Descartes was a twit [Archive]

The Cat-Tribe

09-03-2005, 01:00

No no, I'm serious. The man was an idiot. Oh, well, besides all of the math he did. Descartes, in order to publish his heliocentric expansion and his math work added in his own philosophy which was the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

He stated: I doubt I exist but I think about my doubt, therefore I have a mind, therefore I exist. He went on to say that because he can imagine that something more perfect than him exists, he can doubt it, but he thinks about it which proves that god exists.

What the hell! I doubt a flying pink elephant exists therefore I think about it, therefore it exists.

Was this man daft?

I can only assume that this and most of the responses are not in fact serious. In that case, I can laugh. :D Otherwise, my brain is going to try to crawl out my ear and find an electrical socket.

Various philosophers over time have contributed great thoughts along with, well, stupid ones. Plato stated that vultures spontaneously form from humours in the air, etc.

"I think therefore I am" is pretty difficult to argue with. Although not as simplistic as describe it, the proof of God is very flawed -- but one you will still hear seriously put forth today (and no more silly than most other attempts to prove the existence of God).

Neo-Tommunism

09-03-2005, 01:58

No no, I'm serious. The man was an idiot. Oh, well, besides all of the math he did. Descartes, in order to publish his heliocentric expansion and his math work added in his own philosophy which was the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

He stated: I doubt I exist but I think about my doubt, therefore I have a mind, therefore I exist. He went on to say that because he can imagine that something more perfect than him exists, he can doubt it, but he thinks about it which proves that god exists.

What the hell! I doubt a flying pink elephant exists therefore I think about it, therefore it exists.

Was this man daft?

Nah, he definately wasn't daft. He was a great thinker, although he did get caught up by the existance of God. You have his proof wrong however.

1. I have an idea of God.
2. This idea must have a cause.
3. There cannot be less reality in the cause than in the effect.
4. If the cause of my idea of God were anything but God, there would be less reality in the cause than in the effect.
5. Therefore, God exists.

It's really quite a good proof of God, as far as those kinds of proofs go. It doesn't work for your pink elephant.

By the way, if you really want to think Descartes was an idiot, look into his Evil Demon Theory!

Custodes Rana

09-03-2005, 02:01

BLARGistania

09-03-2005, 03:35

1. I have an idea of God.
2. This idea must have a cause.
3. There cannot be less reality in the cause than in the effect.
4. If the cause of my idea of God were anything but God, there would be less reality in the cause than in the effect.
5. Therefore, God exists.

It's really quite a good proof of God, as far as those kinds of proofs go. It doesn't work for your pink elephant.

actually it does:

1. I have an idea of a flying pink elephant
2. This idea must have a cause
3. There cannot be less reality in the cause than in the effect
4. If the cause of my idea of the flying pink elephant were anything but a flying pink elephant, there would be less reality in that cause than in the effect.
5. Therefore, the flying pink elephant exists .

Descarte's idea of god stemmed from his beleif that he could think about something more perfect than himself, therefore that thing existed, ergo god was there. Besides the problem of the pink elephant relation to his philosophy (if I think it, it has to exist), there is also the problem of perfection. In his mind, perfection was an absolute value, the same for everyone. We know that isn't true though, every one has a different idea of perfect. Want proof? Ask 10 people what the ideal opposite (or same) sex is and you get 10 different answers. Because of this perfection wasn't absolute which brings at two different points.

1. god doesn't exist because the idea of perfection is not perfect
2. god exists but is different for every single person.

both of these responses would have had the church up in arms.

Descartes answered it by saying that one idea was right and making the wrong idea more perfect, but in that statement he defeats his own idea of perfection.

And yes, I can criticise Descartes for having faulty logic, no matter how much he has contributed to society.

I_Hate_Cows

09-03-2005, 03:38

Why :confused:
Because he was one of those weirdo math geniuses

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 03:45

Descarte's idea of god stemmed from his beleif that he could think about something more perfect than himself, therefore that thing existed, ergo god was there. Besides the problem of the pink elephant relation to his philosophy (if I think it, it has to exist), there is also the problem of perfection. In his mind, perfection was an absolute value, the same for everyone. We know that isn't true though, every one has a different idea of perfect. Want proof? Ask 10 people what the ideal opposite (or same) sex is and you get 10 different answers. Because of this perfection wasn't absolute which brings at two different points.

1. god doesn't exist because the idea of perfection is not perfect
2. god exists but is different for every single person.

both of these responses would have had the church up in arms.

Descartes answered it by saying that one idea was right and making the wrong idea more perfect, but in that statement he defeats his own idea of perfection.

And yes, I can criticise Descartes for having faulty logic, no matter how much he has contributed to society.

Not quite: although there may be somewhat different ideas of what constitutes the perfect, Descartes argument is that in comparison to other ideas of imperfect things (which do exist) he sees that the most perfect thing must also possess existence if such imperfect things as stones or trees are able to possess existence, otherwise it would not be the most perfect thing. Thus, for Descartes, because he has defined the idea of God as the idea of the most perfect thing (or the thing greater than which none can be imagined) he believes its existence is entailed.

Quick summary: imperfect things can either exist or not exist, their existence is not entailed, and thus if imperfect things are able to exist, then the most perfect thing must not only share their attribute of existence, but exceed it - thus God not only exists here and now (for Descartes) but always has and always will.

Custodes Rana

09-03-2005, 05:39

actually it does:

1. I have an idea of a flying pink elephant
2. This idea must have a cause
3. There cannot be less reality in the cause than in the effect
4. If the cause of my idea of the flying pink elephant were anything but a flying pink elephant, there would be less reality in that cause than in the effect.
5. Therefore, the flying pink elephant exists .

Descarte's idea of god stemmed from his beleif that he could think about something more perfect than himself, therefore that thing existed, ergo god was there. Besides the problem of the pink elephant relation to his philosophy (if I think it, it has to exist), there is also the problem of perfection. In his mind, perfection was an absolute value, the same for everyone. We know that isn't true though, every one has a different idea of perfect. Want proof? Ask 10 people what the ideal opposite (or same) sex is and you get 10 different answers. Because of this perfection wasn't absolute which brings at two different points.

1. god doesn't exist because the idea of perfection is not perfect
2. god exists but is different for every single person.

both of these responses would have had the church up in arms.

Descartes answered it by saying that one idea was right and making the wrong idea more perfect, but in that statement he defeats his own idea of perfection.

And yes, I can criticise Descartes for having faulty logic, no matter how much he has contributed to society.

Maybe this is Descartes way of telling us god is a flying pink elephant!! :D

Manawskistan

09-03-2005, 05:46

Descartes was a mathematician (mathemagician haha), they enjoy proving something that is completely off the wall.

Pi = 3? Sure, why not?

That's one of the reasons I don't do well in higher math. I try to take real-world logic and apply it to mathematical logic. Usually a bad idea.

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 05:55

Not quite: although there may be somewhat different ideas of what constitutes the perfect, Descartes argument is that in comparison to other ideas of imperfect things (which do exist) he sees that the most perfect thing must also possess existence if such imperfect things as stones or trees are able to possess existence, otherwise it would not be the most perfect thing. Thus, for Descartes, because he has defined the idea of God as the idea of the most perfect thing (or the thing greater than which none can be imagined) he believes its existence is entailed.

Quick summary: imperfect things can either exist or not exist, their existence is not entailed, and thus if imperfect things are able to exist, then the most perfect thing must not only share their attribute of existence, but exceed it - thus God not only exists here and now (for Descartes) but always has and always will.

But it falls down with a resounding crash when you realise that existence is not an attribute that can be predicated of something. Existence is prior to predication, and in this case seriously begs the question.

The cogito has been misrepresented on this thread, however. As I remember it it should go something like this:
I can doubt anything that I experience
I can even doubt my own existence
I can not doubt however, that in doubting there is something that doubts.
The act of doubting thereby demands the existence of an agent, a doubter.
Now it is I that doubts so I am the agent.
Cogito ergo sum.

Helennia

09-03-2005, 06:26

I like Descartes. He gave us the Cartesian plane.

Pi = 3? Sure, why not?Uh. It doesn't. :confused: That's one of the reasons I don't do well in higher math. I try to take real-world logic and apply it to mathematical logic. Usually a bad idea.I try to take mathematical logic and apply it to the real world - that doesn't work so well either.

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 15:13

But it falls down with a resounding crash when you realise that existence is not an attribute that can be predicated of something. Existence is prior to predication, and in this case seriously begs the question.

Definitely: but this is a more subtle error than the one which Descartes is claimed to have made by other posters.

The cogito has been misrepresented on this thread, however. As I remember it it should go something like this:
I can doubt anything that I experience
I can even doubt my own existence
I can not doubt however, that in doubting there is something that doubts.

I agree with your recounting up to this point, but here Descartes doesn't go directly to the existence of an agent: instead he realises the one thing that cannot be doubted is doubting itself.

The act of doubting thereby demands the existence of an agent, a doubter.

And this step here is one which is unfounded: there is nothing to show that doubting/thinking must possess an agent, and so instead of pronouncing cogito ergo sum, the best that Descartes can do is to say cogitare est - there is thinking.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 15:18

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 15:20

And this step here is one which is unfounded: there is nothing to show that doubting/thinking must possess an agent, and so instead of pronouncing cogito ergo sum, the best that Descartes can do is to say cogitare est - there is thinking.

I reckon:
1. for doubting to happen, there must be an agent, because doubting is an agent process.

2. It is irrelevant anyway because Descartes isn't simply talking about doubt, he is talking about the experience of doubting. If he is experiencing doubt, there must be a him to to experience the experience of doubt.

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 15:21

I agree with your recounting up to this point, but here Descartes doesn't go directly to the existence of an agent: instead he realises the one thing that cannot be doubted is doubting itself.

And this step here is one which is unfounded: there is nothing to show that doubting/thinking must possess an agent, and so instead of pronouncing cogito ergo sum, the best that Descartes can do is to say cogitare est - there is thinking.

As I said, I was recounting from memory, so one slip is not too bad. I also agree with the criticism of his argument that doubting requires an agent. I was just trying to get the representation of the cogito a little better, not arguing that it works.

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 15:30

you can't prove that existence is not a real predicate.

I like the argument that goes:
- there are many things that don't exist
- so a thing can exist or not
- so existence and non-existence are properties of a thing
- so existence is a real predicate

also, Descartes didn't just say "there is thinking, so I exist". He said that he was experiencing his thought, therefore there must be an experiencer. This is pretty solid in my opinion.

To predicate a quality to something it is necessary that that something exist. Existence is prior to predication.
The flaw in your argument is in steps one two and three. What is this thing that existence is a property of? A thing can not be non existant. One can have a concept of a thing that does not exist, but this does not at any time or in any way imply that there are things that dont exist. If they are, they exist, if they do not exist they are not. A thing that is not can not have properties predicated of it.

The cogito, says, literally "I think therefor I am". It does not say "I experience thought therefor I am". This would be a stronger argument, but it is not the one that Descartes used.

Lunatic Goofballs

09-03-2005, 15:34

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 15:37

I reckon:
1. for doubting to happen, there must be an agent, because doubting is an agent process.

In our previous esperience, yes it is, but this isn't available to us if we try and work from first principles as Descartes attempted.

2. It is irrelevant anyway because Descartes isn't simply talking about doubt, he is talking about the experience of doubting. If he is experiencing doubt, there must be a him to to experience the experience of doubt.

The experience of doubting is just another kind of thinking, and so one can still formulate it as cogitare est. It is a possibility left unexplored by Descartes that all there is is thinking, his assumption that there must be a thing which thinks is unfounded.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 15:39

To predicate a quality to something it is necessary that that something exist. Existence is prior to predication.
The flaw in your argument is in steps one two and three. What is this thing that existence is a property of? A thing can not be non existant. One can have a concept of a thing that does not exist, but this does not at any time or in any way imply that there are things that dont exist. If they are, they exist, if they do not exist they are not. A thing that is not can not have properties predicated of it.

Unicorns don't exist. They have non-existent horns on their otherwise horselike non-existent heads. So I have predicated two properties for non-existent unicorns. If I predicated also the property of existence I would have predicated a third property.

I suppose that in formal logic, it is possible to say

There is no horse such that the horse has a horn on its head

and that so saying, we are not predicating the property of having a horn to a non-existent horse, rather we are saying that such a horse does not exist. However, the ability to express one point of view in formal logic does not detract from the validity of another.

The cogito, says, literally "I think therefor I am". It does not say "I experience thought therefor I am". This would be a stronger argument, but it is not the one that Descartes used.

The cogito says literally "cogito ergo sum" and in fact either translation proves descartes' point. If *I* think, there must be an *I*. otherwise we have to just say "think", or as BWO has it, "cogitare est".

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 15:45

In our previous esperience, yes it is, but this isn't available to us if we try and work from first principles as Descartes attempted. granted

The experience of doubting is just another kind of thinking, and so one can still formulate it as cogitare est. It is a possibility left unexplored by Descartes that all there is is thinking, his assumption that there must be a thing which thinks is unfounded.

All he claims is existence, not the nature of the thing which exists. If all there is is thinking, Descartes is the thinking. He still exists. If there were just thinking and no Descartes, there would be no "cogitare est" and if there is "cogitare est" then you have to say "cogitare est ergo cogitare sum".

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 16:01

All he claims is existence, not the nature of the thing which exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but no - he claims that he is a 'thinking thing'.

If all there is is thinking, Descartes is the thinking. He still exists.

Yes, it would have been possible for Descartes to identify himself with the thought, but identifying himself with the agent which thinks is a separate thing, as he has nowhere examined whether thinking requires an agent.

James Ellis

09-03-2005, 16:05

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 16:08

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but no - he claims that he is a 'thinking thing'. I think you're probably right. it's been a long time.

Yes, it would have been possible for Descartes to identify himself with the thought, but identifying himself with the agent which thinks is a separate thing, as he has nowhere examined whether thinking requires an agent.
This is linguistic hair-splitting. In essence it is the same thing. He is still saying *that which is identifiably me is the experience of thought which something is definitely having*. If the thought is experiencing itself, he is the thought. But if the thought is experiencing itself, and the linguistic token we attach to the experience of a thought is *thinking*, then the thought is thinking itself, and Descartes is still *a thinking thing* even if he is merely the thought thinking itself.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 16:16

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 16:17

This is linguistic hair-splitting. In essence it is the same thing. He is still saying *that which is identifiably me is the experience of thought which something is definitely having*. If the thought is experiencing itself, he is the thought. But if the thought is experiencing itself, and the linguistic token we attach to the experience of a thought is *thinking*, then the thought is thinking itself, and Descartes is still *a thinking thing* even if he is merely the thought thinking itself.

Calling this linguistic hair-splitting is to ignore the difference between the phrases 'I am an agent who is thinking' and 'I am the activity of thinking'.

Maybe I'm not following you here: where is Descartes getting the evidence (or indeed the 'clear and distinct impression') that there must be something which undertakes the act of thinking?

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 16:19

Thirdly, he's not an idiot. Fair enough, his proof isn't great, but his sceptical argument in meditation 1 is genius.

In the end though, with his cogito what he is doing is very much a re-run of Augustine's use of his doubt to prove that he exists.

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 16:20

Unicorns don't exist. They have non-existent horns on their otherwise horselike non-existent heads. So I have predicated two properties for non-existent unicorns. If I predicated also the property of existence I would have predicated a third property.

I suppose that in formal logic, it is possible to say

There is no horse such that the horse has a horn on its head

and that so saying, we are not predicating the property of having a horn to a non-existent horse, rather we are saying that such a horse does not exist. However, the ability to express one point of view in formal logic does not detract from the validity of another.

How about if we have a look at Kant's example: imagine you have 100 thalers (or dollars)... okay? Now, imagine that you have 100 thalers (or dollars) which actually exist - is there any real difference between these two imaginings?

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 16:23

Calling this linguistic hair-splitting is to ignore the difference between the phrases 'I am an agent who is thinking' and 'I am the activity of thinking'. Descartes is seeking to reduce experience to its most basic, and at that level, the agent and the activity are equally reduced to the experience, since all he's talking about is the experience of the activity, which is the same whether you say *the experience of the activity* or *the experience of being the agent of the activity*.

Maybe I'm not following you here: where is Descartes getting the evidence (or indeed the 'clear and distinct impression') that there must be something which undertakes the act of thinking?He is experiencing the thought. There must be something experiencing the thought, because he is experiencing the thought.

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 16:23

Firstly, in second order logic, existence is a predicate.... indeed, it is a predicate of predicates. Only by denying the existence of second order logic can you maintain that existence is not a predicate.

Secondly, Descartes' proof works if you take some Neoplatonist view of the world (which he did) whereby God must exist or nothing else would, since everything is contingent upon the existence of a necessary being.

Thirdly, he's not an idiot. Fair enough, his proof isn't great, but his sceptical argument in meditation 1 is genius.

Thirdly first. No one in the intelligent part of this thread has said that he was an idiot.

Secondly second, if you assume Gods necessary existence in your world system the proof is unnecessary, and question begging.

Firstly last. At the time of the proof presented by Descartes the only logic available was sylogistic.
In second order logic existence is a quantifier, it is called the existential quantifier, not a predicate.
There exists an x such that x is a y.
The y is a predicate, the exists is a quantifier.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 16:25

How about if we have a look at Kant's example: imagine you have 100 thalers (or dollars)... okay? Now, imagine that you have 100 thalers (or dollars) which actually exist - is there any real difference between these two imaginings?
definitely. ergo existence is a real predicate.

I think that 100 thalers in my head and 100 thalers in my pocket are equally round and shiny and silvery, but the ones in my pocket exist. I believe AB is saying that the ones in my head have no properties, not even those of shiny clinkiness, because they don't exist.

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 16:27

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 16:29

He is experiencing the thought. There must be something experiencing the thought, because he is experiencing the thought.

Why can't the thought 'experiencing of thought' just exist without an agent?

Willamena

09-03-2005, 16:33

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 16:34

Why can't the thought 'experiencing of thought' just exist without an agent?

because experience demands an experiencer, it is in the nature of experience - that is what experience is. without the agent, it is just thought, not experience of thought. that's where the "clear and distinct impression" bit comes in - he can tell that he's having an experience. therefore he must be having an experience. in the end it becomes a posteriori, because it is descartes' experience of being himself that proves to him that there is a himself to be.

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 16:34

definitely. ergo existence is a real predicate.

I think that 100 thalers in my head and 100 thalers in my pocket are equally round and shiny and silvery, but the ones in my pocket exist. I believe AB is saying that the ones in my head have no properties, not even those of shiny clinkiness, because they don't exist.

Predicated to what? Predicate means a property of something. If the thing does not exist it does not have properties. Existence is prior to predication, there is no other way it can be.

Yes I am saying that those that you imagine have no properties as they do not exist. Your concept of them has properties as your concept exists, but the thalers/dollars do not. the concept has the property of considering the thalers to be round and shiny and silvery, but there is nothing in existence that corresponds to your concept. Your concept has no reference in the world. The object does not exist.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 16:35

You have noticed that the 100 thalers in your pocket don't actually exist - although they are imagined to actually exist they remain imaginary, yes?

yes. they have many attributes predicated to them, but existence is not among those.

James Ellis

09-03-2005, 16:37

Firstly last. At the time of the proof presented by Descartes the only logic available was sylogistic.
In second order logic existence is a quantifier, it is called the existential quantifier, not a predicate.
There exists an x such that x is a y.
The y is a predicate, the exists is a quantifier.

The existential quantifier comes from 1st order logic (e.g. ExHx ( i know the "E" should be the other way round) there exists an x such that x satisfies the predicate H. But in second order logic, existence becomes a predicate of the predicate H. Don't ask me to explain too much because i really don't know.... i only do 1st order stuff. My gut reaction is that we should deny the existence of a second order logic - otherwise, we are surely destined for an infinite regress of orders of logic, leading to predicates of predicates of predicates etc. This just gets ridiculous.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 16:38

Yes I am saying that those that you imagine have no properties as they do not exist. Your concept of them has properties as your concept exists, but the thalers/dollars do not. the concept has the property of considering the thalers to be round and shiny and silvery, but there is nothing in existence that corresponds to your concept. Your concept has no reference in the world. The object does not exist.

I know the object doesn't exist. That is what differentiates it from an object that is almost exactly similar apart from its existence. I see your point entirely, and I think it is a point that helps to make formal logic work. However, I believe that the universe does not necessarily conform to formal logical rules. Existence is still a predicate, because there are things that don't exist - I can even count them, look...

none.

That's how many there are.

James Ellis

09-03-2005, 16:39

Secondly second, if you assume Gods necessary existence in your world system the proof is unnecessary, and question begging.

True, but then this raises the question of why he wanted to put a proof forward in the first place. Probably, i would imagine, to explain his convictions about why the existence of god was so self-evident to him.

James Ellis

09-03-2005, 16:41

James Ellis

09-03-2005, 16:45

But it falls down with a resounding crash when you realise that existence is not an attribute that can be predicated of something. Existence is prior to predication, and in this case seriously begs the question.

The cogito has been misrepresented on this thread, however. As I remember it it should go something like this:
I can doubt anything that I experience
I can even doubt my own existence
I can not doubt however, that in doubting there is something that doubts.
The act of doubting thereby demands the existence of an agent, a doubter.
Now it is I that doubts so I am the agent.
Cogito ergo sum.

He can't doubt his ability to reason either, for it is reason that leads him to doubt. If it is logically possible for him to doubt reason, then his whole method falls apart.

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 16:46

I know the object doesn't exist. That is what differentiates it from an object that is almost exactly similar apart from its existence. I see your point entirely, and I think it is a point that helps to make formal logic work. However, I believe that the universe does not necessarily conform to formal logical rules. Existence is still a predicate, because there are things that don't exist - I can even count them, look...

none.

