NationStates Jolt Archive

me And my friend were pondering over this a while ago- the question of what exists and what is existance. now Without reading any books on the subject (yet) some of you might find that this is old news (if so please tell me). basically My arguament was that only the mind has existance and matter does not, as i know with complete certainty that my mind is there ("I think therefore I am") but I do not know that matter exists with any amount of certainty. everything Around me I percieve but does not have existance- a good analogy is that of virtual reality- if i stepped into a VR machine i can perceive things around me (that car is two metres ahead of me) but i know that that is not "there". now The only difference between the VR machine and the "real" world is that you believe the "real" world is just that, real. why? there is no difference. (by the way i'm also assuming that in this VR world there are other "players" who are people with minds- not artificial intelligence). so Really it just comes down to your belief and after discovering that you have no good reason for believing that matter exists *poof* bye bye old belief.

the Arguament he gave against this was that the mind exists but when the body(and perception) dies this has an effect on the mind so that it no longer has a purpose. he argued that because matter has had a real effect on the mind that it must, in some way, exist. but, assuming this is true (I argue) what makes you think that there is only one brain per mind? maybe There is an infinate amount of perception and the mind uses another as soon as one dies.

OK i'm not sure if i've made everything very clear (i'm no philosopher after all) but what do you think? am I right?

This greatly depends on what school of philosophy your believe in. Some believe the 'I think therefore I am.' Whereas others believe that physicality is existance. Personally, I would argue that, 'I think it,therefore it exists.' For doesn't concepts also exist without any physicality. Love exists even without anything but thought. We cannot classify that feeling we get into any type of physicality.

BYW this is very much a Plutonic philosophy.

You could always just be a mean ol' solipsist.

"evidentialism is the thesis that one is justified in believing a proposition at a time if and only if one’s evidence at that time supports believing that proposition. (EVI) does not entail that whenever one has adequate evidence for p one believes p justifiably. This is for two reasons. First, one can be justified in believing p even if one fails to believe it. For example, one might not believe p simply because one fails to consider whether or not p is true, yet one may nevertheless have good enough reason to think p is true and so be justified in believing p.

Second, one can have good enough reason to believe p and still believe it as a result of something other than this good reason. One might believe it as a result of wishful thinking, for example. In such a case, the evidentialist holds that the person is justified in believing the proposition in question but, nevertheless, believes it unjustifiably. One believes it for or because of the wrong reasons. One way of putting the difference here is by saying that evidentialism is a thesis regarding propositional justification, not a thesis about doxastic justification. That is, evidentialism is a thesis about when one is justified in believing a proposition, not a thesis about when one’s believing is justified. The latter requires not just that one have good reason to believe but also that one believe for those good reasons."


http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evidenti.htm#SH2a

This debate kind of reminds me of The Truman Show, in which a man was born in a huge dome with actors and was on TV. From birth, he thought that this was the real world, but in actuality, it was only fictional. This argument depends upon what your definition of reality is. According to Rene Descartes, the fundamental element of philosophy, and the only one that is certain is the existance of the self. Now, if this is true, the medium in which the self exists is naturally reality in relation to the self. We need not go fruther. If the self is the only unit which has proven existance, their subjective view of reality must alwayse be true. To say that its reality is false presupposes the existance of other selves with a different reality that is "true", or some universal reality.

This greatly depends on what school of philosophy your believe in. Some believe the 'I think therefore I am.' Whereas others believe that physicality is existance. Personally, I would argue that, 'I think it,therefore it exists.' For doesn't concepts also exist without any physicality. Love exists even without anything but thought. We cannot classify that feeling we get into any type of physicality.

BYW this is very much a Plutonic philosophy.
yes They do, they all exist inside your mind. but Physicality it just perception. and you could argue that love is also just perception.

"Existance" is spelled with an "e": existence. ;)

Leave off the idea of physical matter for a moment, just put it aside. All we are concerned about with existence is "things", whether they are material or not. Existence is things. More specifically, existence is the sum total of things.

Existence is absolute. That means that things either exist, or they don't exist. The opposite of existence is nothing --literally, "No thing."

Things have characteristics and traits that distinguish them from other things. We can stick labels on things to describe these characteristics (and yes, the labels are things too) and say, "that is a truck, a red truck, a pretty red truck." We cannot label a "nothing". Things exist, because they are not nothing. Things that don't exist cannot be labelled, because there is nothing there to label.

