this post...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.