That's how many there are.

Get your head round the fact that there are no things that don't exist. There are ideas and concepts, but the idea exists or the concept exists. To be a thing, the thing has to exist. A unicorn does not exist. The idea of a unicorn exists. Existence is not, ever, at any time, in any way, a predicate. It is a quantifier. It exists, there is at least one of it. It does not exist, there are, as you say, none. Now quantifiers are not predicates, nor are they attributes.
Perfection is about having all possible attributes, that there is no attribute that I could add to the thing to make it better. Now I can have an idea of a perfect god (well I can not actually, according to Descartes as I am not perfect) which includes the idea of his existence. But this idea does not cause the existence of a God, nor does it require it.
That god is perfect, presupposes the existence of God. It is thus no proof of his existence whatsoever.

Willamena

09-03-2005, 16:47

Nah, he definately wasn't daft. He was a great thinker, although he did get caught up by the existance of God. You have his proof wrong however.

1. I have an idea of God.
2. This idea must have a cause.
3. There cannot be less reality in the cause than in the effect.
4. If the cause of my idea of God were anything but God, there would be less reality in the cause than in the effect.
5. Therefore, God exists.

It's really quite a good proof of God, as far as those kinds of proofs go. It doesn't work for your pink elephant.

By the way, if you really want to think Descartes was an idiot, look into his Evil Demon Theory!
This makes no sense, either. Man is the cause of ideas, and because an idea is experienced and not perceived, the cause is indistinguishable from its effect. An elephant as the "cause of idea" seems to imply that the thing that exists sends a thought of itself into one's brain: a backwards way of looking at the perception of an elephant.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 16:48

Gramatically existence is a predicate, but logically it is not. Existence is not a property or predicate, which something can either have or lack. To assert that I exist is not to attribute myself the quality of existence, but to say that there is an x in the world, such that the statement “I am x” is true. Statements such as “I exist” have nothing to say beyond what is implied in the fact that they have a reference.

In formal logic existence is not a predicate but a quantifier. Ex means there is at least 1 x. This is understood.

However, I don't think formal logic expresses the totality of logic let alone the totality of experience.

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 16:49

The existential quantifier comes from 1st order logic (e.g. ExHx ( i know the "E" should be the other way round) there exists an x such that x satisfies the predicate H. But in second order logic, existence becomes a predicate of the predicate H. Don't ask me to explain too much because i really don't know.... i only do 1st order stuff. My gut reaction is that we should deny the existence of a second order logic - otherwise, we are surely destined for an infinite regress of orders of logic, leading to predicates of predicates of predicates etc. This just gets ridiculous.

True, my mistake. (I attributed 1st order as being propositional calculus, and 2nd as being predicate logic) 2nd order logic is metalogic. It is logic about logic and only about logic. In this case you can take the existential operator as a predicate. What you can not do is apply this logic to the world. It only aplies to logic. As far as the world is concerned existence is a quantifier.

Psylos

09-03-2005, 16:50

Descarte didn't proove anything. Philosophy is not a proof of anything. Plato said "The only thing that I know is that I know nothing".
Philosophy is about reasoning. You invent a universe with hypotheses and axioms and you reason from there. In the end you have a synthese. The reasoning is true but the synthese is only true if the hyphotheses and the axioms are true. You have no proof of anything.
You can proove all elefants are flying and pink in a world where they are.

James Ellis

09-03-2005, 16:51

That god is perfect, presupposes the existence of God. It is thus no proof of his existence whatsoever.

That contradicts what you said before though. God being perfect only presupposes the existence of God if existence is a perfection, which Descartes assumes, but both me and you think otherwise. God may be perfect, for we can agree perhaps that by definition he is perfect. But as existence is not a defining property or predicate, it cannot be one of the necessary characteristics of a perfect being. Hence, even a perfect being need not exist.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 16:52

Get your head round the fact that there are no things that don't exist. There are ideas and concepts, but the idea exists or the concept exists. To be a thing, the thing has to exist. A unicorn does not exist. The idea of a unicorn exists. Existence is not, ever, at any time, in any way, a predicate. It is a quantifier. It exists, there is at least one of it. It does not exist, there are, as you say, none. Now quantifiers are not predicates, nor are they attributes.

I understand this pov to the very core of my being, and in formal logic it is an extremely useful idea. But it is only one way of looking at things.

Perfection is about having all possible attributes, that there is no attribute that I could add to the thing to make it better. Now I can have an idea of a perfect god (well I can not actually, according to Descartes as I am not perfect) which includes the idea of his existence. But this idea does not cause the existence of a God, nor does it require it.
That god is perfect, presupposes the existence of God. It is thus no proof of his existence whatsoever.
I think the Ontological argument is really funny, it made me laugh when I first understood it. I don't think that the validity or otherwise of the ontological argument has any reflection on whether or not existence is a real predicate.

James Ellis

09-03-2005, 16:53

Descarte didn't proove anything. Philosophy is not a proff of anything. Plato said "The only thing that I know is that I know nothing".
Philosophy is about reasoning. You invent a world with hypotheses and axioms and you reason from there. In the end you have a synthese. The reasoning is true but the synthese is only true if the hyphotheses and the axioms are true. You have no proof of anything.
You can proove all elefants are flying and pink in a world where they are.

He proved what is logically possible to doubt and what is logically impossible to doubt.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 16:54

Willamena

09-03-2005, 16:55

Definitely: but this is a more subtle error than the one which Descartes is claimed to have made by other posters.

I agree with your recounting up to this point, but here Descartes doesn't go directly to the existence of an agent: instead he realises the one thing that cannot be doubted is doubting itself.

And this step here is one which is unfounded: there is nothing to show that doubting/thinking must possess an agent, and so instead of pronouncing cogito ergo sum, the best that Descartes can do is to say cogitare est - there is thinking.
How can thinking, by definition, not require an agent?

James Ellis

09-03-2005, 16:56

I think the world disagrees with you. And anyway, the world isn't necessarily all there is. Nor is it necessarily one thing with constant concerns.

The grammatical world does, how people speak do, but the logical world does not. Which should we trust? I say logic, for it is clear that words are misinterpreted and take on different meanings in different situations.

Custodes Rana

09-03-2005, 16:58

If I've understood this correctly.

Descartes theory......

Since he(Descartes) can imagine/think of something therefore it exists?
1. I have an idea of God.

Idea meaning imagine or thinking. True?

2. This idea must have a cause.(Thus linking his idea = God)

God's cause being?? Undefined.

3. There cannot be less reality in the cause than in the effect.
Cause = ??? ,

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 16:59

That contradicts what you said before though. God being perfect only presupposes the existence of God if existence is a perfection, which Descartes assumes, but both me and you think otherwise. God may be perfect, for we can agree perhaps that by definition he is perfect. But as existence is not a defining property or predicate, it cannot be one of the necessary characteristics of a perfect being. Hence, even a perfect being need not exist.

What I said is:
That god is perfect, presupposes the existence of God. It is thus no proof of his existence whatsoever.

The critical term here is in the first phrase and is not the word perfect, it is the verb to be. When I say "God is . . ." I am presupposing his existence by saying that he is. No contradiction. Just read it in a different light.

James Ellis

09-03-2005, 17:01

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 17:01

The grammatical world does, how people speak do, but the logical world does not. Which should we trust? I say logic, for it is clear that words are misinterpreted and take on different meanings in different situations.

Why do you need to trust one thing over another? Formal logic is a tool for doing sums about the world. To say that any aspect of the world which is not easily computed by a given tool is invalid or untrustworthy is to deny great swathes of existence. Formal logic is good for what it is good for, it isn't the definition of reality.

Custodes Rana

09-03-2005, 17:02

James Ellis

09-03-2005, 17:03

What I said is:
That god is perfect, presupposes the existence of God. It is thus no proof of his existence whatsoever.

The critical term here is in the first phrase and is not the word perfect, it is the verb to be. When I say "God is . . ." I am presupposing his existence by saying that he is. No contradiction. Just read it in a different light.

Ah ok.

I would like to point another fallacy which Descartes falls into, that is, defining God, which i think most would agree is impossible. Not only can we not conceive of God in order to assert his perfection, but also if he was perfect, since we have no experience of perfection, we cannot say anything more about him.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 17:04

When I say "God is . . ." I am presupposing his existence by saying that he is. No contradiction. Just read it in a different light.

Apparently, when you say "God is.." you are presupposing his existence, because you don't think existence is a real predicate. But I do, so I'm not.

Furthermore, I don't actually believe you. Because I bet you say "unicorns are.." or "that guy behind the rock is..." when you're playing D&D, or "Captain Kirk was.." when you're talking about star trek. I bet you don't actually say "Captain Kirk would have, had he existed, which he doesnt...".

James Ellis

09-03-2005, 17:05

1. I exist (Axiom)
2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1)
3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom)
4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)
5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (Axiom)
6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 & 5)

This is off a website....

Makes more sense this way.........at least to me.

his second argument goes something like this:

Existence is a perfection.
Therefore, a perfect being must exist or it would not be perfect - just as it is a contradiction to think of a triangle without 3 sides, so it is a contradiction to think of a perfect being that doesn't exist.
Hence, a perfect being exists.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 17:07

his second argument goes something like this:

Existence is a perfection.
Therefore, a perfect being must exist or it would not be perfect - just as it is a contradiction to think of a triangle without 3 sides, so it is a contradiction to think of a perfect being that doesn't exist.
Hence, a perfect being exists.

which is mighty funny

Custodes Rana

09-03-2005, 17:10

his second argument goes something like this:

Existence is a perfection.
How did Descartes come to that conclusion?

Willamena

09-03-2005, 17:10

Maybe I'm not following you here: where is Descartes getting the evidence (or indeed the 'clear and distinct impression') that there must be something which undertakes the act of thinking?
Experience is evidence.

Psylos

09-03-2005, 17:12

Ah ok.

I would like to point another fallacy which Descartes falls into, that is, defining God, which i think most would agree is impossible. Not only can we not conceive of God in order to assert his perfection, but also if he was perfect, since we have no experience of perfection, we cannot say anything more about him.
Well at least Descartes didn't agree.
Descartes thought everything can be defined by dividing the world again and again is smaller ans smaller concepts.

Psylos

09-03-2005, 17:14

How did Descartes come to that conclusion?
It is not a conclusion, it is an axiom.

James Ellis

09-03-2005, 17:17

How did Descartes come to that conclusion?

For him, something is better if it exists than if it doesn't.

Willamena

09-03-2005, 17:17

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 17:24

As far as the world is concerned existence is a quantifier.
I think the world disagrees with you. And anyway, the world isn't necessarily all there is. Nor is it necessarily one thing with constant concerns.

Please place my statement in context. Just befor this I had said that as far as second order logic, which is logic about logic, is concerned the existential quantifier is a predicate.
The world does not have an opinion about how first order logic views it, so your comment is completely out of context.

Whether the world is all there is depends upon how you view the world and existence. (No Willamena, don't panic! I am just going to reference the thread not restart it.) See this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=398784) for an extended discussion on this.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 17:36

:) Zero is not a number.
says who?

Trilateral Commission

09-03-2005, 17:37

:) Zero is not a number.
Yes it is.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 17:38

Please place my statement in context. Just befor this I had said that as far as second order logic, which is logic about logic, is concerned the existential quantifier is a predicate.
The world does not have an opinion about how first order logic views it, so your comment is completely out of context.

no, your statement was out of context, and now you have supplied the context, and the context seems to contradict the statement, ie when you said "the world" you didn't really mean the "the world".

Gawdly

09-03-2005, 17:39

From another wise philosopher...

Rene Descartes was a drunken fart.
Monty Python

Willamena

09-03-2005, 17:48

Willamena

09-03-2005, 17:56

says who?
A number has value. You can count your fingers, 10 of them (usually). If you have no fingers, there is nothing to count.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 18:20

A number has value. You can count your fingers, 10 of them (usually). If you have no fingers, there is nothing to count.

so you can count em...

none.

like i can count the cows on my desk.

there are none.

cows counted.

do this sum and then tell me zero isn't a number:

10 * 0 =

Steffengrad

09-03-2005, 18:27

No no, I'm serious. The man was an idiot. Oh, well, besides all of the math he did. Descartes, in order to publish his heliocentric expansion and his math work added in his own philosophy which was the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

He stated: I doubt I exist but I think about my doubt, therefore I have a mind, therefore I exist. He went on to say that because he can imagine that something more perfect than him exists, he can doubt it, but he thinks about it which proves that god exists.

What the hell! I doubt a flying pink elephant exists therefore I think about it, therefore it exists.

Was this man daft?

You clearly and distinctly <(see Descartes) have no clue to the actual argument Descartes put forth. Now Descartes is highly subject to many criticism, but you are in no position to make any informed comment on his ideas. This is demonstrated by your comment "I doubt a flying pink elephant exists therefore I think about it, therefore it exists." If you read Descartes you would know that the idea of a flying pink elephant came from abstraction of experience. You have experience of pink, elephant and flying and from that your mind combined them to get the idea of a flying pink elephant. The idea of God, in his argument, could not have come from experience as we have never experienced god, but it must of come from somewhere, so Descartes concludes that the idea came from God himself. I'm aware of the criticism against his points, and I am convinced that his proofs don’t not work, but my point is that you are in no position to say anything.

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 18:28

because experience demands an experiencer, it is in the nature of experience - that is what experience is. without the agent, it is just thought, not experience of thought. that's where the "clear and distinct impression" bit comes in - he can tell that he's having an experience. therefore he must be having an experience. in the end it becomes a posteriori, because it is descartes' experience of being himself that proves to him that there is a himself to be.

No, if we follow Descartes methodology of systematic doubt, we see nothing in 'experience' that requires it to have an agent: certainly in the past all our experiences did have an agent (ie. us), but this does not show that all experiences must have an agent - similarly for doubting, self-reflexive thought and thinking in general.

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 18:30

A number has value. You can count your fingers, 10 of them (usually). If you have no fingers, there is nothing to count.

You're confusing real numbers with natural numbers - zero is a real number, but not a natural number.

Willamena

09-03-2005, 18:32

so you can count em...

none.

like i can count the cows on my desk.

there are none.

cows counted.

do this sum and then tell me zero isn't a number:

10 * 0 =
More realistically, "no cows counted."

Multiplication does not produce sums.

Nadkor

09-03-2005, 18:33

A number has value. You can count your fingers, 10 of them (usually). If you have no fingers, there is nothing to count.
its impossible to have -3 fingers, but its still a number

its impossible to have 4.172 fingers, but its still a number

or an integer...meh, eithers good

Willamena

09-03-2005, 18:34

You're confusing real numbers with natural numbers - zero is a real number, but not a natural number.
In the context it is being used (to count with) it must be regarded as a "natural" number, then.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 18:36

No, if we follow Descartes methodology of systematic doubt, we see nothing in 'experience' that requires it to have an agent: certainly in the past all our experiences did have an agent (ie. us), but this does not show that all experiences must have an agent - similarly for doubting, self-reflexive thought and thinking in general.

we don't need to say that thinking needs a thinker, because we aren't talking about thinking etc. We aren't even saying that experience needs an experiencer. We are saying that *this* experience has *me* as its experiencer because i am experiencing it.

It *may* be the case that the fact that something is being experienced does not necessarily in all cases necessitate the existence of an experiencer. I would argue that this i not the case, but this is beside the point.

What is germane to the point is that in *this* case, the fact that *i am experiencing* proves that *i am*. Descartes is not arguing from the nature of thoughts or experiences, but from the a posteriori realisation that he *is experiencing*.

Jimbob the Jingoistic

09-03-2005, 18:37

Is infinity a number? In maths, in order to prove some things, you let some variables tend to infinity as if infinity is something that can be reached.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 18:37

its impossible to have -3 fingers, but its still a number

its impossible to have 4.172 fingers, but its still a number

it is certainly possible to have 4.172 fingers.

Maybe I've got ten fingers on my hands, but I owe 13 to the finger bank, and therefore I have -3.

Willamena

09-03-2005, 18:37

because experience demands an experiencer, it is in the nature of experience - that is what experience is. without the agent, it is just thought, not experience of thought.
I dare say, without the agent it is nothing.

Willamena

09-03-2005, 18:38

its impossible to have -3 fingers, but its still a number

its impossible to have 4.172 fingers, but its still a number

or an integer...meh, eithers good
Right. Zero is a digit that represents no number.

Nadkor

09-03-2005, 18:38

it is certainly possible to have 4.172 fingers.

Maybe I've got ten fingers on my hands, but I owe 13 to the finger bank, and therefore I have -3.
damn that finger bank, wouldnt give me a mortgage for a new pair of gloves :(

Jimbob the Jingoistic

09-03-2005, 18:38

it is certainly possible to have 4.172 fingers.

Maybe I've got ten fingers on my hands, but I owe 13 to the finger bank, and therefore I have -3.

What's the point behind all this?

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 18:40

What's the point behind all this?

zero is a number

existence is a real predicate, not simply a quantifier.

saying "there are no unicorns, and they have horns on their heads" is meaningful.

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 18:43

We are saying that *this* experience has *me* as its experiencer because i am experiencing it.

But, you don't know this: if you allow that it is possible for thought to exist without an agent, then it is equally possible for the thought 'I am experiencing this experience' to exist without the existence of the 'I' as an agent.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 18:48

But, you don't know this: if you allow that it is possible for thought to exist without an agent, then it is equally possible for the thought 'I am experiencing this experience' to exist without the existence of the 'I' as an agent.

no it isn't. you just said it: 'I am experiencing this experience' contains 'I'. Otherwise you just get 'experiencing this experience' which is nonsensical. You can reduce it further to "there is experience", but Descarte's point isn't simply "there is experience", which can be doubted, but that "i am experiencing doubt", which cannot be doubted. Even if I can doubt that doubt requires a doubter, I cannot doubt that i am doubting stuff. It isn't the doubt that is the key thing, it's the I.

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 18:50

zero is a number

existence is a real predicate, not simply a quantifier.

saying "there are no unicorns, and they have horns on their heads" is meaningful.

Numbers are artificial constructs, concepts if you will, anyway. Zero being or not being a number is irrelevant to the existance being a quantifier or predicate debate. (A quantifier has nothing to do with being a number. Quantifiers are All, None, There Exists == Some, There does not exist)

You still have not explained how you can predicate something to a nothing. If you predicate existance to a concept, this does absolutely nothing as the concept already exists. If you predicate it to an external object, then again it does absolutely nothing as the object already exists.
Existance can not be a predicate.

Willamena

09-03-2005, 18:52

zero is a number

existence is a real predicate, not simply a quantifier.

saying "there are no unicorns, and they have horns on their heads" is meaningful.
Zero represents no number, no existence. What you said is not meaningful, it is "nonsense".

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 18:53

no it isn't. you just said it: 'I am experiencing this experience' contains 'I'. Otherwise you just get 'experiencing this experience' which is nonsensical. You can reduce it further to "there is experience", but Descarte's point isn't simply "there is experience", which can be doubted, but that "i am experiencing doubt", which cannot be doubted. Even if I can doubt that doubt requires a doubter, I cannot doubt that i am doubting stuff. It isn't the doubt that is the key thing, it's the I.

You are basing your position on self awareness being evidence of your existence. Now tell me that you are not a simulation of yourself that is programmed to believe these things. Where does the I go in this circumstance. Who is ti that is experiencing the experience, the I or the simulation of the I?

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 18:53

Numbers are artificial constructs, concepts if you will, anyway. Zero being or not being a number is irrelevant to the existance being a quantifier or predicate debate. (A quantifier has nothing to do with being a number. Quantifiers are All, None, There Exists == Some, There does not exist)

You still have not explained how you can predicate something to a nothing. If you predicate existance to a concept, this does absolutely nothing as the concept already exists. If you predicate it to an external object, then again it does absolutely nothing as the object already exists.
Existance can not be a predicate.

as you can easily read in my post which you just quoted, I was answering the question "why are we arguing about numbers" not the question "please provide cogent argument for accepting that existence is a real predicate".

Zero and none are very closely related.

I think that existence is a real predicate because I think that some things don't exist. You think it isn't because you think that things that don't exist aren't things. You don't need to keep saying it over and over.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 18:55

Zero represents no number, no existence. What you said is not meaningful, it is "nonsense".

It is certainly meaningful to the majority of people. You are pretending that you don't know what it means because it doesn't accord with formal logic. I think you should accept that some things which are meaningful cannot be expressed in terms of formal logic.

Independent Homesteads

09-03-2005, 18:57

Now tell me that you are not a simulation of yourself that is programmed to believe these things

I don't need to. If I am self aware, I exist. If I am a simulation of myself programmed to believe stuff, I still exist. Awareness proves existence. Cogito ergo sum. If I am merely a thought in the mind of an evil pixie, I still *am*.

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 19:03

It is certainly meaningful to the majority of people. You are pretending that you don't know what it means because it doesn't accord with formal logic. I think you should accept that some things which are meaningful cannot be expressed in terms of formal logic.

I can accept that, Things like I have a love/hate relationship with my mother are not expressible by logic.

However
What is being discussed here is a supposedly logical proof of the existence of God. Now if you want to deny that logic is relevant to this proof, then shut the book and forget it. Descartes claimed he had proved the existence of God. This means logically, not just a fancy way of expressing a belief.

Your options here are
1. Accept that we are in the realm of logic in this discussion, and that under those conditions no unicorns exist and unicorns have horns on their heads is meaningless

or

2. Deny that we are in the realm of logic and try to explain what Descartes meant by proof if it was not logical.

or

3. Some other strategy that I can not imagine at the moment.

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 19:06

I don't need to. If I am self aware, I exist. If I am a simulation of myself programmed to believe stuff, I still exist. Awareness proves existence. Cogito ergo sum. If I am merely a thought in the mind of an evil pixie, I still *am*.