So, existence exists because we perceive it. Everything we are aware of is a thing; we cannot be aware of nothing. We are aware of things in our environment, we are aware of our bodies, and we are aware of things that go on in our head. All of these things exist, because if they didn't there would be nothing to percieve.

That only leaves us to distinguish between things that are real (material things), and things that are not real (mental things).

No, you're wrong, according to me at least.

The argument that if I think I am, I think, therefore I am, is flawed in both of its premises and in its assurance that the premises necessarily lead to the conclusion.

Why does the action of thinking require an actor to be thinking? Where does this idea come from? What's the argument for it? We tend to assume that acts require actors, but this is an assumption, based on nothing but faith. If, like Descartes, we are trying to find certainty, that certainly doesn't provide us any.

What is the proof that thinking is occuring? Does this proof even exist? On what basis is it said that thinking is occuring? Or do we merely assume, baselessly, that our experience - if we are even experiencing anything, which isn't certain either - must involve thinking?

The conclusion seems to follow, if one accepts the logical principle that A implies B, A, therefore B. But how do we know that this is the case? Can someone show that it is indeed so?

So you have no certainty that the mind exists.

I don't accept your general argument, though. I don't think that the only road to truth is through certainty, or that something we can't be certain of - or that we can be fooled about - doesn't exist. To our perception, yes, there is no difference between virtual reality and actual reality. But reality is more than our perception. Unpercieved things can still be real. Real objects have the quality of realness - the quality of being part of reality, of existing. Unreal objects do not.

Why does the action of thinking require an actor to be thinking? Where does this idea come from? What's the argument for it?
Duality. We have a unique perspective by virtue of being individuals. This is the subjective perspective. From it, we view the world of things as being all around us. Therfore, from our perspective, there is an "us" around which the world "is". This is the conceptual centre of consciousness, which is aware of things.

How can a process exist without a processor? Thinking is a process. Thoughts are things. Consciousness is awareness of these things, so these things are not consciousness itself. Consciousness cannot be aware of itself, because it is the awareness.

The assumption of an agent is not based on faith, but on logic. If I can identify a thing with unique characteristics that is not me, then I am a thing different from it. I can identify characteristics of my thoughts. I can identify characteristics of thinking. And I can identify, by objectifying it, the agent of consciousness in contrast to all things.

The assumption of an agent is not based on faith, but on logic.

Logic is based on faith. It is nothing more than the baseless assumption of a number of premises that we believe very strongly to be true.

Duality. We have a unique perspective by virtue of being individuals. This is the subjective perspective. From it, we view the world of things as being all around us. Therfore, from our perspective, there is an "us" around which the world "is". This is the conceptual centre of consciousness, which is aware of things.

This may be our perception. That does not mean it is in fact reality.

And how do you know that we percieve anything at all?

How can a process exist without a processor? Thinking is a process. Thoughts are things. Consciousness is awareness of these things, so these things are not consciousness itself. Consciousness cannot be aware of itself, because it is the awareness.

This is rather like an "every cause must have an effect" argument, and the response to that one can be used here, too. At one time - unless the universe is temporally infinite - there must have been a first processer, and since a processer can also be seen as a process processing other processes, there must, by that argument, have been a processer behind that process, too - but since that was the first one, there wasn't.

Do you think something can be self-causing?

If I can identify a thing with unique characteristics that is not me, then I am a thing different from it. I can identify characteristics of my thoughts. I can identify characteristics of thinking. And I can identify, by objectifying it, the agent of consciousness in contrast to all things.

How do you know there is an "I" involved at all?

The words (and concepts) 'existence' and 'being' are treated in slightly different ways in Western philosophy. Aristotle pointed out that there are various ways in which a thing can "be" and inaugurated ontology as a field with his notion that there are categories of being, such as substance, attribute, and acting-upon. Similar claims, however, are not as often made on behalf of existence. That is, contemporary philosophers at least are wont to treat existence as a univocal, unambiguous concept, as if the only sense of 'existence', or the only sort of existence worth talking about, were the existence of physical objects. Consequently, some discussions of existence have an unclear bearing on, for example, the sense in which numbers, possibilities, and properties exist (or might be thought to exist).