Ergo existence is not a predicate. Either there is a you to which can be predicated existence therby making you you, or any you that just *is* exists prior to any properties of that you being ascribed. You just chose latter of these options.

Westmorlandia

09-03-2005, 19:06

I don't need to. If I am self aware, I exist. If I am a simulation of myself programmed to believe stuff, I still exist. Awareness proves existence. Cogito ergo sum. If I am merely a thought in the mind of an evil pixie, I still *am*.

Indeed. Descarte's proof of our existence (or more accurately his existence, or maybe just my existence) does not prove that we exist in the forms that we perceive ourselves, nor claim to.

Incidentally, I have never, ever heard it expressed as 'je pense donc je suis,' only as 'cogito ergo sum.' I also prefer the phrase to be translated as 'I am thinking therefore I exist,' rather than 'I think therefore I am.' Much improved in my eyes.

Jimbob the Jingoistic

09-03-2005, 19:16

I don't think we're going to get anywhere here.... this whole conversation just seems to be going in circles.

Westmorlandia

09-03-2005, 19:20

Ergo existence is not a predicate. Either there is a you to which can be predicated existence therby making you you, or any you that just *is* exists prior to any properties of that you being ascribed. You just chose latter of these options.

It depends on the type of existence. Unicorns 'exist' in a certain way because we have an idea of them, which is meaningful. Desacrte's 'sum' was not the same sort of existence, it was a 'genuine' existence of some kind other than a mere concept of himself. Abstract concepts, it is assumed by him, not unreasonably, cannot doubt. This genuine existence can be said to be a predicate of an abstract concept of Descartes.

Willamena

09-03-2005, 19:28

You are basing your position on self awareness being evidence of your existence. Now tell me that you are not a simulation of yourself that is programmed to believe these things. Where does the I go in this circumstance. Who is ti that is experiencing the experience, the I or the simulation of the I?
This doesn't work: even if he is a simulation, if that simulation has awareness then it has its own sense of self. It has an "I". The simulation experiences what it experiences. All you've done with this scenario is create a new subjective viewpoint.

Willamena

09-03-2005, 19:31

Alien Born

09-03-2005, 19:35

It depends on the type of existence. Unicorns 'exist' in a certain way because we have an idea of them, which is meaningful. Desacrte's 'sum' was not the same sort of existence, it was a 'genuine' existence of some kind other than a mere concept of himself. Abstract concepts, it is assumed by him, not unreasonably, cannot doubt. This genuine existence can be said to be a predicate of an abstract concept of Descartes.

The self is a thoroughly abstract concept, as is the mind. Now doubting is done by one or other of these abstract things. (Take your choice it does not matter for this). Descarte's "sum" is dependent upon this type of existence as it depends explicitly upon the "cogito". Genuine existence is meaningless. Existence is not a property to be genuine or false, to be real or to be fake. Existence is simply, I have said it about fifty times so far, a quantifier. It is not a property, nor an attribute, nor predicate. It differentiates between there being and there not being something. Nothing more and nothing less. It has no types, for to have types it has to exist, existence is not a thing that exists.

Willamena

09-03-2005, 19:36

Indeed. Descarte's proof of our existence (or more accurately his existence, or maybe just my existence) does not prove that we exist in the forms that we perceive ourselves, nor claim to.
But perception and experience are two different things. It is the experience of conscious awareness that cannot be denied by the one experiencing.

Westmorlandia

09-03-2005, 19:52

But perception and experience are two different things. It is the experience of conscious awareness that cannot be denied by the one experiencing.

We can only experience what we perceive, or what we have derived from perception. If we perceive something then we necessarily experience it. The two ideas are distinct, but completely intertwined.

Westmorlandia

09-03-2005, 19:55

The self is a thoroughly abstract concept, as is the mind. Now doubting is done by one or other of these abstract things. (Take your choice it does not matter for this).

I have a great deal of trouble in accepting this. I see no reason to believe that something that is abstract can doubt anything. It is only a concept, and exists without change. It cannot 'do' anything, because it would then change. The idea of it must remain the same.

Free Soviets

09-03-2005, 20:08

Bodies Without Organs

09-03-2005, 20:18

Your options here are
1. Accept that we are in the realm of logic in this discussion, and that under those conditions no unicorns exist and unicorns have horns on their heads is meaningless

I smell a logical positivist trap lying in wait here.

Free Soviets

09-03-2005, 20:35

God being perfect only presupposes the existence of God if existence is a perfection, which Descartes assumes, but both me and you think otherwise. God may be perfect, for we can agree perhaps that by definition he is perfect. But as existence is not a defining property or predicate, it cannot be one of the necessary characteristics of a perfect being. Hence, even a perfect being need not exist.

this actually falls out of a bit of logical slieght-of-hand on descartes' part (and anyone using the ontological argument). the first premise, "god is perfect", or "god is a being with all perfections" isn't properly formed. by stating "god has set of properties x" and then going on to say that "y is a part of set x", we aren't even discussing the actual existence of god anymore, we are arguing about the definition of him - and we can define anything any way we want. if the first premise was properly formed, it would be a conditional - "if god exists, then god is a being with all perfections." now descartes can feel free to add in existence as a perfection, and all he winds up with is "if god exists then god exists."

Willamena

09-03-2005, 20:39

Originally Posted by Westmorlandia
Indeed. Descarte's proof of our existence (or more accurately his existence, or maybe just my existence) does not prove that we exist in the forms that we perceive ourselves, nor claim to.
But perception and experience are two different things. It is the experience of conscious awareness that cannot be denied by the one experiencing.
We can only experience what we perceive, or what we have derived from perception. If we perceive something then we necessarily experience it. The two ideas are distinct, but completely intertwined.
The difference between them is one of perspective: the objective vs. the subjective. Things perceived vs. things experienced. We perceive exterior objects as objective to ourselves; we perceive a pattern in a string of thoughts as something objectively "real"; we perceive pain from our arms, our legs, our toes. Etc. And form is perceived (a body, objects) objectively. These things are automatically abstracted to be viewed as apart from self, apart from consciousness, which is what does the perceiving.

Experience sees the same things but from the subjective perspective of the consciousness, and can include more than can be perceived. We don't perceive a memory, for instance, we experience it. Instant replay. We don't perceive ideas (the things being thought about) unless we objectify them, abstract them as apart from our "self", our consciousness.

To get metaphorical, experience is "I" who cannot escape what is being experienced. Without the "I" there is no experience (and no perception of it).

I don't know what constitutes philosphical proof of existence, but this would seem to be rational.

I probably wouldn't do well in a philosophy class. ;)

BLARGistania

09-03-2005, 23:38

Descarte didn't proove anything. Philosophy is not a proof of anything. Plato said "The only thing that I know is that I know nothing".

Plato used that argument to prove himself more wise than all those around him. he would enter into a dialouge with someone, usually after they claimed to know something. Then he would precede to shred their knowledge because he knew nothing, so, he asked questions they could not answer. The real meaning behind
'The only thing I know is that I know nothing' is that he knows nothing of the absolute forms of the universe but he knows the ideas and representations of those forms. Plato was actually quite haughty about that.

Philosophy is about reasoning. You invent a universe with hypotheses and axioms and you reason from there. In the end you have a synthese. The reasoning is true but the synthese is only true if the hyphotheses and the axioms are true. You have no proof of anything.
You can proove all elefants are flying and pink in a world where they are.
I agree with the basic idea but the problem we are dicuussing in this thread is that Descartes used a horribly faulty proof for god (an absolute) that could apply to anything on this world.

BLARGistania

10-03-2005, 05:47

[bump]

Bodies Without Organs

10-03-2005, 07:37

Plato said "The only thing that I know is that I know nothing".

Socrates, actually.

Free Soviets

10-03-2005, 09:08

Socrates, actually.

or so plato tells us

Bodies Without Organs

10-03-2005, 10:26

or so plato tells us

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that it also appears in Xenophon: as far as Plato goes there is evidence to suggest that here he is actually quoting Socrates, rather than using him as his own mouthpiece as occurs in the later dialogues.

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 14:32

Willamena

10-03-2005, 14:48

I have a great deal of trouble in accepting this. I see no reason to believe that something that is abstract can doubt anything. It is only a concept, and exists without change. It cannot 'do' anything, because it would then change. The idea of it must remain the same.
The mind is not a physically real thing. If you imagine the brain being the organ that houses consciousness, then the mind is the consciousness' view of brain processes (thought, memory, imagination, conceptualitzation, etc). I see no reason why it cannot be a new thing (more accurately, renewed) with each passing moment of time. This is consistent with the definition of "subjective".

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 14:48

Existence is simply, I have said it about fifty times so far, a quantifier. It is not a property, nor an attribute, nor predicate. It differentiates between there being and there not being something. Nothing more and nothing less. It has no types, for to have types it has to exist, existence is not a thing that exists.

This is NOT a fact. It is a philosophical position. It is only one among many philosophical positions. It is a philosophical position which ignores a great deal of what is inconvenient to it. No matter how many times you say it, saying it does not make it so.

It is the only position which can be expressed in formal logic, however formal logic is a tool for assessing the validity of arguments. It is not an exhaustive means for modelling the universe, nor is it the only tool for assessing the validity of arguments.

Whether or not Descartes intended to create a proof of the existence of God which could be expressed in terms of formal logic (and I don't think he was) is irrelevant. Whether he succeeded in proving the existence of God is irrelevant. What he did succeed in doing was showing that for me, the knowledge of my own existence is absolute. If you have knowledge of your own existence, then for you, your own existence is a fact.

The fact that I exist necessarily does not in any way prove that existence is not a real predicate. It proves that my existence is necessary and the existence of unicorns is contingent. If it is contingent, it modifies the subject of the contingency. A non-existent unicorn and an existent unicorn are not the same ergo existence is a real predicate. This is NOT a fact. It is a philosophical position. It is a philosophical position that cannot be expressed in formal logic, however, formal logic is not intended to accurately model the entirety of human experience in the universe.

I believe that my position more accurately models the universe. And I further believe that every member of the human race ascribes properties to non-existent things. You can ignore this when performing formal logical calculations without harming the results, but if you ignore it while considering philosophically the nature of existence, you are likely to miss things.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 14:49

I smell a logical positivist trap lying in wait here.

Can I feel insulted now?
I was only pointing out that as Descartes was trying to prove Gods existence logicaly in the ontological argument, to say that logic does not apply to the discussion is just wrong.
No implication whatsoever that all that we can know is that that can be shown to be logicaly valid. Reread the first sentence of that post please and then tell me I am setting such a trap.

I am just arguing that he was trying to change the rules of the game half way through to suit himself.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 15:21

This is NOT a fact. It is a philosophical position. It is only one among many philosophical positions. It is a philosophical position which ignores a great deal of what is inconvenient to it. No matter how many times you say it, saying it does not make it so.

It is all to do with the understanding of what is meant by existence. This, yes is an ontological position. For Berkley existence is something very different to what it is for Mach. (I do not agree with either by the way). However what we are dealing with here is Descartes. So please show me how
he does not slide between existence as a predicate at one point in his argument to existence as prior to predication at another. Compare the ontological proof of the existence of God with his considerations on substance when he discusses wax. In one case he explicitly uses existence as a predicate, in the next it is prior to predication. His argument fails on his own terms. If you believe that existence is a predicate, which I allow that you may, you still have not answered the basic question concernig this which I have asked several times. Existence it is predicated to what?
(I know my repeating it does not give it validity, but no one had actually challenged the point until now. Until it had been explicitly denied and a counter position proposed, I simply kept restating the challenge.)

It is the only position which can be expressed in formal logic, however formal logic is a tool for assessing the validity of arguments. It is not an exhaustive means for modelling the universe, nor is it the only tool for assessing the validity of arguments.
What other tool would you propose for assessing the validity of arguments?
Consider please the meaning of valid :
1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title.
4. Logic.
1. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
2. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
5. Archaic. Of sound health; robust.
source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=valid)

The argument is certainly not a legal one, so eliminate 3. 5 does not apply to arguments, so this leaves 1, 2 and 4. 1 and 4 are both to do with logic so perhaps you want 2. Does the argument produce the desired result? Well, for me, no. So to me it is not valid. To you it may be. This however is so subjective that it can not be discussed to any effect. We are left with discussing the well groundedness (technicaly soundness) of the argument or its purely logical validity deriving from its structure.

Whether or not Descartes intended to create a proof of the existence of God which could be expressed in terms of formal logic (and I don't think he was) is irrelevant. Whether he succeeded in proving the existence of God is irrelevant. What he did succeed in doing was showing that for me, the knowledge of my own existence is absolute. If you have knowledge of your own existence, then for you, your own existence is a fact.

My concern with the proof of God is with the proof of God, not with the cogito. They are different arguments and I am not transferring from one to the other. I have no argument against the cogito, and I believe it to be as good a proof of the existence of the self as exists. It does not depend upon the slide between predicate and quantifier of the term existence. Existence only appears as a conclusion.

The fact that I exist necessarily does not in any way prove that existence is not a real predicate. It proves that my existence is necessary and the existence of unicorns is contingent. If it is contingent, it modifies the subject of the contingency. A non-existent unicorn and an existent unicorn are not the same ergo existence is a real predicate. This is NOT a fact. It is a philosophical position. It is a philosophical position that cannot be expressed in formal logic, however, formal logic is not intended to accurately model the entirety of human experience in the universe.
In a loose meaning of necessary the first part is true. to tighten it make it my existence is necessary for me. (It is not necessary for others, OK) Quantifiers can be necessary or contingent, as well as predicates. The argument does nothing. A non existant unicorn is an existing concept of a unicorn, adding existence to this just makes it an existing^2 concept of a unicorn. What is it that is the core of the non existing unicorn to which the "predicate" existing is to be added if it is not the existing concept? Plaese answer this, rather than insist that there is a difference between a non existing unicorn and an existing one, which avoids the question as we all no there is a difference and the difference is that of "There are no unicorns" and "There are some unicorns" (quantification)

I believe that my position more accurately models the universe. And I further believe that every member of the human race ascribes properties to non-existent things. You can ignore this when performing formal logical calculations without harming the results, but if you ignore it while considering philosophically the nature of existence, you are likely to miss things.

As I said about twenty pages (exaggeration) back, see the thread on existence and reality. This is a huge debate in itself. Existence to me includes all non physical, non real things as well as those that make up the objective universe. My thoughts exist, my dreams exist, your idea of a unicorn exists. Now whether your concept of existence as being only that that is concrete is a better model of experience that mine in which the intangible exists is open to question and debate. I do however challenge you to say that your ideas do not exist, as this is what your position implies.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 15:22

That doesn't follow at all from what I said.

Show me why not. I presented my argument, you simply said no. Support the negation please.

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 15:26

I do however challenge you to say that your ideas do not exist, as this is what your position implies.

doesn't imply that at all. "there are things that don't exist" is not the same as "my ideas don't exist". We disagree on the nature of existence because you think there are no things that don't exist. I don't need to debate that point with you or anyone - we have different viewpoints.

and a dictionary isn't really much of authority in this case. if there were no other way of assessing the validity of arguments than formal logic, there would have been no way of assessing the validity of arguments before logic was formalised. and yet humanity managed to do stuff like build pyramids. are you saying that they did this without
a) having arguments
b) assessing the validity of these arguments

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 15:27

Show me why not. I presented my argument, you simply said no. Support the negation please.

you didn't present an argument. You just said "Ergo [conclusion]."

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 15:33

What is it that is the core of the non existing unicorn to which the "predicate" existing is to be added if it is not the existing concept? Plaese answer this, rather than insist that there is a difference between a non existing unicorn and an existing one,

Why does the non-existing thing need a core to add its predicates too?
It only needs these things for formal logical expression.

which avoids the question as we all no there is a difference and the difference is that of "There are no unicorns" and "There are some unicorns" (quantification)

but you can't say "there are no unicorns and they have horns" but I can.

Scouserlande

10-03-2005, 15:54

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 15:55

Why does the non-existing thing need a core to add its predicates too?
It only needs these things for formal logical expression.

but you can't say "there are no unicorns and they have horns" but I can.

What does predication mean? It means that I attribute this property to that thing. The thing has to have a core to which the property is attributed. You are not making sense.

I can say "the clouds dream furiously", being able to say something does not make it meaningful. "There are no unicorns and they have horns" is not meaningful, but you can say it if want to.

Now what do you mean by existance?

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 16:29

you didn't present an argument. You just said "Ergo [conclusion]."

Perhaps you did not see the argument. I will restate it.

Cogito ergo sum. (An agreed premise)
Cogitation (in addition to being a mod) is a predicate. It is a property of something. (Agreed?)
If from this one can derive existance (sum - I am) then existance is something that is necessary to be able to have a predicate.

You argued that the cogito proved that you existed, a point that we agree on. Now one strict and unavoidable consequence of the cogito proving that you exist is that existence is prior to predication. If this were not the case the cogito in English would have to be:
I think therefore there is some thing which has the property of existing which I am. (My latin is not good enough to deal with subjunctives).
It is not this, it is "I think therefore I am" and as such takes existance to be a quantifier and not a predicate.

The available choices are accept the cogito, accept the ontological argument or be inconsistent. I choose to accept the cogito

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 16:31

As wrong as descartes may of been, you have to rember he was the most abstract thinkor of his entire centuary, He founded rationlism, and if you actually examine his cogito argument youll find that there is no better arugment to prove the existence of the self and the logic in undenyable.

He has that reputation but there were others around. Check the thinking of Bacon and Galileo for example. No criticism of Descartes nor of his cogito, but the title most abstract thinker is dubious.

Willamena

10-03-2005, 16:37

doesn't imply that at all. "there are things that don't exist" is not the same as "my ideas don't exist". We disagree on the nature of existence because you think there are no things that don't exist. I don't need to debate that point with you or anyone - we have different viewpoints.
What things don't exist? A "pink unicorn" (example used earlier)? Doesn't it equate to "nothing more than the idea of a pink unicorn"?

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 16:37

Perhaps you did not see the argument. I will restate it.

Cogito ergo sum. (An agreed premise)
Cogitation (in addition to being a mod) is a predicate. It is a property of something. (Agreed?)
If from this one can derive existance (sum - I am) then existance is something that is necessary to be able to have a predicate.

You argued that the cogito proved that you existed, a point that we agree on. Now one strict and unavoidable consequence of the cogito proving that you exist is that existence is prior to predication. If this were not the case the cogito in English would have to be:
I think therefore there is some thing which has the property of existing which I am. (My latin is not good enough to deal with subjunctives).
It is not this, it is "I think therefore I am" and as such takes existance to be a quantifier and not a predicate.

The available choices are accept the cogito, accept the ontological argument or be inconsistent. I choose to accept the cogito

You have just said that it is a strict and unavoidable consequence. You have not shown WHY.

"I think therefore I am" and "I think therefore there is some thing which has the property of existing which I am" are exactly the same thing.

please give an *argument* rather than a *statement*.

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 16:40

What things don't exist? A "pink unicorn" (example used earlier)? Doesn't it equate to "nothing more than the idea of a pink unicorn"?

We agree that pink unicorns don't exist.

You may say that this equates to "There are no pink unicorns but there is a concept of a pink unicorn such that I can use the concept to talk about the pink unicorns that don't exist".

I say that even if it does so equate, there are things that don't exist, eg pink unicorns.

Willamena

10-03-2005, 16:42

We agree that pink unicorns don't exist.

You may say that this equates to "There are no pink unicorns but there is a concept of a pink unicorn such that I can use the concept to talk about the pink unicorns that don't exist".

I say that even if it does so equate, there are things that don't exist, eg pink unicorns.
Ahh... so you profess that things that don't exist "are"?

Isn't existence "to be"?

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 16:44

What does predication mean? It means that I attribute this property to that thing. The thing has to have a core to which the property is attributed. You are not making sense.

I attribute the property of existence to some horses, and I do not attribute that property to other horses. You tell me what the core is. Perhaps it is the platonic ideal of horse.

I can say "the clouds dream furiously", being able to say something does not make it meaningful. "There are no unicorns and they have horns" is not meaningful, but you can say it if want to.
Now what do you mean by existance?

I say that it is meaningful because just about everyone who speaks english knows what it means. Whatever can be used to convey meaning is meaningful. So "There are no unicorns and they have horns" is entirely meaningful. Are you pretending that you don't know what that means? "The clouds dream furiously" could be meaningful in some contexts.

By existence i mean a number of things, probably. at least one is presence in the realm of human experience.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 16:45

You have just said that it is a strict and unavoidable consequence. You have not shown WHY.

"I think therefore I am" and "I think therefore there is some thing which has the property of existing which I am" are exactly the same thing.

please give an *argument* rather than a *statement*.

Can you not understand that "am" implies existence?

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 16:45

Ahh... so you profess that things that don't exist "are"?

Isn't existence "to be"?

no. there are things that don't exist.

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 16:46

Can you not understand that "am" implies existence?

Yes. My existence is necessary (to me). Yours is not. So?

Willamena

10-03-2005, 16:51

no. there are things that don't exist.
What is existence, then?

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 16:54

What is existence, then?

Not an argument worth having, as it takes a hundred years, and I'm not interested in defining why joy exists but unicorns don't. This is a lame excuse, but i can't be bothered.

I suppose I probably mean a lot of things. It may be more productive to ask do you disagree with me when I say that joy exists and unicorns don't?

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 16:55

I attribute the property of existence to some horses, and I do not attribute that property to other horses. You tell me what the core is. Perhaps it is the platonic ideal of horse.

Existence is all that there is. Be it concrete or imaginary. I have stated over and over again that existence is a quantifier. This is what I understand it to mean. That there is, instead of there is not. This is not restricted to the conrete. There are dreams, there are ideas, these things exist. Now please give your understanding of it rather than keep denying the normal usage and not expalining yours.
If you can not do so, the please accept that you have not got the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

I say that it is meaningful because just about everyone who speaks english knows what it means. Whatever can be used to convey meaning is meaningful. So "There are no unicorns and they have horns" is entirely meaningful. Are you pretending that you don't know what that means? "The clouds dream furiously" could be meaningful in some contexts.
It hapens to be a sentance that is explicitly meaningless. Go read something on meaning and expression. Try Chomsky, who I hate, but at least he is not this dense. How does anything sleep furiously? How do clouds sleep? Words have agreed ranges of meanings, at times this causes problems (as we know Willamena) but they still have to be used within those ranges. Stop making category mistakes.

category mistake

Confusion in the attribution of properties or the classification of things. Thus, to suppose that sleep is furious or that a city is nothing more than its buildings is to commit a category mistake. Ryle maintained that Cartesian dualism arises from the implicit occurrence of just such an error, the supposition that the origins of human behavior must reside in an immaterial substance.

Recommended Reading: Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind (Chicago, 1984)
source (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c.htm)

By existence i mean a number of things, probably. at least one is presence in the realm of human experience.

So the imaginary unicorn exists, how can you add existance to saomething that exists. Or are you going to say that imagination is not in the realm of huam experience?

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 16:59

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 17:03

Existence is all that there is. Be it concrete or imaginary. I have stated over and over again that existence is a quantifier. This is what I understand it to mean. That there is, instead of there is not. This is not restricted to the conrete. There are dreams, there are ideas, these things exist. Now please give your understanding of it rather than keep denying the normal usage and not expalining yours.
If you can not do so, the please accept that you have not got the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

you have stated that over and over again, and i have stated over and over again that i disagree.

With which of these statements do you disagree?
a) dreams exist
b) ideas exist
c) ideas of unicorns exist
c) unicorns do not exist.
I agree with all of them. If you also agree with all of them, then we mean the same thing by existence. To try and define what we mean by existence isn't very fruitful. If we're recommending reading, see Wittgenstein on the difficulty of defining word usages with formal logic accuracy.

It hapens to be a sentance that is explicitly meaningless. Go read something on meaning and expression. Try Chomsky, who I hate, but at least he is not this dense. How does anything sleep furiously? How do clouds sleep? Words have agreed ranges of meanings, at times this causes problems (as we know Willamena) but they still have to be used within those ranges. Stop making category mistakes.
I don't need Chomsky to tell me whether or not the sentence as meaning. Try *saying it to people*. If they know what you mean, it has meaning, whether or not Chomsky considers it a catetgory mistake. And they will know what you mean. And I'm well aware what a category mistake is. And I don't calling existence a real predicate is a category mistake.

So the imaginary unicorn exists, how can you add existance to saomething that exists. Or are you going to say that imagination is not in the realm of huam experience?

Perhaps the imaginary unicorn exists, but the unicorn does not.

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 17:04

You won't because you can't do it rather than you can not be bothered.

No I do not agree with you, they both exist but have different modes of existence. One is an idea, the other is a feeling. They both exist though.

Please read your post a couple of pages back where you said that existence does not have types. Is a mode different to a type?

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 17:17

Please read your post a couple of pages back where you said that existence does not have types. Is a mode different to a type?

Yes. A mode is simply a way of being. Existence has modes, not types. It is like saying that steam, water and ice are modes of H20. But all of them are H20. There are (excluding Deutrium dioxide) no types of water, but there are modes of it.

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 17:25

Yes. A mode is simply a way of being. Existence has modes, not types. It is like saying that steam, water and ice are modes of H20. But all of them are H20. There are (excluding Deutrium dioxide) no types of water, but there are modes of it.

Then you were extremely arsy to pick up [I think wilhelmina but I'm not sure] for saying that there are types of existence when she actually said exactly the same thing you just did except she used the word type not mode. It would have been much more helpful to explain the difference between the way you use 'type' and 'mode'.

I still say that an imaginary unicorn is an idea and such things exist and a unicorn is a horse with a horn on its head and such things don't exist.

Willamena

10-03-2005, 17:26

Not an argument worth having, as it takes a hundred years, and I'm not interested in defining why joy exists but unicorns don't. This is a lame excuse, but i can't be bothered.

I suppose I probably mean a lot of things. It may be more productive to ask do you disagree with me when I say that joy exists and unicorns don't?
Okay. I can see that there are semantical differences, and yes, probably not worth banging heads against. I will agree that joy exists and the existence of real unicorns is an unknown. The imaginary kind exist in abundance.

However, this relates back to the point about the zero. "Things" are something, they are not nothing; just as a number has a value, not no value (zero). It's a matter of "substance" (some kind of filler, be it conceptual or physical).

When you say, "there are things that don't exist," it sounds to my ears like, "there are things that exist that don't exist."

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 17:27

you have stated that over and over again, and i have stated over and over again that i disagree.

With which of these statements do you disagree?
a) dreams exist
b) ideas exist
c) ideas of unicorns exist
c) unicorns do not exist.
I agree with all of them. If you also agree with all of them, then we mean the same thing by existence. To try and define what we mean by existence isn't very fruitful. If we're recommending reading, see Wittgenstein on the difficulty of defining word usages with formal logic accuracy.
c2 (as you have two cs) unicorns exist, they simply are not real. existence and reality are not the same thing.
I have defined what i mean by reality. Your saying that it is not fruitful is simply a refusal to define it so that you can slide between two meanings as you have done all the way through this. You have not answered my question as to whether you want to accept the cogito, the ontological argument or be inconsistent. I await an answer.

I don't need Chomsky to tell me whether or not the sentence as meaning. Try *saying it to people*. If they know what you mean, it has meaning, whether or not Chomsky considers it a catetgory mistake. And they will know what you mean. And I'm well aware what a category mistake is. And I don't calling existence a real predicate is a category mistake.
If you think that sleeping clouds dream furiously makes sense then you are NOT aware of what a category mistake is, as it was created to demonstrate category mistakes and is definitevely meaningless. Ask people yourself. I have in the past, and no one could understand it.

Perhaps the imaginary unicorn exists, but the unicorn does not.

Look above. "b) ideas exist". A unicorn is an idea. (You could negate this if you want, but I don't see how.) Substitute this in your own statement and you get:
A unicorn exists.
Now you say that a unicorn does not exist.
You have chosen to be inconsistant.

Willamena

10-03-2005, 17:30

I don't need Chomsky to tell me whether or not the sentence as meaning. Try *saying it to people*. If they know what you mean, it has meaning, whether or not Chomsky considers it a catetgory mistake. And they will know what you mean.
It is doubtful it would mean anything to them. Random words strung together do not convey meaning; specific words strung together in accordance with the rules of language convey meaning.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 17:32

Then you were extremely arsy to pick up [I think wilhelmina but I'm not sure] for saying that there are types of existence when she actually said exactly the same thing you just did except she used the word type not mode. It would have been much more helpful to explain the difference between the way you use 'type' and 'mode'.

I still say that an imaginary unicorn is an idea and such things exist and a unicorn is a horse with a horn on its head and such things don't exist.

Willamena and I have already partaken in a very long and interesting debate about this on these forums. She and I are pretty clear about what the other means I believe. If I picked her up on this it was because this subject had already been discussed. I would like you to refer me to the post where I did this though, as I have no recollection of it.

You are by the way, using a straw man here. Get back to the point. You are saying in one sentence that unicorns both exist and don't exist. Explain this please.

Willamena

10-03-2005, 17:33

I still say that an imaginary unicorn is an idea and such things exist and a unicorn is a horse with a horn on its head and such things don't exist.
Ah! there you go. It's a difference of the thought and the content of the thought.

Independent Homesteads

10-03-2005, 17:36

c2 (as you have two cs) unicorns exist, they simply are not real. existence and reality are not the same thing.
I have defined what i mean by reality. no you haven't. perhaps if you did, that would help. Personally I think only real things exist.

Your saying that it is not fruitful is simply a refusal to define it so that you can slide between two meanings as you have done all the way through this. I refuse to waste time attempting to define the indefinable. I think the two meanings are very close. I wouldn't want to try to define how close.
You have not answered my question as to whether you want to accept the cogito, the ontological argument or be inconsistent. I await an answer. it is a non question. i don't accept the ontological argument, though. It makes me laugh but it doesn't prove the existence of god.
If you think that sleeping clouds dream furiously makes sense then you are NOT aware of what a category mistake is, as it was created to demonstrate category mistakes and is definitevely meaningless. Ask people yourself. I have in the past, and no one could understand it.You can't show that there will never be a context in which that statement is meaningful. The fact that a clever philosopher made it up to demonstrate category mistakes does not show that there will never be a context in which the statement is meaningful. Furthermore, if you say to someone "There are no unicorns, and they have horns", i expect they will no what you are talking about.
Look above. "b) ideas exist". A unicorn is an idea.No it isn't. It is a horse with a horn on its head.
(You could negate this if you want, but I don't see how.) see above
Substitute this in your own statement and you get:
A unicorn exists.
Now you say that a unicorn does not exist.
You can't substitute them using my premises because I don't believe that a unicorn is an idea. An imaginary unicorn is an idea. A unicorn is a horse with a horn on its head
You have chosen to be inconsistant.
For the reasons outlined above, no I haven't.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 17:38

Ah! there you go. It's a difference of the thought and the content of the thought.

If it is accepted that there is such a difference. Can you then use existance as a predicate on the content of the thought. No, because the content is not there to be predicated to. Only the thought itself is there.

I actually do not accept the difference, the thought is the content. What would be a contentless thought?

Willamena

10-03-2005, 17:44

If it is accepted that there is such a difference. Can you then use existance as a predicate on the content of the thought. No, because the content is not there to be predicated to. Only the thought itself is there.

I actually do not accept the difference, the thought is the content. What would be a contentless thought?
I too accept that there are no thoughts without content, but the difference exists for many people (as you can see), perhaps to "give life" to what the thought is about, in a poetic sense.

In the case of this unicorn, the content is unreal. But it exists. It exists, in as much as we can employ imagination to experience the unicorn. It exists as an unreal thing.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 17:52

no you haven't. perhaps if you did, that would help. Personally I think only real things exist.

Existence is all that there is. Be it concrete or imaginary. I have stated over and over again that existence is a quantifier. This is what I understand it to mean. That there is, instead of there is not. This is not restricted to the conrete. There are dreams, there are ideas, these things exist.
I think that this is a definition. Obviously you do not or you did not read it.

I refuse to waste time attempting to define the indefinable. I think the two meanings are very close. I wouldn't want to try to define how close.
it is a non question. i don't accept the ontological argument, though. It makes me laugh but it doesn't prove the existence of god.
Why not if existence is a predicate? This is where the fault lies in the argument. Show me another fault.

You can't show that there will never be a context in which that statement is meaningful. The fact that a clever philosopher made it up to demonstrate category mistakes does not show that there will never be a context in which the statement is meaningful. Furthermore, if you say to someone "There are no unicorns, and they have horns", i expect they will no what you are talking about.
The meanings of the words do this, not the philosopher. Clouds do not sleep. Sleeping can not be done furiously. These are not open to dispute as they apply to all definitions of these words. If you change the meaning of the words, so that a cloud is a living thing that sleeps and furiously means for more than five minutes, then yes the words can make sense. But the sentence expresses an idea which is meaingless. Changing the meaning of the words changes the idea of the sentence. The category mistake ceases to exist. But this is not the point, it is at the moment a category mistake as is using existance as a predicate.

No it isn't. It is a horse with a horn on its head.
Which does not exist in what meaning of the word exist? I have an idea of this, you describe it, it therefore exists. A unicorn is an idea. If you say it is not then it is nothing. There is no real unicorn, but the word has a referrent, our idea. If it is not an idea it is not a horse with a horn on its head as this is an idea, see.

You can't substitute them using my premises because I don't believe that a unicorn is an idea. An imaginary unicorn is an idea. A unicorn is a horse with a horn on its head
See above as you said.

For the reasons outlined above, no I haven't.
With regard to the Descartes contradiction no. But with regard to the unicorn you are still being contradictory. This time about ideas that are not ideas.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 17:56

I too accept that there are no thoughts without content, but the difference exists for many people (as you can see), perhaps to "give life" to what the thought is about, in a poetic sense.

In the case of this unicorn, the content is unreal. But it exists. It exists, in as much as we can employ imagination to experience the unicorn. It exists as an unreal thing.

Well we knew that we agreed on the concept of existence as being everything concrete and abstract anyway. So no surprise.

Do you think that Independant Homesteads will ever see the contradictions in his/her (sorry I don't know your gender) position. And more importantly, do you see what I am getting at?

Willamena

10-03-2005, 18:25

...more importantly, do you see what I am getting at?
I do see what you mean when you say, "the content is not there to be predicated to. Only the thought itself is there." Using existence as a "trait" or "property" is, I believe, a result of confusing reality with existence. Reality is predicated to existence.

I still need to read some about this "ontology".

Thank you.

Bodies Without Organs

10-03-2005, 18:41

Re: Logical Positivism:

Can I feel insulted now?

No, that's just my standard comment whenever people start making comments about 'meaningless' statements in logic.

Bodies Without Organs

10-03-2005, 18:43

Perhaps you did not see the argument. I will restate it.

Cogito ergo sum. (An agreed premise)
Cogitation (in addition to being a mod) is a predicate. It is a property of something. (Agreed?)

Not all of us agree on this point: that cogitation must be a predicate of an agent. Some of us still allow that it may be an agentless activity. I, however, appear to be a voice in the wilderness on this.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 18:59

Not all of us agree on this point: that cogitation must be a predicate of an agent. Some of us still allow that it may be an agentless activity. I, however, appear to be a voice in the wilderness on this.

I can accept that argument against the cogito, even if I disagree with it. It is, however, simply not the argument that was being used. Independent Homesteads was accepting the cogito but arguing that existence is a predicate. The two are incompatible.

If you take cogitation to be agentless then the cogito collases as there is no need to have something to predicate the cogitation to. I agree that this is a line of argument against the cogito.
I do however have a difficulty in conceiving of agentless thinking (to come back to English terminology). Are you proposing some kind of Berkleyian system where all that exists is thought and ideas?

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 19:03

I do see what you mean when you say, "the content is not there to be predicated to. Only the thought itself is there." Using existence as a "trait" or "property" is, I believe, a result of confusing reality with existence. Reality is predicated to existence.

I still need to read some about this "ontology".

Thank you.

That describes what I am thinking fairly well, so it appears that I am making my point clear.
"ontology" is only a fancy name for what we think about existence and reality. It is the study of what is. It is normally differentiated from epistemology which is the study of how we know things, and the two together make up metaphysics.

Bodies Without Organs

10-03-2005, 19:05

I can accept that argument against the cogito, even if I disagree with it. It is, however, simply not the argument that was being used. Independent Homesteads was accepting the cogito but arguing that existence is a predicate. The two are incompatible.

If you take cogitation to be agentless then the cogito collases as there is no need to have something to predicate the cogitation to. I agree that this is a line of argument against the cogito.
I do however have a difficulty in conceiving of agentless thinking (to come back to English terminology). Are you proposing some kind of Berkleyian system where all that exists is thought and ideas?

Why not? It doesn't appear to be an illogical universe in which the only thing that exists is thinking/thought, and it fits in nicely with Descartes system of systematically doubting everything... if Hume had been whispering over his shoulder he might have actually applied his espoused methodology to his assumption that cogitation requires an agent. I wouldn't go as far as to drag Berkley into the equation as that just opens up dodgy implications of the existence of God, which isn't really necessary.

Bodies Without Organs

10-03-2005, 19:07

That describes what I am thinking fairly well, so it appears that I am making my point clear.
"ontology" is only a fancy name for what we think about existence and reality. It is the science of what is. It is normally differentiated from epistemology which is the science of how we know things, and the two together make up metaphysics.

Bad idea using the word 'science' in connection with ontology, epistemology or metaphysics, even if you are using it in the soft form of a dsicipline without actually meaning scientific method. If nothing else it opens the gates for people to infer something you probably didn't mean.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 19:09

Bad idea using the word 'science' in connection with ontology, epistemology or metaphysics, even if you are using it in the soft form of a dsicipline without actually meaning scientific method. If nothing else it opens the gates for people to infer something you probably didn't mean.

Sorry. I am working on Hume and Aquinas at the moment, so my head is in a time frame when these words meant study not hard science as today. You are right. I'll go back and edit, changing science for study of.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 19:19

Why not? It doesn't appear to be an illogical universe in which the only thing that exists is thinking/thought, and it fits in nicely with Descartes system of systematically doubting everything... if Hume had been whispering over his shoulder he might have actually applied his espoused methodology to his assumption that cogitation requires an agent. I wouldn't go as far as to drag Berkley into the equation as that just opens up dodgy implications of the existence of God, which isn't really necessary.

Without God how do you explain continued existence in an idealist ontology? I know that Berkley intention was to make God necessary but I follow Hume in refusing to doubt the reality of the world rather than have to postulate a all perceiving entity that gives substrate to ideal existence.
An idealistic ontology does fit with Descartes systematic doubt methodology, but certainly would not have served Descartes' purposes. He could not have used it to break with scholastic philosophy as it would just have been viewed as a version of Platonic forms.

Willamena

10-03-2005, 19:25

...some kind of Berkleyian system where all that exists is thought and ideas?
:eek: Where's the fun in that?

Sol Regis

10-03-2005, 19:28

Ray Charles Is God:

God Is Love
Love Is Blind
Ray Charles Is Blind
Ray Charles Is God.

Logic?

Snub Nose 38

10-03-2005, 19:30

Most people also don't know that he said "Cogito ergo sum" instead of "Je pense donc je suis". He spoke Latin instead of French (true).Those of us who've taken latin classes have heard. And, those of us who've taken french have heard.

Descartes was speaking, curiously enough, philisophically, and not literally, when he went on about "thinking and therefore assuring himself of his own existance".

But, if you don't like his philosophy, there are many other options. Try Jean-Paul Sartre - existentialism is what it is...

Philosophy is a very personal thing. Drum up one of your own if you can't find a pre-fab one out there that you like. The point is, have one and do something about it. Just giving Descartes "the business" because you don't like his doesn't cut it.

I'm sure Descartes won't mind. He did his thing, and is busy pushing up daisies at the moment.

Bodies Without Organs

10-03-2005, 19:32

Without God how do you explain continued existence in an idealist ontology? I know that Berkley intention was to make God necessary but I follow Hume in refusing to doubt the reality of the world rather than have to postulate a all perceiving entity that gives substrate to ideal existence.

There is no necessity for God to be in the background making sure that the tree in the quad still exists if we don't presuppose that the tree actually exists in the first place. If I was to describe the kind of universe I am thinking of as one which contains only one thing - cogitation - then why is God needed? ... unless you want to label that process of cogitation as God.

An idealistic ontology does fit with Descartes systematic doubt methodology, but certainly would not have served Descartes' purposes. He could not have used it to break with scholastic philosophy as it would just have been viewed as a version of Platonic forms.

In the end though the firmest bit of methodology is that surrounding the cogito itself, and that is just a restatement of Augustine's proof that he knows he exists because he is able to doubt his own existence.

In a sense for Descartes, despite his methodology and the claimed break from scholasticism, what he actually presents us with in the end is a model of God which is not a million miles away from the neo-Platonist conception of God as the from of the Good.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 19:36

Ray Charles Is God:

God Is Love
Love Is Blind
Ray Charles Is Blind
Ray Charles Is God.

Logic?

My cat is a mammal
My dog is a mammal

My cat is my dog.

Substitute cat for love, dog for Ray Charles, mammal for blind, then you get lines two and three of your invalid argument. Not logic.

Snub Nose 38

10-03-2005, 19:41

Ray Charles Is God:
God Is Love
Love Is Blind
Ray Charles Is Blind
Ray Charles Is God.

Logic?Nah. Try this:

Proof that 1 + 1 = 1

Let A = B
then A squared = B squared
and A squared = (A x B) ... since A = B
and A squared minus B squared = B(A - B)
since (A + B)(A - B) = A squared - AB + BA - B squared
and AB = BA
then (A + B)(A - B) = A squared minus B squared
and (A + B) (A - B) = B(A - B) since BA = AA ... because A = B

Dividing both sides of : (A+B)(A-B)=B(A-B) by (A-B)
yields (A+B)=B
Let A = 1
And remembering that A = B, therefore B also = 1
substituting these values in the equation (A+B)=B
yields 1 + 1 = 1

Ta da! :cool:

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 19:48

There is no necessity for God to be in the background making sure that the tree in the quad still exists if we don't presuppose that the tree actually exists in the first place. If I was to describe the kind of universe I am thinking of as one which contains only one thing - cogitation - then why is God needed? ... unless you want to label that process of cogitation as God.

How does a purely idealistic world account for the enexpected and the unpercieved changes that take place. I spill some milk and it drips under the side without my noticing it. In an solipsistic idealistic world this does not happen as I have no idea of it happening. Where then does the idea of the smell come from a couple of days later? To explain unnoticed events that are causaly effective for noticed events one has to postulate some awareness that perceives all. Berkley's God performs this function for him. Now you can of course negate causality as well, but now you are beginning to head for the Hume conclusion of scepticism being self destructive, without any way of stopping the process.
You could deny that there are events but this leaves the problem of the unexpected. If all there is is thought then nothing could be surprising as it would have to be thought of to be.

In the end though the firmest bit of methodology is that surrounding the cogito itself, and that is just a restatement of Augustine's proof that he knows he exists because he is able to doubt his own existence.

In a sense for Descartes, despite his methodology and the claimed break from scholasticism, what he actually presents us with in the end is a model of God which is not a million miles away from the neo-Platonist conception of God as the from of the Good.