Even if the ambiguity of 'exists' is sometimes overlooked, oddly enough, the ambiguity of 'does not exist' is not. That is, ontologists are fond of pointing out that there are various ways in which things can be nonexistent.

Though often not discussed under the heading of existence, disputes among realism, phenomenalism, physicalism, and various other metaphysical views concern what might be called the criteria for existence. For example, phenomenalism, generally speaking, is the view that everything that exists is mental. Most phenomenalists would want to deny that this claim is a definition of 'exists'; if phenomenalism were treated as a definition of 'exists', then others might accuse the view of trying to be "true by definition." Accordingly, it might be dismissed as a trivial exercise in redefining the ordinary concept of existence, which is, perhaps, of little interest to anyone. Exactly what relation, however, definitions (or analyses, or explications, etc.) and criteria have is an interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existenceing and vexed question. See definitions vs. criteria.

Logic is based on faith. It is nothing more than the baseless assumption of a number of premises that we believe very strongly to be true.
Logic is not the premise, and it is not the conclusion; logic is the process of moving from one to the other. There is nothing baseless about it, it's actually quite fun. ;) And useful.

This may be our perception. That does not mean it is in fact reality.

And how do you know that we percieve anything at all?
I could say, "Because I perceive things," but that says nothing about you. ;)

We do see things, we do feel things, we do conceive of things; to deny this isn't rational. Perception is not the things we see, the things we feel, the things we conceive --those we can deny --perception is something that we do. How can we deny that?

You are correct: philosophy does not deal with reality so much as a specific understanding of it, and very often it looks simply at an understanding of a specific about it. Existence is such a specific about reality.

This is rather like an "every cause must have an effect" argument, and the response to that one can be used here, too. At one time - unless the universe is temporally infinite - there must have been a first processer, and since a processer can also be seen as a process processing other processes, there must, by that argument, have been a processer behind that process, too - but since that was the first one, there wasn't.

Do you think something can be self-causing?
A 'first processor' is irrelevant; the question of existence can be dealt with right now, because the present is the reality for the subjective perspective of consciousness. We experience existence now.

How do you know there is an "I" involved at all?
As I said, if there's a "them", or a world of things that are not-me, then there must also be a me for them to be different from. This is necessary because we have a subjective perspective.

When it comes to existance, I'm an Objectivist :D
*waits for virulently anti-Ayn Rand people*

Even if the ambiguity of 'exists' is sometimes overlooked, oddly enough, the ambiguity of 'does not exist' is not. That is, ontologists are fond of pointing out that there are various ways in which things can be nonexistent.
How can something like "it exists or it doesn't" be ambiguous? This article itself said earlier that the ambiguous version was simply a redefining of reality to be of the material (which, of course, ignores that ideas and concepts exist).

I haven't looked at ontology yet, as I imagine I would find it frustrating.

Tis a conundrum to be sure, i am still usure that anything exists.

Logic is not the premise, and it is not the conclusion; logic is the process of moving from one to the other. There is nothing baseless about it, it's actually quite fun. ;) And useful.

Logic is indeed fun, and certainly useful. But it is still baseless.

It is a hidden premise in most arguments, one that usually goes unquestioned.

For instance:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

But why is (3) implied by (1) and (2)? Because another premise is assumed, a tenet of logic: "if A implies B and A is true, B is true."

But we don't know that that premise is true. Without assuming it, or assuming any tenets of logic - and, after all, doing so would be begging the question - how in the world can we substantiate it?

I could say, "Because I perceive things," but that says nothing about you. ;)

We do see things, we do feel things, we do conceive of things; to deny this isn't rational. Perception is not the things we see, the things we feel, the things we conceive --those we can deny --perception is something that we do. How can we deny that?

Easy: You perceive nothing. You don't even perceive that you perceive. You can't even conceive of perception.

Does it make sense to you, judging by your experience? I would guess not; if someone said the same thing to me, it wouldn't make sense either. But making sense and being true are wildly different things.

A 'first processor' is irrelevant; the question of existence can be dealt with right now, because the present is the reality for the subjective perspective of consciousness. We experience existence now.

The response dealt solely with your statement that every process requires a processer. I would question this.

As I said, if there's a "them", or a world of things that are not-me, then there must also be a me for them to be different from. This is necessary because we have a subjective perspective.