No arguments with this. He did not achieve what he set out to do, which was specifically to break with scholastic traditions. However, in combination with others such as Bacon and Hobbes, he did manage to start the movement away from "The Philosopher" as being everything to philosophy.

Willamena

10-03-2005, 19:59

Originally Posted by Willamena
I do see what you mean when you say, "the content is not there to be predicated to. Only the thought itself is there." Using existence as a "trait" or "property" is, I believe, a result of confusing reality with existence. Reality is predicated to existence.
That describes what I am thinking fairly well, so it appears that I am making my point clear.
Then, in order for predicating to take place, there must be a predicater, a conciousness acknowledging the trait and assigning it meaning. An agent. No? (Am I using this language correctly?)

This is what I was getting at in our other thread. Reality, as the predicate, requires consciousness.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 20:12

Dividing both sides of : (A+B)(A-B)=B(A-B) by (A-B)
Now realise that you only get to this equation because A = B and therefore
(A - B) = 0
and anything multiplied by 0 is 0
Try dividing throughout by 0 and you get an error.

0 + 0 = 0
Good proof snub. :p

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 20:15

Then, in order for predicating to take place, there must be a predicater, a conciousness acknowledging the trait and assigning it meaning. An agent. No? (Am I using this language correctly?)

This is what I was getting at in our other thread. Reality, as the predicate, requires consciousness.

I agree with this, but it is not the point I was making.

In order for predication to take place there has to be something for the predicate to be attributed to. I.E. There is something in existence. This something can be an ideal or real, but it has to exist.

Snub Nose 38

10-03-2005, 20:24

Now realise that you only get to this equation because A = B and therefore
(A - B) = 0
and anything multiplied by 0 is 0
Try dividing throughout by 0 and you get an error.

0 + 0 = 0
Good proof snub. :pThere ya go! Somebody give Alien Born a Kewpie Doll! ;)

Willamena

10-03-2005, 20:26

I agree with this, but it is not the point I was making.

In order for predication to take place there has to be something for the predicate to be attributed to. I.E. There is something in existence. This something can be an ideal or real, but it has to exist.
But it's the point I was making in the other thread. And I still don't understand why, if reality requires an agent, you insist that a tree no one knows about is real. It is only potentially real until the predicater can be there to acknowledge the predicate.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 20:39

But it's the point I was making in the other thread. And I still don't understand why, if reality requires an agent, you insist that a tree no one knows about is real. It is only potentially real until the predicater can be there to acknowledge the predicate.

There is a difference between predicating reality and reality being a property of the thing. One can only be done, in my and your opinion, by an agent (BWO thinks otherwise), the other is simply a statement about the world that is independant of agents. Predicating is an activity, being is a state. Something can be real without any agent predicating this.
Ugh this is difficult to make clear.

Willamena

10-03-2005, 20:44

Snub Nose 38

10-03-2005, 20:59

Alright. I shall have to ponder on the difference.The difference, I think, is between being and being. Unfortunatley, in english, only one word exists.

Being - simply to exist. The tree in the forest without anyone to observe it exists. If it falls, it falls. If it falls on a planet with an atmosphere, that atmosphere is disturbed in such a way as to create sound waves - whether or not an ear is available to trap those sound waves.

Being - to exist mentally. Descartes was here. Because he thought, he existed on this plane of being. While a tree may exist in the forest, and fall, and cause sound waves in the atmosphere, it does not enter this realm of being unless a thinking being somehow observes it. It requires an ear, connected to a cogitative brain, to trap the sound waves and transfer them into that brain for the falling tree to exist on this plane of being.

Or...something...;)

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 21:04

The difference, I think, is between being and being. Unfortunatley, in english, only one word exists.

Being - simply to exist. The tree in the forest without anyone to observe it exists. If it falls, it falls. If it falls on a planet with an atmosphere, that atmosphere is disturbed in such a way as to create sound waves - whether or not an ear is available to trap those sound waves.
Reality (noumenal to borrow from Kant)

Being - to exist mentally. Descartes was here. Because he thought, he existed on this plane of being. While a tree may exist in the forest, and fall, and cause sound waves in the atmosphere, it does not enter this realm of being unless a thinking being somehow observes it. It requires an ear, connected to a cogitative brain, to trap the sound waves and transfer them into that brain for the falling tree to exist on this plane of being.
Phenomena

Existence = reality + phenomena

Or...something...;)
Very well put sir.
What is noumenal and what is phenomenal make up all of existence. The two overlap in the sense that there are noumena that cause phenomena and as such are present in both realms.

Willamena

10-03-2005, 21:05

The difference, I think, is between being and being. Unfortunatley, in english, only one word exists.

Being - simply to exist. The tree in the forest without anyone to observe it exists. If it falls, it falls. If it falls on a planet with an atmosphere, that atmosphere is disturbed in such a way as to create sound waves - whether or not an ear is available to trap those sound waves.

Being - to exist mentally. Descartes was here. Because he thought, he existed on this plane of being. While a tree may exist in the forest, and fall, and cause sound waves in the atmosphere, it does not enter this realm of being unless a thinking being somehow observes it. It requires an ear, connected to a cogitative brain, to trap the sound waves and transfer them into that brain for the falling tree to exist on this plane of being.

Or...something...;)
Nah, I think it's a bit more insideous than that. ;)

(is working on a reply.)

Imaginary Heavens

10-03-2005, 21:33

AAAAHHHHH.. :headbang: ..i cant take it ne more.... :confused:

This is y im an agnostic! (and mayb even a nihlist) :D

Willamena

10-03-2005, 21:54

There is a difference between predicating reality and reality being a property of the thing. One can only be done, in my and your opinion, by an agent (BWO thinks otherwise), the other is simply a statement about the world that is independant of agents. Predicating is an activity, being is a state. Something can be real without any agent predicating this.
Ugh this is difficult to make clear.
Okay, this may require me beginning a new thread to explore truth, but...

The predicate and the predicated form a relationship. The nature of a relationship is the association made between things. Associating is done by a consciousness. This is "predicating reality".

A property is an identifyable trait or characteristic of a thing. The thing "owns" them. Properties, like existence, are already there before a consciousness recognizes them. Their existence precedes consciousness.

Reality is a property of existence. I concede that other properties of an unknown thing do not require consciousness, but then for an unknown thing they are also unknowable. Reality must be known: it is the property of truthful existence. If it is not known, it is not the property of reality.

As was pointed out in the other thread, mental things are both known and unreal. It is not possible to have an abstracted thing that is unknown. 'The Truth' is absolute, but as we are individual consciousnesses we can only know truth subjectively perceived, and abstract the 'Absolute Truth'. The first is what makes things real; with only the second they remain unreal (abstracted, a mental exericse).

I don't think I finished all my thoughts, here, but I have to get back to work. :(

Snub Nose 38

10-03-2005, 22:01

AAAAHHHHH.. :headbang: ..i cant take it ne more.... :confused:

This is y im an agnostic! (and mayb even a nihlist) :DRelax, take a deep breath, and look into existentialism.

Snub Nose 38

10-03-2005, 22:09

Okay, this may require me beginning a new thread to explore truth, but...

The predicate and the predicated form a relationship. The nature of a relationship is the association made between things. Associating is done by a consciousness. This is "predicating reality".

A property is an identifyable trait or characteristic of a thing. The thing "owns" them. Properties, like existence, are already there before a consciousness recognizes them. Their existence precedes consciousness.

Reality is a property of existence. I concede that other properties of an unknown thing do not require consciousness, but then for an unknown thing they are also unknowable. Reality must be known: it is the property of truthful existence. If it is not known, it is not the property of reality.

As was pointed out in the other thread, mental things are both known and unreal. It is not possible to have an abstracted thing that is unknown. 'The Truth' is absolute, but as we are individual consciousnesses we can only know truth subjectively perceived, and abstract the 'Absolute Truth'. The first is what makes things real; with only the second they remain unreal (abstracted, a mental exericse).

I don't think I finished all my thoughts, here, but I have to get back to work. :(If I'm understanding what you're saying, then it follows that whatever existed BEFORE there was a conciousness to realize that existance either:

a. Did not exist.

- or -
b. Existed, but was not real.

Yet, in my version of reality, necessarily things existed before any concious being existed. A bit of a paradox, then, to posit that these things really did not exist, or they existed - but were not real.

?

It seems to me that your arguement comes down to, "I think, therefore it is."

Although I do see a glimmer of what you are saying floating around dimly in the conciousness of whoever wrote "Genesis". Putting aside any discussion of whether the author was God, or inspired by God, or just some guy with papyrus and a pen, behind the words I can see the thought that nothing could exist before it was realized / conceived of / conciously known by a concious being - in the case of Genesis that being being God.

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 22:10

Okay, this may require me beginning a new thread to explore truth, but...

The predicate and the predicated form a relationship. The nature of a relationship is the association made between things. Associating is done by a consciousness. This is "predicating reality".

The relationship here is not one of between things but one of recognition that a thing has a property. There is only one thing involved unless you are considering that the awareness or consciousness that makes this association is thereby in a relationship with the object. (Here we head off into Peircian semiotics and the triadic relationship between the sign, the object, and the interpreter).

A property is an identifyable trait or characteristic of a thing. The thing "owns" them. Properties, like existence, are already there before a consciousness recognizes them. Their existence precedes consciousness.
Existence is not a property. Redness or hardness are properties. The object could not have these and still be an object. If it does not have existence it is not an object at all. The redness and hardness are there before any consciousness is aware of them yes. The existence of the properties precedes consciousness and is therefore real, not abstract or imaginary.

Reality is a property of existence. I concede that other properties of an unknown thing do not require consciousness, but then for an unknown thing they are also unknowable. Reality must be known: it is the property of truthful existence. If it is not known, it is not the property of reality.
For an unknown thing they are simply unknown, not unknowable. There is no reason other than accident that they are not known. Reality does not have to be known. It is stating that there is a concrete noumenal existence rather than an imaginary phenomenal existence.

As was pointed out in the other thread, mental things are both known and unreal. It is not possible to have an abstracted thing that is unknown. 'The Truth' is absolute, but as we are individual consciousnesses we can only know truth subjectively perceived, and abstract the 'Absolute Truth'. The first is what makes things real; with the second they remain unreal (abstracted, a mental exericse).
It is not possible to have a phenomenal object that is not known by any awareness whatsoever.
What makes things real is their independence of awareness. Nothing more complicated than this. A real tree can fall in a real forest without any consciousness ever being aware of it. It still fell though. An imaginary tree can only fall in the imagination of some consciousness. It is dependant upon that awareness. If a real tree falls and a consciousness is aware of it then the phenomenal universe coincides with the noumenal universe at that point. The two are mutually exclusive but they can coincide. This is what we call truth.
Does this make sense?

Alien Born

10-03-2005, 22:10

Relax, take a deep breath, and look into existentialism.
Cruel :p

Deltaepsilon

10-03-2005, 22:52

My cat is a mammal
My dog is a mammal

My cat is my dog.

All cat's are mortal.
All things mortal will eventually die.
Socrates is dead.
Therefore, Socrates was a cat.[/rhinosourus]

My Romania

10-03-2005, 22:56

Cogito cogito ergum cogito sum

I think that i think therefore i think that i am.

:rolleyes:

Willamena

11-03-2005, 05:46

The relationship here is not one of between things but one of recognition that a thing has a property. There is only one thing involved unless you are considering that the awareness or consciousness that makes this association is thereby in a relationship with the object. (Here we head off into Peircian semiotics and the triadic relationship between the sign, the object, and the interpreter).
You would laugh if you could see how my ears perked. "...semiotics and the triadic relationship between the sign, the object, and the interpreter" sounds like precisely something I would be interested in reading.

Existence is not a property. Redness or hardness are properties. The object could not have these and still be an object. If it does not have existence it is not an object at all.
Bah! I knew I should have proof read before I posted. :(
I agree, of course, that existence is not a property of a thing. And I appreciate your patience in having to say it one more time.

The redness and hardness are there before any consciousness is aware of them yes. The existence of the properties precedes consciousness and is therefore real, not abstract or imaginary.
For an unknown thing they are simply unknown, not unknowable. There is no reason other than accident that they are not known. Reality does not have to be known. It is stating that there is a concrete noumenal existence rather than an imaginary phenomenal existence.
Well, properties are unknowable for an unknown thing in that they only become knowable when the thing becomes a 'known'. For instance, a brown bark is a property of some trees. An unknown tree might have a brown bark, but then again its bark might be whitish-grey. We won't know until the tree is a 'known'. When the tree is a 'known', other properties about the tree become knowable. At least, this is how I understand things to be.

I get phenomenal, but noumenal is not well defined for me, and the dictionary doesn't seem to be much help in understanding what you mean. From what you've said earlier, it seems to be a term Kant defined for his own uses?

It is not possible to have a phenomenal object that is not known by any awareness whatsoever.
What makes things real is their independence of awareness. Nothing more complicated than this. A real tree can fall in a real forest without any consciousness ever being aware of it. It still fell though. An imaginary tree can only fall in the imagination of some consciousness. It is dependant upon that awareness. If a real tree falls and a consciousness is aware of it then the phenomenal universe coincides with the noumenal universe at that point. The two are mutually exclusive but they can coincide. This is what we call truth.
Does this make sense?
So.. is a noumenal object what I've been referring to as a hypothetically real (phenomenal) object?

Oh, and my apologies to the thread owner if this constitutes hi-jacking, but with your indulgence I'd like to pursue this sub-topic a bit.

Alien Born

11-03-2005, 06:07

You would laugh if you could see how my ears perked. "...semiotics and the triadic relationship between the sign, the object, and the interpreter" sounds like precisely something I would be interested in reading.
OK. If you realy want to get confused, because his ideas were brilliant but his ability to put them on paper was not, try loking at the work of Charles Sanders Peirce. If you have access to a good library (university level) then look for a collection called Pierce on Signs. Edited by James Hooper, published by Chapel Hill (ISBN 0-8078-4342-3) This includes, amongst other gems, the most inappropraitely titled paper of all time, called "How to make our ideas clear (http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html) "

Bah! I knew I should have proof read before I posted. :(
I agree, of course, that existence is not a property of a thing. And I appreciate your patience in having to say it one more time.
No problem. I had a feeling it was a slip. It happens to us all. :)

Well, properties are unknowable for an unknown thing in that they only become knowable when the thing becomes a 'known'. For instance, a brown bark is a property of some trees. An unknown tree might have a brown bark, but then again its bark might be whitish-grey. We won't know until the tree is a 'known'. When the tree is a 'known', other properties about the tree become knowable. At least, this is how I understand things to be.

Unknowable to me is something that can never be known. Something like the position of an electron if you know its momentum, or what it would be like to pass throuigh a black hole. I can however accept that you use it to mean just unknown.

I get phenomenal, but noumenal is not well defined for me, and the dictionary doesn't seem to be much help in understanding what you mean. From what you've said earlier, it seems to be a term Kant defined for his own uses?
It is not easy to get. Try the wiki page for noumenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumena) which has a good stab at explaining it. If you get phenomena though, what exists that is not phenomena? That is noumena. What there really is there. Not what we see or sense but the object that is real in and of itself. It is, in my sense of the word, unknowable. We can never access the noumenal world. We live in the phenomenal world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoumenaSo.. is a noumenal object what I've been referring to as a hypothetically real (phenomenal) object? [/quote] Yes I think so. If you mean an object that, in your meaning of real, has the potential to become real when the phenomena that it causes are perceived.

Oh, and my apologies to the thread owner if this constitutes hi-jacking, but with your indulgence I'd like to pursue this sub-topic a bit. I am sure that if BLARGistan wants his thread back he will ask.

Willamena

11-03-2005, 14:26

OK. If you realy want to get confused, because his ideas were brilliant but his ability to put them on paper was not, try loking at the work of Charles Sanders Peirce. If you have access to a good library (university level) then look for a collection called Pierce on Signs. Edited by James Hooper, published by Chapel Hill (ISBN 0-8078-4342-3) This includes, amongst other gems, the most inappropraitely titled paper of all time, called "How to make our ideas clear (http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html) "
LOL! Thank you. I am curious to see if I can make more sense of it than you, then, because of our philosophies. :)

.. is a noumenal object what I've been referring to as a hypothetically real (phenomenal) object? Yes I think so. If you mean an object that, in your meaning of real, has the potential to become real when the phenomena that it causes are perceived.
See, this is totally weird to me. You make it sound like phenomena are emitted or radiated from an object. According to my dictionary, phenomena are things observed, perceived through the senses, not "can be perceived." Perception is done by us, by consciousnesses. Without us, there are no phenomena because there is nothing perceived.

Perhaps I don't know the context of phenomena you're using as well as I thought I did?

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 14:48

I think that this is a definition. Obviously you do not or you did not read it.
I don't think it's a definition. But it is getting close to a definition that we can agree on. You think that reality and existence are very similar things, and that ideas exist and are real. So do I.

The meanings of the words do this, not the philosopher. Clouds do not sleep. Sleeping can not be done furiously. These are not open to dispute as they apply to all definitions of these words. If you change the meaning of the words, so that a cloud is a living thing that sleeps and furiously means for more than five minutes, then yes the words can make sense. But the sentence expresses an idea which is meaingless. Changing the meaning of the words changes the idea of the sentence. The category mistake ceases to exist. But this is not the point, it is at the moment a category mistake as is using existance as a predicate.
Actually, it is a category mistake to say that words have meanings. People have meanings. Words have uses. People use words to convey meanings. If a meaning can be conveyed by a particular form of words, that form of words is meaningful. The whole business about the sleeping clouds was introduced to the argument by you, not me, and I say that you cannot categorically state as an absolute fact that the phrase you used can never be meaningful. In fact you can, and you can be right, because what you consider meaningful and what I consider meaningful are different. Again, I believe that my conception of what is meaningful more accurately models human existence than yours.

A unicorn is an idea. No it isn't. It's a horse with a horn on its head

If you say it is not then it is nothing. Actually, it is neither nothing nor an idea. It is a horse with a horn on its head. You keep telling me that I have to choose between your alternatives, but I don't.

There is no real unicorn I know. Unicorns don't exist. Imaginary unicorns exist, pictures of unicorns exist, but unicorns don't.

but the word has a referrent, our idea. If it is not an idea it is not a horse with a horn on its head as this is an idea, see.
Just this little bit, I would like to explore. I really don't follow your argument here.

With regard to the Descartes contradiction no. But with regard to the unicorn you are still being contradictory. This time about ideas that are not ideas.I don't think so. You say a unicorn is an idea. I say it isn't. If I accepted that it was, I would be contradicting myself. But I don't, so I'm not.

Snub Nose 38

11-03-2005, 14:51

See, this is totally weird to me. You make it sound like phenomena are emitted or radiated from an object. According to my dictionary, phenomena are things observed, perceived through the senses, not "can be perceived." Perception is done by us, by consciousnesses. Without us, there are no phenomena because there is nothing perceived.

Perhaps I don't know the context of phenomena you're using as well as I thought I did?Think about what you've said (that I've put in bold above). It is almost exactly true. Redness - we perceive redness because the object has certain pigmentation values that cause certain waves of light to be reflected and others absorbed. We perceive sound because the object is in some fashion creating waves in the atmosphere, which our ears translate into sound. While these phenomena are not really being emitted/radiated by the object, there is some "interaction" there, and the object is "involved".

Re-read the definition of phenomena. It could just as easily have been written that phenomena are things that are available to be perceived by the senses.

If these things (phenomena) are not available to be perceived by the senses when the sensory organs of a concious mind are not around to do the receiving and perceiving of the data, then how can the phenomena be available when a conciousness suddenly comes into range? If you were driving down a road in the country, and no one else was within hundreds of miles, does the road "end" at the horizon? As you move forward, and the horizon "moves back", does the road suddenly "grow" from the last "end" you could see to the new "end" you can see, simply because you are now there to see it? Or, does the road exist there, waiting for you or someone else to come along and perceive it?

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 14:57

If these things (phenomena) are not available to be perceived by the senses when the sensory organs of a concious mind are not around to do the receiving and perceiving of the data, then how can the phenomena be available when a conciousness suddenly comes into range? If you were driving down a road in the country, and no one else was within hundreds of miles, does the road "end" at the horizon? As you move forward, and the horizon "moves back", does the road suddenly "grow" from the last "end" you could see to the new "end" you can see, simply because you are now there to see it? Or, does the road exist there, waiting for you or someone else to come along and perceive it?

Perception of the phenomena of a thing is not the same as the thing.

The usefulness of the existence of a thing may well be limited to the ability of a consciousness to perceive the phenomena associated with that thing, but the existence of the thing may well not be so limited.

Simply, the point* of the road moves with the perceiever, even if the existence of the road does not.

*point as in what's the point / purpose

Alien Born

11-03-2005, 15:04

LOL! Thank you. I am curious to see if I can make more sense of it than you, then, because of our philosophies. :)

See, this is totally weird to me. You make it sound like phenomena are emitted or radiated from an object. According to my dictionary, phenomena are things observed, perceived through the senses, not "can be perceived." Perception is done by us, by consciousnesses. Without us, there are no phenomena because there is nothing perceived.

Perhaps I don't know the context of phenomena you're using as well as I thought I did?

With C. S. Peirce, the problem is not the philosophy, but the writing style.

OK. Phenomena. Yes these can be seen in two ways. One they are that that we are aware of, the perceptions we have. The other is that they are the effect that the noumena have on us. Without us there are no phenomena, true. But without the noumena we are restricted to internal phenomena of a voluntary nature, at best and it is doubtful that even this would exist for us.
Red is something in our minds, it is a Lockian secondary quality. However there is also something out there, something real (in my sense of the word) that causes this phenomena. Yes it would be possible to consider that noumena radiate phenomena, but I would not subscribe to this. I would describe phenomena as the product of the interaction of a conscious mind with the real world (again my sense of real).
I referred to the phenomena that it causes being perceived, which was, I admit a an error, badly phrased. I should have said "when there are phenomena caused by it" as there are, as you correctly imply, no unperceived phenomena.

Alien Born

11-03-2005, 15:32

I don't think it's a definition. But it is getting close to a definition that we can agree on. You think that reality and existence are very similar things, and that ideas exist and are real. So do I.
So improve on it then, as it is the best I can do.

Actually, it is a category mistake to say that words have meanings. People have meanings. Words have uses. People use words to convey meanings. If a meaning can be conveyed by a particular form of words, that form of words is meaningful. The whole business about the sleeping clouds was introduced to the argument by you, not me, and I say that you cannot categorically state as an absolute fact that the phrase you used can never be meaningful. In fact you can, and you can be right, because what you consider meaningful and what I consider meaningful are different. Again, I believe that my conception of what is meaningful more accurately models human existence than yours.

Sorry, but words do have meanings, but these are subjective.. One problem in communications is that we can not know if the meaning the word has for us is the same as the one it had for the speaker/writer.
The arrogance of saying that your conception of meaning is more accurate than mine is incredible. If you want to think so, fine. I just think that they are different. The only model that I really have access to is my own. The only model you have access to is yours. From that you judge that your's is more like that of the models of all 6 billion people on this planet. I salute you for the sheer cheek of it.

No it isn't. It's a horse with a horn on its head And in what way, exactly, is a horse with a horn on its head not an idea? A unicorn is an idea, this does not prevent it being a horse with a horn on its head, does it?

Actually, it is neither nothing nor an idea. It is a horse with a horn on its head. You keep telling me that I have to choose between your alternatives, but I don't.
What do you have in your head. Let me guess, brain cells, some chemicals etc. Other than that, what do you have in your mind? Ideas. Anything else? If you do have you will be unique in the history of mankind. If you think of a unicorn, as a function of this you have an idea of a unicorn. OK. Any problem with this?
Now You can either be thinking of a unicorn or not thinking of a unicorn (Law of the excluded middle) You can not be sort of thinking but not really thinking of a unicorn. If you are not thinking of a unicorn ther is no unicorn in your mind, it is not, it is nothing. So, in your mind the unicorn is either an idea, or it is nothing. Yes I can give you the choice here. Can you tell me what other option you would like to have. A horse with a horn on its head is the description of that idea that you have named as a unicorn.. To swap to a description instead of an agreed name changes nothing. Just repeat for yourself if you want to insist on the description and not the name all I have posted in this block substituting "A horse with a horn on its head" for the word "unicorn" OK.

I know. Unicorns don't exist. Imaginary unicorns exist, pictures of unicorns exist, but unicorns don't.
Ah, we agree on something

Just this little bit, I would like to explore. I really don't follow your argument here.
Step one: I can imagine a beast that does not exist in reality. This beast is exactly like a horse except that it has a single horn in the centre of its forehead.
Step two: As I can imagine this beast, I have an idea of this beast.
Step three: I shall give a name to this beast. As it has one horn, then from Latin I shall call it a unicorn.
Step four. A unicorn is the idea of a horse with a single horn. As there is no horse with a single horn I can not say that a unicorn is a horse with a single horn as the verb to be (is) implies existence

To analyse what I said in my previous post:
If it is not an idea it is not a horse with a horn on its head as this is an idea
What is a horse with a horn on its head. There are two possibilities.
1. It is an impression of some real thing in the real world.
2. It is an idea that ay or may not have a real counterpart.
Unicorn is the name for a horse with a horn on its head. This means that I, or you, can use this word to substitute for this phrase.
Now you have clearly stated: "Unicorns don't exist" and we agree on this.
Tis eliminates option 1. Unless you can show me some other option as to what a horse with a horn on its head is, we are left with option 2.
A horse with a horn on its head is an idea.
So saying that a unicorn is not an idea, it is a horse with a horn on its head, is saying that a unicorn is not an idea it is an idea.

I don't think so. You say a unicorn is an idea. I say it isn't. If I accepted that it was, I would be contradicting myself. But I don't, so I'm not.
See above. In my view you are asserting that a unicorn is an idea and not an idea.

Westmorlandia

11-03-2005, 16:04

I don't think that it's right to say that 'a unicorn is the idea of a horse with a horn on its head.' I think it would be correct to say 'the idea of a unicorn is the idea of a horse with a horn on its head.'

That does not mean that it is correct to say that 'a unicorn is a horse with a horn on its head' if we assume that 'is' implies actual existence. However, if we were to say that the fact the idea of a unicorn exists means that the unicorn itself exists in some way (and many would), and that that type of existence is covered by 'is,' then the sentence at the start of this paragraph would be ok.

This is getting a little too far into definitions, which are the major source of philosophical blockages and only tend to really matter when these things are being discussed rather than thought about, so long as we apply those definitions consistently. The important thing is to understand what the other person is talking about when we judge their ideas, rather than imposing our own defintions onto their ideas and then judging them, which is a fallacious method.

Snub Nose 38

11-03-2005, 16:04

Perception of the phenomena of a thing is not the same as the thing.

The usefulness of the existence of a thing may well be limited to the ability of a consciousness to perceive the phenomena associated with that thing, but the existence of the thing may well not be so limited.

Simply, the point* of the road moves with the perceiever, even if the existence of the road does not.

*point as in what's the point / purposeI'm arguing that the thing exists, whether perceived or not.

I do not agree that the usefulness of a thing is limited by the ability of a conciousness to perceive the phenomena associated with that thing. The inate usefulness of the thing is the same, whether or not someone (the perceiver) has the wit to perceive that usefulness or not. Citrus fruit had the ability (usefulness) to prevent scurvy as long as citrus fruit existed on the planet. Mankind did not initially perceive that quality of citrus fruit, and then eventually did. The "usefulness" of citrus fruit did not change when mankind discovered that "usefulness" - the "use" changed. The usefulness had existed all along.

This also applies to your argument about the "point" of a road. The road exists. It can be used. In fact, outside this argument, it was created to be used. The road exists to be used whether or not a conciousness is traveling on it/can see it. If it did not exist beyond the farthest point that it is perceived by that conciousness, then as that concious being proceeded along the road, it would approach the end of the road, along with the end of the world, the end of the atmosphere, the end of...you get the picture, and would fall off.

That has not happened yet.

Things are what they are, and do not change because a concious being observes/perceives them. What changes, or can change, when a concious being observes/perceives something is the concious being.

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 16:06

So improve on it then, as it is the best I can do.
Why? I'm quite happy to accept that we both mean pretty much the same thing by existence. Certainly we mean things so similar that the difference isn't worth arguing about.
Sorry, but words do have meanings, but these are subjective..Sorry but... isn't an argument. You say that words have meanings. Me and willard quine say different.

One problem in communications is that we can not know if the meaning the word has for us is the same as the one it had for the speaker/writer.
The arrogance of saying that your conception of meaning is more accurate than mine is incredible. If you want to think so, fine. I just think that they are different. The only model that I really have access to is my own. The only model you have access to is yours. From that you judge that your's is more like that of the models of all 6 billion people on this planet. I salute you for the sheer cheek of it.It isn't true that the only model you have access to is your own. You know what mine is. I know what yours is. I got mine by learning about it from books. You got yours from whereever you got it from. I expect your studies played a part. You appear to have studied this quite a lot. I didn't say that my model is more like everyone else's model. I said that my model is more like reality. And I stand by that statement.
And in what way, exactly, is a horse with a horn on its head not an idea? A unicorn is an idea, this does not prevent it being a horse with a horn on its head, does it?Well, a horse with a horn on its head is a horse with a horn on its head. An idea, is an idea. An idea of a horse with a horn on its head is a type of idea. A horse with a horn on its head is a type of horse.
What do you have in your head. Let me guess, brain cells, some chemicals etc. Other than that, what do you have in your mind? Ideas. Anything else? If you do have you will be unique in the history of mankind. If you think of a unicorn, as a function of this you have an idea of a unicorn. OK. Any problem with this?none whatsoever. if i think of a unicorn, i have an idea of unicorn. granted.
Now You can either be thinking of a unicorn or not thinking of a unicorn (Law of the excluded middle)Granted
So, in your mind the unicorn is either an idea, or it is nothing.Granted that an idea of a unicorn is either an idea of a unicorn or it is nothing
Yes I can give you the choice here. Can you tell me what other option you would like to have.With regard to ideas, i can say that an idea of something is either an idea of that thing or it is nothing. But an idea of a unicorn is not the same as a unicorn.
A horse with a horn on its head is the description of that idea that you have named as a unicorn.No it isn't. You keep saying this, but I disagree. It is NOT a description of the idea. It is a description of the REALITY. That the reality doesn't exist is my point. An idea of a unicorn is a real idea. A unicorn is not real not idea.
To swap to a description instead of an agreed name changes nothing. Just repeat for yourself if you want to insist on the description and not the name all I have posted in this block substituting "A horse with a horn on its head" for the word "unicorn" OK.OK. A horse with a horn on its head is not an idea. It is a horse with a horn on its head. An idea of a horse with a horn on its head is a real existent idea. A horse with a horn on its head is not real, not existent and not an idea.
Step one: I can imagine a beast that does not exist in reality. This beast is exactly like a horse except that it has a single horn in the centre of its forehead.
Step two: As I can imagine this beast, I have an idea of this beast.
Step three: I shall give a name to this beast. As it has one horn, then from Latin I shall call it a unicorn.
Step four. A unicorn is the idea of a horse with a single horn. As there is no horse with a single horn I can not say that a unicorn is a horse with a single horn as the verb to be (is) implies existence
Step four isn't a step. It is an enormous series of huge leaps. And it begins with a fallacy. You can't prove that a unicorn is an idea by saying "a unicorn is an idea". In step three, you did not give a name to the idea of the beast, you gave a name to the beast. This is why I say that my position more closely models reality. In reality, we do what you just did, even though you have been arguing for 3 days now that it is meaningless to do it. You named the beast, not the idea of the beast. That is how people and language work. It may not be how formal logic works, but in spite of yourself that is what you did.

What is a horse with a horn on its head. There are two possibilities.
1. It is an impression of some real thing in the real world.
2. It is an idea that ay or may not have a real counterpart.
Unicorn is the name for a horse with a horn on its head. This means that I, or you, can use this word to substitute for this phrase.
Now you have clearly stated: "Unicorns don't exist" and we agree on this.
Tis eliminates option 1. Unless you can show me some other option as to what a horse with a horn on its head is, we are left with option 2.
A horse with a horn on its head is an idea.
So saying that a unicorn is not an idea, it is a horse with a horn on its head, is saying that a unicorn is not an idea it is an ideaThis is only true if you accept 1 and 2. I don't. I say that not everything is reducible to EITHER a real thing OR a real idea. I say that there are some things that are neither real things nor real ideas. I say that there are non-existent things. You say that there aren't. We are back where we began.

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 16:10

Things are what they are, and do not change because a concious being observes/perceives them. What changes, or can change, when a concious being observes/perceives something is the concious being.

I'm arguing that it doesn't matter whether things exist or not if they aren't perceived.

Citrus fruit may well have had the potential capability to prevent scurvy even when nobody used it as such, but we don't know that it did, and hey, who cares? It only becomes a scurvy preventing thing when it is used to prevent scurvy. So its capacities are irrelevant until exploited.

Furthermore, I suspect a lot of quantum physicists would disagree with your statement that things do not change because a conscious being observes them. My very limited understanding of this field suggests that they do.

Alien Born

11-03-2005, 16:12

Why? I'm quite happy to accept that we both mean pretty much the same thing by existence. Certainly we mean things so similar that the difference isn't worth arguing about.
Sorry but... isn't an argument. You say that words have meanings. Me and willard quine say different.

It isn't true that the only model you have access to is your own. You know what mine is. I know what yours is. I got mine by learning about it from books. You got yours from whereever you got it from. I expect your studies played a part. You appear to have studied this quite a lot. I didn't say that my model is more like everyone else's model. I said that my model is more like reality. And I stand by that statement.
Well, a horse with a horn on its head is a horse with a horn on its head. An idea, is an idea. An idea of a horse with a horn on its head is a type of idea. A horse with a horn on its head is a type of horse.
none whatsoever. if i think of a unicorn, i have an idea of unicorn. granted.
Granted
Granted that an idea of a unicorn is either an idea of a unicorn or it is nothing
With regard to ideas, i can say that an idea of something is either an idea of that thing or it is nothing. But an idea of a unicorn is not the same as a unicorn.
No it isn't. You keep saying this, but I disagree. It is NOT a description of the idea. It is a description of the REALITY. That the reality doesn't exist is my point. An idea of a unicorn is a real idea. A unicorn is not real not idea.
OK. A horse with a horn on its head is not an idea. It is a horse with a horn on its head. An idea of a horse with a horn on its head is a real existent idea. A horse with a horn on its head is not real, not existent and not an idea.

Step four isn't a step. It is an enormous series of huge leaps. And it begins with a fallacy. You can't prove that a unicorn is an idea by saying "a unicorn is an idea". In step three, you did not give a name to the idea of the beast, you gave a name to the beast. This is why I say that my position more closely models reality. In reality, we do what you just did, even though you have been arguing for 3 days now that it is meaningless to do it. You named the beast, not the idea of the beast. That is how people and language work. It may not be how formal logic works, but in spite of yourself that is what you did.

This is only true if you accept 1 and 2. I don't. I say that not everything is reducible to EITHER a real thing OR a real idea. I say that there are some things that are neither real things nor real ideas. I say that there are non-existent things. You say that there aren't. We are back where we began.

Forget it. You simply refuse to consider that a non real thing, an imaginary thing is an idea or nothing. You do not however describe at any time, in any way, what it is. It is easy to say. "No, it is neither", any jackfool can do that. Now say what it is, rather than what it is not.
You should go and reread Willard Quine, A J Ayer, Bertrand Russel,, Wittgenstein, Hegel, Kant, Locke, Aquinas. etc. etc.
Have fun. You have an awful lot to learn yet.

Willamena

11-03-2005, 16:19

Think about what you've said (that I've put in bold above). It is almost exactly true. Redness - we perceive redness because the object has certain pigmentation values that cause certain waves of light to be reflected and others absorbed. We perceive sound because the object is in some fashion creating waves in the atmosphere, which our ears translate into sound. While these phenomena are not really being emitted/radiated by the object, there is some "interaction" there, and the object is "involved".

Re-read the definition of phenomena. It could just as easily have been written that phenomena are things that are available to be perceived by the senses.

If these things (phenomena) are not available to be perceived by the senses when the sensory organs of a concious mind are not around to do the receiving and perceiving of the data, then how can the phenomena be available when a conciousness suddenly comes into range? If you were driving down a road in the country, and no one else was within hundreds of miles, does the road "end" at the horizon? As you move forward, and the horizon "moves back", does the road suddenly "grow" from the last "end" you could see to the new "end" you can see, simply because you are now there to see it? Or, does the road exist there, waiting for you or someone else to come along and perceive it?
Well, if phenomena are traits available to be known (potentially known) then it makes more sense. But my dictionary specifically says it is things "recognized or experienced by the senses." Past tense. (My dictionary has no entry for noumenal.) This is why I suspect it's in a context that I'm not seeing. I shall read the links Alien Born posted and be on a better footing to discuss this.

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 16:20

Forget it. You simply refuse to consider that a non real thing, an imaginary thing is an idea or nothing. No I don't. I've considered it very hard. I've considered it up and down, and accept the usefulness of this conceit in the field of formal logic, and I've said as much in this thread.
You do not however describe at any time, in any way, what it is. It is easy to say. "No, it is neither", any jackfool can do that.You can't. At least you haven't done yet.
Now say what it is, rather than what it is not.It is a non-existent thing. Some things exist, some things do not. Things that don't exist are non-existent things. I don't see where that is hard to grasp.
You should go and reread Willard Quine, A J Ayer, Bertrand Russel,, Wittgenstein, Hegel, Kant, Locke, Aquinas. etc. etc.Are you saying that all of those people agree with you and each other about what constitutes meaning, and whether existence is a real predicate?
Have fun. You have an awful lot to learn yet.Don't we all?

You haven't addressed the fact that having argued from one point of view for three days, you spoke quite naturally from another. I have addressed this throughout my argument. In fact, it pretty much is my argument. Still, easier to just say "forget it".

Snub Nose 38

11-03-2005, 16:24

I'm arguing that it doesn't matter whether things exist or not if they aren't perceived.

Citrus fruit may well have had the potential capability to prevent scurvy even when nobody used it as such, but we don't know that it did, and hey, who cares? It only becomes a scurvy preventing thing when it is used to prevent scurvy. So its capacities are irrelevant until exploited.

Furthermore, I suspect a lot of quantum physicists would disagree with your statement that things do not change because a conscious being observes them. My very limited understanding of this field suggests that they do.Think about this for a minute or two before you reply.

Using your arguement that we don't know what a thing was or had the capicity for until we perceive it, how can quantum physicists know that something is behaving differently because that thing is being observed?

Because, until they observe it, they have no idea how it was behaving before it was observed.

Unless one can in some way determine what the thing was doing (what capacity it had, etc.) before the observation began from the observations themselves.

Which begs the case that the thing did have existance, capacity, usefulness, "point", before the observation (perception) began.

Your arguement, to me, continues to seem to be that nothing exists or has a "point" unless it is observed/perceived by a conciousness. I continue to disagree. What is, is. It does not require validation by a conciousness. In fact, the only thing I can think of that requires validation by a conciousness is another conciousness.

Alien Born

11-03-2005, 16:26

I'm arguing that it doesn't matter whether things exist or not if they aren't perceived.

Citrus fruit may well have had the potential capability to prevent scurvy even when nobody used it as such, but we don't know that it did, and hey, who cares? It only becomes a scurvy preventing thing when it is used to prevent scurvy. So its capacities are irrelevant until exploited.

Furthermore, I suspect a lot of quantum physicists would disagree with your statement that things do not change because a conscious being observes them. My very limited understanding of this field suggests that they do.

It matters. It may not mater to you, but the whole history of human scientific endeveour has been based on discovering what is real. Before we knew about heart disease, it didn't matter? Of course it mattered to those who died or were bereaved by it. Electrons don't matter. You can't perceive them. They can kill you, they make your life easier, but they don't matter. The potential that is real in things is of importance. Discovering this potential is of importance and matters even if it has not been used. Does the USA stockpile of nuclear weapons matter, it has not been used yet?

Quantum mechanics does not say that observation "changes" anything. It simply fixes, but even that is highly controversial. Observation may or may not do this, it may be the scaling up to observable level that does it. No requirement for conscious minds being involved whatsoever. Stop being so unjustifiably anthropocentric. The universe has its real components that do not depend upon anyone or anythging observing them. If you do not care how the world around you actualy is, fine, but most of us do.

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 16:28

Think about this for a minute or two before you reply.

Using your arguement that we don't know what a thing was or had the capicity for until we perceive it, how can quantum physicists know that something is behaving differently because that thing is being observed.

Because, until they observe it, they have no idea how it was behaving before it was observed.Yes. Well said. I find this both true and hilarious.

Which begs the case that the thing did have existance, capacity, usefulness, "point", before the observation (perception) began. Your arguement, to me, continues to seem to be that nothing exists or has a "point" unless it is observed/perceived by a conciousness.Actually that isn't my argument. My argument is that it may well exist when it is not perceived, but it doesn't matter if it exists when it is not perceived. It is only an issue when it is perceived. To put it flippantly, if a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there to hear it, who cares whether it makes a sound?

I don't say that nothing exists unless it is perceived, I say that it doesn't matter whether it exists or not until it is perceived.

I do say that nothing has a point until it is perceived. What is the use of the goose that lays the golden egg that lives on mars that we've never heard of? Whereof we cannot speak, thereof who gives a toss?

I continue to disagree. What is, is. It does not require validation by a conciousness. In fact, the only thing I can think of that requires validation by a conciousness is another conciousness.What is may or may not be. It doesn't require validation by a consciousness, probably. When it *is* validated by a consciousness, then the discussion starts.

Alien Born

11-03-2005, 16:28

You haven't addressed the fact that having argued from one point of view for three days, you spoke quite naturally from another. I have addressed this throughout my argument. In fact, it pretty much is my argument. Still, easier to just say "forget it".

Where and when?

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 16:37

It matters. It may not mater to you, but the whole history of human scientific endeveour has been based on discovering what is real. Before we knew about heart disease, it didn't matter?Before we perceived heart disease, it can't have mattered. As soon as someone died of a heart attack, that person was perceiving heart disease in a very real way, even if they did not know what they were perceiving. The majority of scientific endeavour has been about solving real problems, problems that were perceived.
Of course it mattered to those who died or were bereaved by it. Electrons don't matter. You can't perceive them.Of course I can. I can see the blue light they cause to be emitted, and i can feel the tingle on my tongue when i lick a 9volt battery
They can kill you, they make your life easier, but they don't matter. The potential that is real in things is of importance. Discovering this potential is of importance and matters even if it has not been used. Does the USA stockpile of nuclear weapons matter, it has not been used yet?Who said electricity doesn't matter? Who said that the stockpile of US nuclear weapons hasn't been perceived? I expect the people who made them know exactly what they can do. Had they just appeared from nowhere in a sealed underground cavern that nobody knows about, then I would say they don't matter. In fact all the nucler weapons that nobody has ever perceived ever don't matter. But the ones that lots of people perceive in the US matter a great deal to me.

Quantum mechanics does not say that observation "changes" anything. It simply fixes, but even that is highly controversial.Maybe so. My understanding is, as I said, limited. Observation may or may not do this, it may be the scaling up to observable level that does it. No requirement for conscious minds being involved whatsoever.I didn't say there was a requirement. I did say specifically that there wasn't.
Stop being so unjustifiably anthropocentric.You say it is unjustifiable. I say what justifies anthropocentricity is that it makes no odds whether there is a black hole somewhere that no human being has ever seen heard been or in any way perceived. It might make some odds to the Gargoids who live nearby who have perceived it, but then they've perceived it, so by my argument, it matters to them.
The universe has its real components that do not depend upon anyone or anythging observing them.Quite possiblyIf you do not care how the world around you actualy is, fine, but most of us do.Well I don't know how you come to the conclusion that most people care about how the world around them is. I would say that most people don't give a monkeys so long as it all works.

And I defy you to claim that you care about something you know nothing about. Go on, tell me that there is something you've never heard of that you care about.

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 16:40

Where and when?

Step one: I can imagine a beast that does not exist in reality. This beast is exactly like a horse except that it has a single horn in the centre of its forehead.
Step two: As I can imagine this beast, I have an idea of this beast.
Step three: I shall give a name to this beast. As it has one horn, then from Latin I shall call it a unicorn.

step three. I shall give a name to this beast.

Not the idea of the beast, but the beast. You claim that the beast can't have a name as it doesn't exist, but the idea of the beast can. But you didn't name the idea, you named the beast.

Snub Nose 38

11-03-2005, 16:41

Yes. Well said. I find this both true and hilarious.

Actually that isn't my argument. My argument is that it may well exist when it is not perceived, but it doesn't matter if it exists when it is not perceived. It is only an issue when it is perceived. To put it flippantly, if a tree falls in the forest and no-one is there to hear it, who cares whether it makes a sound?

I don't say that nothing exists unless it is perceived, I say that it doesn't matter whether it exists or not until it is perceived.

I do say that nothing has a point until it is perceived. What is the use of the goose that lays the golden egg that lives on mars that we've never heard of? Whereof we cannot speak, thereof who gives a toss?

What is may or may not be. It doesn't require validation by a consciousness, probably. When it *is* validated by a consciousness, then the discussion starts.Well, that's quite an egocentric view of the universe. Nothing matters unless it effects you (the conciousness). Directly, or directly and indirectly?

I don't agree. I see your point, and concede that it is a view point one can have. I don't believe it's true, but I don't see a way to prove it false.

Did I exist before you and I began this discussion?

Did you?

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 16:44

Well, that's quite an egocentric view of the universe. Nothing matters unless it effects you (the conciousness). Directly, or directly and indirectly?In some way, any way at all.

I don't agree. I see your point, and concede that it is a view point one can have. I don't believe it's true, but I don't see a way to prove it false.

It's gracious of you to say so. You can't prove that it is false, because it is simply a valid point of view.

Did I exist before you and I began this discussion?Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. I'm inclined to think you did, because in my experience people don't just pop into being and start debating philosophy. But ultimately it makes no odds, does it?
Did you?Certainly. Descartes proved it.

Snub Nose 38

11-03-2005, 16:47

step three. I shall give a name to this beast.

Not the idea of the beast, but the beast. You claim that the beast can't have a name as it doesn't exist, but the idea of the beast can. But you didn't name the idea, you named the beast.No - this is merely semantics. Alien Born did not name the beast, because there is no beast - and therefore, he had to name the idea of the beast. However sometimes we phrase things in ways that can be misunderstood.

Other than Komodo Dragons, show me a dragon. Yet, we have a name for the idea of a dragon. Show me a centaur. Yet, we have named the idea of the centaur.

We give names to ideas so that we can talk about them. Naming them does not change whether it is the idea that exists, or the "beast". It simply allows use to discuss or refer to the idea.

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 16:51

No - this is merely semantics. Alien Born did not name the beast, because there is no beast - and therefore, he had to name the idea of the beast. However sometimes we phrase things in ways that can be misunderstood.

Other than Komodo Dragons, show me a dragon. Yet, we have a name for the idea of a dragon. Show me a centaur. Yet, we have named the idea of the centaur.

We give names to ideas so that we can talk about them. Naming them does not change whether it is the idea that exists, or the "beast". It simply allows use to discuss or refer to the idea.

you're in at the end of a very long argument. i say that the dragon, well we were saying unicorn, but what they hey, is not a "real idea", but i believe it to be a "not real thing". i can't show you one because it is not real.

an idea of a dragon is a "real idea". a dragon is a "not-real thing". You almost certainly won't persuade me otherwise. I believe he named the beast, he even said that he named the beast. It may well be linguistic shorthand, but i think it isn't.

Snub Nose 38

11-03-2005, 16:54

In some way, any way at all.

It's gracious of you to say so. You can't prove that it is false, because it is simply a valid point of view.

Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. I'm inclined to think you did, because in my experience people don't just pop into being and start debating philosophy. But ultimately it makes no odds, does it?
Certainly. Descartes proved it.Yet, from my point of view, there was no "you" until you entered this discussion, and came to my attention.

In fact, Descartes proved, to himself, his own existance. He is completely silent on your existance. Or, for that matter, mine.

In my experience, roads don't pop into being simply because someone starts traveling on them. Nor do trees stop falling in the forest simply because no one is there to perceive them.

It does "make odds" - and that is the gist of this discussion. How can you "walk the road" of existance, and not see that it was there before you bothered to notice it?

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 16:59

Yet, from my point of view, there was no "you" until you entered this discussion, and came to my attention.That's exactly my point. We could either bang our heads together over it for ever, or we could admit that it doesn't make any difference.
In fact, Descartes proved, to himself, his own existance. He is completely silent on your existance. Or, for that matter, mine.Exactly. Descartes allowed me to prove my own existence to me. What I can prove to myself is proven. What I can't prove to myself and yet perceive is unproven but useful. What I can not perceive is irrelevant.
In my experience, roads don't pop into being simply because someone starts traveling on them. Nor do trees stop falling in the forest simply because no one is there to perceive them.Sure
It does "make odds" - and that is the gist of this discussion. How can you "walk the road" of existance, and not see that it was there before you bothered to notice it?It isn't a question of not seeing. It is a question of not caring. We can see that there are fossils of dinosaurs, so we study and discuss dinosaurs. I think I am safe in saying there have been no discussions of Jurassic Starbucks, because we don't care about the Jurassic Starbucks, because we have not perceived there to have ever been any such thing. I bet if we perceived a Jurassic starbucks, we'd discuss it to pieces.

This is why there are constant debates about the existence or otherwise of things that some people perceive and others do not, like God and ghosts.

Willamena

11-03-2005, 17:19

Originally Posted by Alien Born
Sorry, but words do have meanings, but these are subjective..
Small (but significant) thing. Words, both spoken and written, are symbols. Symbols stand for things; in this case they stand in place of meanings, thoughts, ideas... It is not the words themselves that are subjective. Subjectivity is a perspective, it is "of the mind", one mind. The meanings subjectively understood are of the mind; the words are just symbols.

Independent Homesteads

11-03-2005, 17:23

Small (but significant) thing. Words, both spoken and written, are symbols. Symbols stand for things; in this case they stand in place of meanings, thoughts, ideas... It is not the words themselves that are subjective. Subjectivity is a perspective, it is "of the mind", one mind. The meanings subjectively understood are of the mind; the words are just symbols.
bingo
people have meanings, and they use words as symbols to convey those meanings.

Alien Born

11-03-2005, 18:05

step three. I shall give a name to this beast.

Not the idea of the beast, but the beast. You claim that the beast can't have a name as it doesn't exist, but the idea of the beast can. But you didn't name the idea, you named the beast.
I have imagined the beast. The beast is imiginary. This, in english is used to refer to a previously identified specific thing. This beast, in this case is the imaginary beast. If I had said that I give a name to the beast, then you will have had a very minor point based on a normal usage of a word not applying under extrordinary cicumstances. But as I said, and you quoted and repeated this beast then not even this minor point follows.
I will however be very surprised if, in all that I have posted there are no linguistic slips. I am not basing my arguments on the language. (I detest the linguistic turn in philosophy as all it did was create pedantry rather than thought). My arguments are conceptual. I am, of course, restrited to expressing them lingusisticaly, which is great frustration as whenever nearly anyone wants to atrtack them they attack the language not the concept. I have a great respect for some posters here. Willamena, Peopleandstuff, AnarchyeL, to name a few. They discuss the concepts. I am acquiring a such respect for Snub Nose 38 (Very Angry Rabbits ;) )
I have asked you to make clear what you mean by exist, you refuse to do so. It is then impossible to get any grasp on this strange concept that you have of a horse with a horn that does not exist but is not an idea. To make sense in any way of this I have to be able to adopt your idea of exist. As you say that this exists.

Alien Born

11-03-2005, 18:14

bingo
people have meanings, and they use words as symbols to convey those meanings.

If only it were that simple. In a post a couple of pages back, to Willamena I gave a link to an article called "How to make our ideas clear". This is one of the foundational papers in the area of semiotics. Try reading it. And then come back and say that words do not have meanings, only people have meanings.

The simpler ways of challenging this point are
1. How is a dictionary possible if words do not have meanings?
2. How can anyone translate a phrase from one language to another whilst retaining the meaning if the words do not have meanings?

The whole subject of meaning is a minefield. There are many levels of meaning in any message. One of these levels is the meaning of the words chosen. Denying this is just pointless, as words clearly do have meanings. There are other levels as well, such as the contextual meaning of the message, the implicit meaning, and so on. Words do, nevertheless have meaning.

Willamena

11-03-2005, 21:34

It is a non-existent thing. Some things exist, some things do not. Things that don't exist are non-existent things. I don't see where that is hard to grasp.
Things that don't exist we only imagine.

E Blackadder

11-03-2005, 21:51

here is a little song about philosiphers

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant,
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel;
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine,
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel...
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist,
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed...
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato they say, could stick it away,
Half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram--
And René Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed--
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed!

Willamena

11-03-2005, 22:00

If only it were that simple. In a post a couple of pages back, to Willamena I gave a link to an article called "How to make our ideas clear". This is one of the foundational papers in the area of semiotics. Try reading it. And then come back and say that words do not have meanings, only people have meanings.

The simpler ways of challenging this point are
1. How is a dictionary possible if words do not have meanings?
2. How can anyone translate a phrase from one language to another whilst retaining the meaning if the words do not have meanings?

The whole subject of meaning is a minefield. There are many levels of meaning in any message. One of these levels is the meaning of the words chosen. Denying this is just pointless, as words clearly do have meanings. There are other levels as well, such as the contextual meaning of the message, the implicit meaning, and so on. Words do, nevertheless have meaning.
1. I myself have found dictionaries to be rather useless to find meaning, especially in that to define a word they point at another word that points back at the first word to define itself. ...like "real" and "exist". ;)
2. Because it is the idea, not the meaning, that is translated. I can use one set of words to express an idea, or another set of words to express the same idea. The meaning of the words is what is interpreted by the reader, whatever the author meant to say. I may express an idea when I post on a thread, but it may be read as sarcasm or worse on the other end, and that changes the meaning entirely (happened to me a couple times, in fact). Two people may read the same passage of words and get the message, but it can have entirely different meaning to each.

Alien Born

11-03-2005, 22:05

It is a non-existent thing. Some things exist, some things do not. Things that don't exist are non-existent things. I don't see where that is hard to grasp.
Things that don't exist we only imagine.

What is this thing that does not exist? That is what is so hard about it.
IH: you have asserted that ideas exist and that reality exists. I agreed with you. Then you say there is a thing that does not exist, what is it? It can not be an idea, it can not be real, but it is still, in some mysterious unexplained manner a thing rather than nothing. (Don't tell me it is a description of an idea, as that is in itself an idea.)

Will: You started the Existence and Reality thread with the statement existence exists. We established that our imagined objects existed, in our imagination. Thus, surely, things that don't exist, we can not even imagine.
This is where the discussion started on reality. You holding that reality was validated existence, and my holding that it was independent existence. Either way, the imaginary exists.

Snub Nose 38

11-03-2005, 22:12

Alien Born

11-03-2005, 22:15

1. I myself have found dictionaries to be rather useless to find meaning, especially in that to define a word they point at another word that points back at the first word to define itself. ...like "real" and "exist". ;)
2. Because it is the idea, not the meaning, that is translated. I can use one set of words to express an idea, or another set of words to express the same idea. The meaning of the words is what is interpreted by the reader, whatever the author meant to say. I may express an idea when I post on a thread, but it may be read as sarcasm or worse on the other end, and that changes the meaning entirely (happened to me a couple times, in fact). Two people may read the same passage of words and get the message, but it can have entirely different meaning to each.

Look at your last sentence. It says that meaning is a function of the interaction of the symbols (words in this case) with the person. The meaning is not in the person. The meaning, and it is a complex, not a simple meaning, is in the message. As I said in the last paragraph of my post on this, meaning has many levels. One of these levels is the meaning of the words.

It is normal and not in the slightest bit strange, when you encounter an unknown word, to ask yourself "What does that word mean?" You do not normally ask, when encountering a new word, "What idea is the author trying to convey with this symbol?"

Yes there are other levels of meaning, which restrict the complex meaning to a smaller subset. These are context and implication. If I say "hit me" in a casino it has a different meaning to when I say it in the sparring ring. This is not denied. But to deny that words themselves have meanings is to negate any possibility of meaningful language. "Hit me" simply never means that "the universal constant of gravitation is denoted by the symbol g." Why not? If the meaning was in the person, then 'hit me" could mean anything. Hit has a range of meanings. Me has a range of meanings. The combination has a widewr range of meanings, but a finite range all the same. Which exact meaning does depend upon the context, implication, speaker and listener as well as the words. But the words have meanings.

Willamena

12-03-2005, 01:19

Look at your last sentence. It says that meaning is a function of the interaction of the symbols (words in this case) with the person.
Okay, but it is the person (the intelligent consciousness) who initiates "interaction" with the symbols, not the other way around. Obviously, symbols don't have the ability to act; any action is done by the person. Alone.

The meaning is not in the person. The meaning, and it is a complex, not a simple meaning, is in the message. As I said in the last paragraph of my post on this, meaning has many levels. One of these levels is the meaning of the words.

It is normal and not in the slightest bit strange, when you encounter an unknown word, to ask yourself "What does that word mean?" You do not normally ask, when encountering a new word, "What idea is the author trying to convey with this symbol?"

Yes there are other levels of meaning, which restrict the complex meaning to a smaller subset. These are context and implication. If I say "hit me" in a casino it has a different meaning to when I say it in the sparring ring. This is not denied. But to deny that words themselves have meanings is to negate any possibility of meaningful language. "Hit me" simply never means that "the universal constant of gravitation is denoted by the symbol g." Why not? If the meaning was in the person, then 'hit me" could mean anything. Hit has a range of meanings. Me has a range of meanings. The combination has a widewr range of meanings, but a finite range all the same. Which exact meaning does depend upon the context, implication, speaker and listener as well as the words. But the words have meanings.
I am not actually disputing that "words have meaning" since that is indeed the language we use to express that idea. It is the nature of symbols that they literally stand in place of what they mean. But the meanings that words have are the ideas behind the symbols (conventions) that were once assigned and which we learn when we learn the language. "Dog" (an animal image springs to mind), "bite" (a toothy action; tagged onto the previous word it generates a further image of the dog acting), "me" (myself, I; tagged onto the previous words, the image of the dog's action is expanded upon, followed perhaps by a brief feeling of panic), "repeatedly" (ouch). That image or idea generated in the mind is the meaning that the word has. We do that, each of us.

The question asked of a person, "what does this word mean?" will inevitably boil down to "what does this word mean to you?" Usually the response will be in accordance with the convention, but not always. We can accept that one meaning given, or we might get another's response to get a better feel for the word. I did that for "noumenal" (and was met with a few blank stares; no philosophers in my crowd).

If meaning were a property of the words, we would all be able to read, with no effort, any language ever made.

Alien Born

12-03-2005, 02:07

Okay, but it is the person (the intelligent consciousness) who initiates "interaction" with the symbols, not the other way around. Obviously, symbols don't have the ability to act; any action is done by the person. Alone.
Symbols do have the ability to act upon our consciousness. Or at least to initiate a sequence of actions. They are causally effective. If you do not consider that as action, then so be it, but I do. A cause does not have to be an agent. Gravity is often a cause. It acts, but it certainly is not conscious. I disagree with the limitation of action to being only possible for persons. Words act. they cause reactions. You read a particularly sad passage or poem and tears come to your eyes. The only cause for this is the words that are written down for you to read. You have no access nor effect from the idea of the writer as ideas are inherently private. My idea is accessable only to me. I can place the meaning I wish to transfer into words. But the meaning is then in the words, not in my idea.

I am not actually disputing that "words have meaning" since that is indeed the language we use to express that idea. It is the nature of symbols that they literally stand in place of what they mean. But the meanings that words have are the ideas behind the symbols (conventions) that were once assigned and which we learn when we learn the language.
If this were the case every language would be private. Your ideas are only accessable to you, mine to me, and hers to her. Symbols do not stand in the place of the idea that they mean, they mean something of themselves. This meaning can not be the idea behind the symbol as the symbol probably does not have ideas, and even if it does neither you nor I could access these. But we can both understand words. The words then have to have meaning. If not no understanding of them would be possible.
I ask how is it possible to learn a language if you have to know the idea, that is unknowable, behind a word before you can know its meaning. The whole view of language as tokens for ideas, which is clearly expressed in the work of Locke, runs into an infinite regress.
I want to teach you a word. Say "firstness". Now to teach you this word I have to show/say the word whilst explaining the idea. Now to do this I have to have words, already agreed, with which I can explain the idea. To agree these words I have to show/say the word whilst explaining the idea. Repeat forever. Words can not be symbols for inaccessable ideas. If they were we would have no language. Words have to have meaning as words, rather than just stand for an idea.

"Dog" (an animal image springs to mind), "bite" (a toothy action; tagged onto the previous word it generates a further image of the dog acting), "me" (myself, I; tagged onto the previous words, the image of the dog's action is expanded upon, followed perhaps by a brief feeling of panic), "repeatedly" (ouch). That image or idea generated in the mind is the meaning that the word has. We do that, each of us.
Yes, the image generated in each of us derives from the effect that that word has on us. (Tautological actually, if you hold an imagistic view of ideas.)
This is the interaction of the meaning of the word with our consciousness. There is no external idea being represented by the word, just its meaning.

The question asked of a person, "what does this word mean?" will inevitably boil down to "what does this word mean to you?" Usually the response will be in accordance with the convention, but not always. We can accept that one meaning given, or we might get another's response to get a better feel for the word. I did that for "noumenal" (and was met with a few blank stares; no philosophers in my crowd).
Normaly the question "what does this word mean?" results in an explanation of when and how to use the word. Under what circumstances it is used, what type of effect it will have. Technical vocabulary is a little different as there the meaning is normaly tightly defined. "What does dereferencing in C++ programming mean?" is answered with a technical definition. It rarely comes down to "what does this word mean for you?" outside of philosophical discussions. (As I said earlier, I dislike the linguistic turn in philosophy, pure pedantry most of the time)

If meaning were a property of the words, we would all be able to read, with no effort, any language ever made.

Only if you knew all languages. This is what it is to know a language, to understand the meaning of the words, in context and as used. (Just vocabulary on its own does not suffice) If you know the language then you can understand any of the infinite number of things that can be said with it.
If ideas were shareable, we would not have or need language. (Unless you believe thinking is language based, which I have real doubts about.)

A sound does not have a meaning. Nor does a sequence of marks. These are not words. Words are conventions which have meanings. To learn a language you learn the conventions for that language.

On the basis of sound, for example, the sound represented in English by the letter sequence N - O - W is a word and has a meaning. The same sound is also a word in Portuguese, but its meaning is different, so it is a different word, regardless of its sound being the same. Do not confuse words with sounds or letter sequences. They are more than this.

P.S. Now, spelt não, in Portuguese means the same as no in English.
And the English meaning of now is given by the Portugues agora (a - gor - ah)

Willamena

14-03-2005, 04:08

Symbols do have the ability to act upon our consciousness. Or at least to initiate a sequence of actions. They are causally effective. If you do not consider that as action, then so be it, but I do. A cause does not have to be an agent. Gravity is often a cause. It acts, but it certainly is not conscious. I disagree with the limitation of action to being only possible for persons. Words act. they cause reactions. You read a particularly sad passage or poem and tears come to your eyes. The only cause for this is the words that are written down for you to read. You have no access nor effect from the idea of the writer as ideas are inherently private. My idea is accessable only to me. I can place the meaning I wish to transfer into words. But the meaning is then in the words, not in my idea.

If this were the case every language would be private. Your ideas are only accessable to you, mine to me, and hers to her. Symbols do not stand in the place of the idea that they mean, they mean something of themselves. This meaning can not be the idea behind the symbol as the symbol probably does not have ideas, and even if it does neither you nor I could access these. But we can both understand words. The words then have to have meaning. If not no understanding of them would be possible.
A matter of semantics, then. You seem to use the word "idea" where I would use "thought". Our thoughts are internal, our thoughts are private; ideas can be communicated, ideas can be put down in symbol, actualized. The dictionary calls it a "product of thought," to which I agree. Ideas are the internal thought that can be expressed outwardly, for the purpose of communicating meaning, such as the ideas we are presenting here for the benefit of each other. Meaning, though, is what is applied to the message by a consciousness.

Your use of the word "idea" gave clues to me as to its meaning to you.

Gravity is a force; words are intert. They have no power over us but what we give (assign) them. To give them a power to effect us smacks of them having some magical ability. Yes, reading a moving passage can have tremendous effect; but it is the author of the words --his ideas --to whom I attribute this effect, not the words themselves.

I ask how is it possible to learn a language if you have to know the idea, that is unknowable, behind a word before you can know its meaning. The whole view of language as tokens for ideas, which is clearly expressed in the work of Locke, runs into an infinite regress.
I want to teach you a word. Say "firstness". Now to teach you this word I have to show/say the word whilst explaining the idea. Now to do this I have to have words, already agreed, with which I can explain the idea. To agree these words I have to show/say the word whilst explaining the idea. Repeat forever. Words can not be symbols for inaccessable ideas. If they were we would have no language. Words have to have meaning as words, rather than just stand for an idea.
Inaccessable ideas are those not expressed. Ideas expressed in words are accessible.

Yes, the image generated in each of us derives from the effect that that word has on us. (Tautological actually, if you hold an imagistic view of ideas.)
This is the interaction of the meaning of the word with our consciousness. There is no external idea being represented by the word, just its meaning.
The effect you speak of is a response to a stimulus, but is not the words themselves that stimulate us, it is the faculty of understanding. We produce the stimulus and the effect. The author's meaning interacts with us though our understanding of the symbols he left behind.

We sure have different ways of looking at it.

Alien Born

14-03-2005, 07:07

A matter of semantics, then. You seem to use the word "idea" where I would use "thought". Our thoughts are internal, our thoughts are private; ideas can be communicated, ideas can be put down in symbol, actualized. The dictionary calls it a "product of thought," to which I agree. Ideas are the internal thought that can be expressed outwardly, for the purpose of communicating meaning, such as the ideas we are presenting here for the benefit of each other. Meaning, though, is what is applied to the message by a consciousness.
I do use idea to mean that internal experience that a consciousness has when it perceives or thinks. This is quite a traditional usage and exists in the work of Locke for example. As such it is wholly and entirely private. To say that an idea is the product of thought, fits with my understanding of the word, as thought is a process whereas an idea is a thing (which has abstract, non material existence). Yes you can communicate an idea. But this is not to say that the idea that the communicator has is the same in content as the idea that the receiver has. I can think of an object. I describe it as being yellow, spherical, with a curvy white line around it. It is elastic and has a flocked surface except along the white line. Now I am fairly sure that you have the idea of a tennis ball from this description, but your idea of a tennis ball is your idea, not mine. The communication derives from one idea, and provokes the creation of another idea. This can only happen if the communication ismeaningful in itself. It can only hapen if the communication has causal effectiveness. Not me, the creator of the communication. I cause the communication to exist, but I do not cause anything directly in the receiver. It is the communication that does this.

Your use of the word "idea" gave clues to me as to its meaning to you.

Gravity is a force; words are intert. They have no power over us but what we give (assign) them. To give them a power to effect us smacks of them having some magical ability. Yes, reading a moving passage can have tremendous effect; but it is the author of the words --his ideas --to whom I attribute this effect, not the words themselves.
The context of the word idea gave you clues as to which of its range of meanings I had intended it to have, not my use of it. You did not see, perceive or in any other way partake in my use of it. You used it in its context to create an idea, at least that is what I am assuming by the ideas I derive from the meanings of the words you have used.
Gravity is not a person. You had explicitly limited agency to persons. If you are going to allow forces to be agents then words are agents as they definitely carry force.
You argue that it is the author of a text that creates the emotion in you, but this text may be by an unknown author, so something unknown is affecting you. Alternatively some texts now are computer generated. So the computer moves you eotionaly. This just does not work. You have no interaction with the author in most cases. If something I write irritates you, then it is the words that I have written cause this reaction, not me. I am not there to do so. You have no unmediated interaction with me.

Inaccessable ideas are those not expressed. Ideas expressed in words are accessible. Ideas expressed are causally effective in generating new ideas in others, they are not however accessible in themselves. This does not have to be through words. It can be through art or music etc.

The effect you speak of is a response to a stimulus, but is not the words themselves that stimulate us, it is the faculty of understanding. We produce the stimulus and the effect. The author's meaning interacts with us though our understanding of the symbols he left behind.
If what causes the effect is the word, then the stimulus that generated the effect is the word. The effect in this case may be to understand something, this in itself may cause some other effect. Nevertheless the stimulus is the word, not the understanding of the word. I said that the image derives from the effect that the word has, not that it is the effect. (A subtle but important difference.)

We sure have different ways of looking at it.
But both potentially valid.
I have a serious problem with the idea that I could understand what Cervantes was thinking when he wrote Don Quixote. Reading his text creates images and ideas in my mind, these however will be far from the images and ideas that he had when he was writing. Words change their meanings with time, culture drifts etc.
Thus I hold that the meaning is in the word, and the idea is in the interaction between the mind and the word. If the meaning was just in the idea, then Don Quixote would be unreadable by now.

Willamena

14-03-2005, 15:14

Will: You started the Existence and Reality thread with the statement existence exists. We established that our imagined objects existed, in our imagination. Thus, surely, things that don't exist, we can not even imagine.
This is where the discussion started on reality. You holding that reality was validated existence, and my holding that it was independent existence. Either way, the imaginary exists.
Sorry, I missed this post earlier. Here, I was simply talking to him in the parlance he was using to see if it made more sense to him.

Independent Homesteads

14-03-2005, 15:22

Thus I hold that the meaning is in the word, and the idea is in the interaction between the mind and the word. If the meaning was just in the idea, then Don Quixote would be unreadable by now.

The meaning is symbolised by the word, and what is understood by the symbol certainly changes over time, and certainly many things once written become incomprehensible over time. I wonder how you can tell exactly how long it takes the symbols in Don Quixote to become incomprehensible if they are symbolising a meaning in the mind of the writer and readers?

And if the meaning is in the word, how come I can't read it in the original language? And how come I can't read hieroglyphics, etc?

Snub Nose 38

14-03-2005, 15:46

Willamena

14-03-2005, 15:56

I do use idea to mean that internal experience that a consciousness has when it perceives or thinks. This is quite a traditional usage and exists in the work of Locke for example. As such it is wholly and entirely private. To say that an idea is the product of thought, fits with my understanding of the word, as thought is a process whereas an idea is a thing (which has abstract, non material existence).
I see, and I'll keep that in mind when using the word "idea". I am in complete agreeance that the idea the receiver of a commmunication has is not the same content as the original idea.

Yes you can communicate an idea. But this is not to say that the idea that the communicator has is the same in content as the idea that the receiver has. I can think of an object. I describe it as being yellow, spherical, with a curvy white line around it. It is elastic and has a flocked surface except along the white line. Now I am fairly sure that you have the idea of a tennis ball from this description, but your idea of a tennis ball is your idea, not mine. The communication derives from one idea, and provokes the creation of another idea. This can only happen if the communication ismeaningful in itself. It can only hapen if the communication has causal effectiveness. Not me, the creator of the communication. I cause the communication to exist, but I do not cause anything directly in the receiver. It is the communication that does this.
A message does not cause anything directly in the receiver, either. The receiver may look at written symbols and not be able to read them. The communication happens between his reading of the symbols and his understanding or comprehension of what he reads.

I agree that you as an author do not cause anything directly in the receiver, but that does not mean you won't be attributed with the cause. The symbolism you created stands in place of you.

The context of the word idea gave you clues as to which of its range of meanings I had intended it to have, not my use of it. You did not see, perceive or in any other way partake in my use of it. You used it in its context to create an idea, at least that is what I am assuming by the ideas I derive from the meanings of the words you have used.
One use of words is context, as you yourself have used it in the first sentence in this post.

Gravity is not a person. You had explicitly limited agency to persons. If you are going to allow forces to be agents then words are agents as they definitely carry force.
I didn't limit the agency of effects on people, I merely said that the agency of meaning is people. Gravity was an example you brought in to demonstrate other things that effect people. It is not one for which people are the agents.

You argue that it is the author of a text that creates the emotion in you, but this text may be by an unknown author, so something unknown is affecting you. Alternatively some texts now are computer generated. So the computer moves you eotionaly. This just does not work. You have no interaction with the author in most cases. If something I write irritates you, then it is the words that I have written cause this reaction, not me. I am not there to do so. You have no unmediated interaction with me.
No, I merely attibute cause to the author, because he created the symbols I am seeing. The emotion that is stirred by words is my own.

It's not your words that may irritate, is it the ideas behind them, knowing as I do that it was you who translated them into the symbols that I am reading. I have on occasion read something posted "wrong" and, on second reading on another day or in a better mood, realised it meant something different than I first thought. What the symbols mean at any given time is really up to me. So I am aware at both ends: that you meant something and wrote it, and that what I see written means something to me.

Ideas expressed are causally effective in generating new ideas in others, they are not however accessible in themselves. This does not have to be through words. It can be through art or music etc.
Total agreeance. In my parlance, the ideas expressed in words are the meanings behind the symbols.

If what causes the effect is the word, then the stimulus that generated the effect is the word. The effect in this case may be to understand something, this in itself may cause some other effect. Nevertheless the stimulus is the word, not the understanding of the word. I said that the image derives from the effect that the word has, not that it is the effect. (A subtle but important difference.)

But both potentially valid.
I have a serious problem with the idea that I could understand what Cervantes was thinking when he wrote Don Quixote. Reading his text creates images and ideas in my mind, these however will be far from the images and ideas that he had when he was writing. Words change their meanings with time, culture drifts etc.
Thus I hold that the meaning is in the word, and the idea is in the interaction between the mind and the word. If the meaning was just in the idea, then Don Quixote would be unreadable by now.
I would say that it's not about understanding the author's private thoughts, but those ideas he put down in writing. Words do have a power, a metaphorical one that brings our ideas to life.

Alien Born

14-03-2005, 16:09

If you "learn the language", then you can read Don Quixote and the Egyptian Hyroglyphics in the original. If you do not, then you can't. But that is not because the meaning is not in the words - it is just that you haven't learned, for whatever reason, what that meaning is.

Because the meaning is in the word, but it must be a shared experience - between the writer and the reader, between the speaker and the listener. We have to agree (usually before hand) what that understood meaning is. All language, written or spoken, is based on that agreement. Without agreement on what words mean, you have no communication. Even with such agreement, there can be instances of failed communication. I speak and read English, German, some French, a tiny bit of Spanish and Italian, and have a working knowledge of basic Latin. If someone tries to communicate with me in one of these languages, we have a fair chance of understanding one another - increasingly so depending on how well both of us know the meaning of the words in the language we use. But if someone tries to communicate with me in Greek, Russian, Chinese, or any other language I do not know - a language in which I am ignorant of the meaning of the words - we will not communicate well. We will be limited to gestures, facial expressions, nodding, etc.

Read Shakespeare. It's in English. But, unless you take some time to study the English of that time period, you do not get all the meaning - because we are separated from Wm. Shkspr. by enough time for some the meaning to have changed. Some words simply are not used anymore. Some meanings have evolved over time.

To get back to your point about reading in the original language - the only things that we cannot read in the original language, whatever it is/was, are those things that we do not have a "Rosetta Stone" for. If we have a way to translate, then we can. If not, then it remains unknowable, and will stay unknowable unless we find something or someone that can tell us the meaning that is in the words.

I agree with nearly all that you have said here. Language has to be learned, but the meaning is in the words of the language. They are not simply tokens for ideas. They are causaly effective in themselves.

There is one point that I have difficulty with, which is the part I have highlighted. How, in your opinion does this agreement take place without falling into an infinite regression? We know that this agreement does take place, as the description you give of language use is pretty acurate. If I use the word "hope" in a sentence you have a fairly good chance of thinking the same way as I was when I used it. Thus we agree on the meaning in the word, but how does this get started?

For concrete nouns and action verbs we can use explicit indication. Point to the object/action. We can not do this for abstract concepts. Do we just assume that others wil feel the same way about situations as we do, and use this as the starting point. (Later we can define new terms by qualifying already agreed words, but we have to start somewhere).

I picked Cervantes rather than Shakespear as I am British and as such am more knowledgeable about Shakespear's life and times than those of Cervantes.

Alien Born

14-03-2005, 17:04

I see, and I'll keep that in mind when using the word "idea". I am in complete agreeance that the idea the receiver of a commmunication has is not the same content as the original idea.

A message does not cause anything directly in the receiver, either. The receiver may look at written symbols and not be able to read them. The communication happens between his reading of the symbols and his understanding or comprehension of what he reads.
The message causes the comprehension though. It is the external cause. If it did not exist then the effect would not have happened. Unlike the author. If the author had not existed, then another author could have written the words. Only if no author exists would the effect be impossible. If the words were different the effect would be different. If the author were different the effect would be the same (presuming the same words).

I agree that you as an author do not cause anything directly in the receiver, but that does not mean you won't be attributed with the cause. The symbolism you created stands in place of you.
The symbolism stands in place of an author, but of any author, not of me. It does not matter that I wrote the words, what matters is the words themselves. If Snub Nose 38 or Independent Homesteads had written them, they would stil have the same effect.
The symbolism does not stand in place of me. I am, to me, more than the words I use, The words I use do not stand for me. To you, in this circumstance, I just am the words that I use, they do not stand for me, they are me.

One use of words is context, as you yourself have used it in the first sentence in this post.
One aspect of meaning is context, I have always accepted that the meaning of a phrase is made up of the explicit meaning of the words, the implicit meaning of the phrase and the context of its use. No one of these parts is sufficient on its own (Hence my dislike of discourse analysis)

I didn't limit the agency of effects on people, I merely said that the agency of meaning is people. Gravity was an example you brought in to demonstrate other things that effect people. It is not one for which people are the agents.
Sorry. I misunderstood you. I do not deny that meaning requires a person as an agent, it does not, however, require two.

No, I merely attibute cause to the author, because he created the symbols I am seeing. The emotion that is stirred by words is my own.
However the author is not present. He or she can not be a cause of your emotions as the words do not depend upon that author. The cause of your emotions is your interation with the words, not with the author.

It's not your words that may irritate, is it the ideas behind them, knowing as I do that it was you who translated them into the symbols that I am reading. I have on occasion read something posted "wrong" and, on second reading on another day or in a better mood, realised it meant something different than I first thought. What the symbols mean at any given time is really up to me. So I am aware at both ends: that you meant something and wrote it, and that what I see written means something to me.

There are no ideas "behind" my words. There are ideas that they casue in you, and there are ideas that caused me to write them, but there are no ideas in the words. I thought something, I had an idea. I selected the words that have the meanings that I want. (I do not imbue the words with these meanings, the meanings are there independent of me. ) You read these words, and they cause an idea in you due to the meaning (idependent of me) that these words have. At your end of the comunication I do not exist, only your idea of me exists. It is the words that irritate, not the absent author.

Total agreeance. In my parlance, the ideas expressed in words are the meanings behind the symbols.

I would say that it's not about understanding the author's private thoughts, but those ideas he put down in writing. Words do have a power, a metaphorical one that brings our ideas to life.

Ideas can not be put down in writing, they are the authors private thoughts. Ideas can be expressed, through the meanings that words, images, sounds etc. have, no more than that. This expression is the choice of meaningful tokens to communicate with, they are chosen with the intent of causing an idea, not to be an idea.

Willamena

14-03-2005, 17:26

If you "learn the language", then you can read Don Quixote and the Egyptian Hyroglyphics in the original. If you do not, then you can't. But that is not because the meaning is not in the words - it is just that you haven't learned, for whatever reason, what that meaning is.

Because the meaning is in the word, but it must be a shared experience - between the writer and the reader, between the speaker and the listener. We have to agree (usually before hand) what that understood meaning is. All language, written or spoken, is based on that agreement. Without agreement on what words mean, you have no communication. Even with such agreement, there can be instances of failed communication. I speak and read English, German, some French, a tiny bit of Spanish and Italian, and have a working knowledge of basic Latin. If someone tries to communicate with me in one of these languages, we have a fair chance of understanding one another - increasingly so depending on how well both of us know the meaning of the words in the language we use. But if someone tries to communicate with me in Greek, Russian, Chinese, or any other language I do not know - a language in which I am ignorant of the meaning of the words - we will not communicate well. We will be limited to gestures, facial expressions, nodding, etc.

Read Shakespeare. It's in English. But, unless you take some time to study the English of that time period, you do not get all the meaning - because we are separated from Wm. Shkspr. by enough time for some the meaning to have changed. Some words simply are not used anymore. Some meanings have evolved over time.

To get back to your point about reading in the original language - the only things that we cannot read in the original language, whatever it is/was, are those things that we do not have a "Rosetta Stone" for. If we have a way to translate, then we can. If not, then it remains unknowable, and will stay unknowable unless we find something or someone that can tell us the meaning that is in the words.
We're really using meaning in two contexts in this thread. Words that have a conventional (learned) meaning in the context of a language (those meanings are learned and reside in the memory); and interpretation, what it means to someone. In either case, it is the individual who applies meaning, either the convention to a single word or the rules of language to a string of words to make it meaningful.

As was demonstrated earlier, words do not convey anything meaningful if strung together in a nonsense phrase, and what may be a nonsense phrase in one era may be meaningful in another. It is that "fair chance of understanding one another" that defies meaning inherent in the symbols. The "fair chance" is there because the meaning to individuals (interpretation) is layered infront of the conventions. Words evolve over time for the same reason.

Snub Nose 38

14-03-2005, 18:21

We have to agree (usually before hand) what that understood meaning is. All language, written or spoken, is based on that agreement. Without agreement on what words mean, you have no communication.

I agree with nearly all that you have said here. Language has to be learned, but the meaning is in the words of the language. They are not simply tokens for ideas. They are causally effective in themselves.

There is one point that I have difficulty with, which is the part I have highlighted. How, in your opinion does this agreement take place without falling into an infinite regression? We know that this agreement does take place, as the description you give of language use is pretty accurate. If I use the word "hope" in a sentence you have a fairly good chance of thinking the same way as I was when I used it. Thus we agree on the meaning in the word, but how does this get started?

For concrete nouns and action verbs we can use explicit indication. Point to the object/action. We can not do this for abstract concepts. Do we just assume that others will feel the same way about situations as we do, and use this as the starting point. (Later we can define new terms by qualifying already agreed words, but we have to start somewhere).

I picked Cervantes rather than Shakespeare as I am British and as such am more knowledgeable about Shakespeare's life and times than those of Cervantes. We're really using meaning in two contexts in this thread. Words that have a conventional (learned) meaning in the context of a language (those meanings are learned and reside in the memory); and interpretation, what it means to someone. In either case, it is the individual who applies meaning, either the convention to a single word or the rules of language to a string of words to make it meaningful.

As was demonstrated earlier, words do not convey anything meaningful if strung together in a nonsense phrase, and what may be a nonsense phrase in one era may be meaningful in another. It is that "fair chance of understanding one another" that defies meaning inherent in the symbols. The "fair chance" is there because the meaning to individuals (interpretation) is layered infront of the conventions. Words evolve over time for the same reason.I’ll try to answer both at the same time.

Initially, we “agree” to accept the meaning of words that we hear as infants to be those imparted to us by those speaking. A Mom holds a ball up to her little baby and says something like, “Ball? Do you want the ball? Baby want the ball? Look at the pretty ball? Ball?” Or, a Dad holds his baby and dances around the room, softly singing to the baby, “Dancing. Dancing round the room. Dancing. Dancing with my baby.” And, it works. Baby listens, and slowly sorts out the fact that the repeated word had a meaning, and that Mom or Dad is trying to impart that meaning. Nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs. Even ideas (Mommy loves little sweetums) can be learned this way. We learn both denotations and connotations this way as well. If every time Mom shows baby a dog, or a picture of a dog, there is a little hint of fear in Mom’s voice (because Mom’s afraid of dogs), baby learns that dogs are something to be afraid of. And so we learn both the literal (denotative) meaning and the emotional (connotative) meaning of words initially at the same time. As we go along in life, both or either may change, depending on our continued experience of how that word is used by others and the life experiences we begin to associate with the word.

So, we are taught from the very start to accept the meaning of words as others understand those meanings by demonstration. Later, we will learn the accepted meanings of other words by reading them in dictionaries – and everything in between a straight demonstration and a literal reading.

But that’s how one individual learns the already collectively accepted meaning of words. How do words initially get such a collective accepted meaning? In already existing languages, someone finds a “need” for either a new word, or to use an existing word but with a new meaning – and they either create a word out of whole cloth, or put a word together out of other existing words, or reach into another language for a word, or reach into a foreign language for a word that they then modify (use as a “root” word), or they just use an exiting word but assign it a new meaning – by demonstration. This is how “bad” can come to mean “good” in slang. The speaker says “bad”, but his/her facial expression and gestures say “good” – and the listener hears “bad”, but understands “good”.

Watch two people who do not speak the same language try to communicate. There is a lot of gesturing, facial expressions, holding or touching of objects, miming of actions – “demonstrations” – use to get meanings across. Just as if trying to communicate with a baby – or anyone else who does not understand the collective accepted meaning of the word or words we are trying to use to communicate. Until enough of a set of “shared words” is established, so that they can now say, just like a child who now has some command of the language, “How do I say this” and holds up an object, or mimes an action, or points to a color.

It is the constant use of, and reuse of, words to mean almost the same thing that over time (sometimes a long time, sometimes a short time) that causes the meanings of words to change. Distance between those using a language can also cause this – as the notable differences not only in accent, but in the meaning of words, or words used to means specific things, that are different between British English, American English, and Australian English – such as “elevator” and “lift” – “truck” and “lorry” – “hood” and “bonnet”. And, if we get into slang – and slang eventually gets’ into us as it is adopted by more and more of a general population – I doubt if two people could hold any kind of a meaningful conversation if one spoke ONLY the street English of Watts in Los Angeles California and the other spoke ONLY the street language of Soho in London England.

At this point, I'm not sure if I went in the right directions to respond to both/either of you. So, I await your words to let me know what you think...

NationStates Jolt Archive

Descartes was a twit