A subjective perspective requires an I, yes. But why are you so sure there is such a thing as a "subjective perspective"? This ties in to what I say about perception above.

Logic is indeed fun, and certainly useful. But it is still baseless.

It is a hidden premise in most arguments, one that usually goes unquestioned.

For instance:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

But why is (3) implied by (1) and (2)? Because another premise is assumed, a tenet of logic: "if A implies B and A is true, B is true."

But we don't know that that premise is true. Without assuming it, or assuming any tenets of logic - and, after all, doing so would be begging the question - how in the world can we substantiate it?
As I said, logic is not the premise, and what you refer to as a the "hidden premise" is, in fact, a rule. The rule says that the truth of B is dependent upon the truth of A. The rule is applied, tested, and if it works consistently, is declared to be "true"; but what that really means is, "true in all cases, so far." That we declared it true means that we expect it to continue to work consistently; when it no longer does, we will throw out the rule in favour of something better. It does not go unquestioned; each application of a rule is a test of it.
EDIT: Well, maybe we won't "throw it out," like a scientific theory. More likely we would attempt to find out why the rule didn't work in that case, and attempt to redefine our concept reality to make it work. :)

Easy: You perceive nothing. You don't even perceive that you perceive. You can't even conceive of perception.

Does it make sense to you, judging by your experience? I would guess not; if someone said the same thing to me, it wouldn't make sense either. But making sense and being true are wildly different things.
I cannot perceive nothing, I can only perceive something. Nothing is "no thing, there" to be perceived.

If I do not perceive anything, then I am not reading what you are writing.

I cannot perceive perception, since I am the agent of perception, but I can certainly conceive of it, since that creates an idea of perception which is a different thing from this "me" thing.

The response dealt solely with your statement that every process requires a processer. I would question this.
Hmm... I see. "A process processing other processes" would make the first process a processor; so a process would still require a processor. The processor is the thing with the subjective perspective on the process, in other words it is the thing "doing the doing."

A subjective perspective requires an I, yes. But why are you so sure there is such a thing as a "subjective perspective"? This ties in to what I say about perception above.
No, a subjective perspective is responsible for us having an "I" through perception of things "not-I", through conscious awareness (and the process of objectifying/symbolizing, which is how we understand things).

Do you think something can be self-causing?
I believe in an eternal and infinite universe.

I am not learned on cosmological theories, so I don't concern myself with a 'first cause'. I am content to be here, now.

As I said, logic is not the premise, and what you refer to as a the "hidden premise" is, in fact, a rule. The rule says that the truth of B is dependent upon the truth of A. The rule is applied, tested, and if it works consistently, is declared to be "true"; but what that really means is, "true in all cases, so far." That we declared it true means that we expect it to continue to work consistently; when it no longer does, we will throw out the rule in favour of something better. It does not go unquestioned; each application of a rule is a test of it.
EDIT: Well, maybe we won't "throw it out," like a scientific theory. More likely we would attempt to find out why the rule didn't work in that case, and attempt to redefine our concept reality to make it work. :)

So logic is empirical? But isn't the scientific method, which you seem to be suggesting as a basis for logic, dependent on logical principles itself? How else can we move from observation of individual phenomena to general rules?

For that matter, if logic is rooted in experience, then we can't use it to say that our experience exists, or is genuine, because that would be begging the question. I cannot think of any other way to demonstrate that it is.

I cannot perceive nothing, I can only perceive something. Nothing is "no thing, there" to be perceived.

When I said "you perceive nothing" I meant "you don't perceive at all." Thought that was clear, sorry.

If I do not perceive anything, then I am not reading what you are writing.

How do you know you are?

This is really the crux of my point, and I would respond the same way to your next statement.

Any justification you can possibly come up with ultimately ends in assumptions you take on faith.

No, a subjective perspective is responsible for us having an "I" through perception of things "not-I", through conscious awareness (and the process of objectifying/symbolizing, which is how we understand things).

I wa not talking about our concept of "I", which certainly depends on a subjective perspective, from the simple fact that it is "ours." I was talking about the entity "I".

My brain hurts. 'I think therefore i am'- what about schitzophrenics?

basically My arguament was that only the mind has existance and matter does not, as i know with complete certainty that my mind is there ("I think therefore I am") but I do not know that matter exists with any amount of certainty.

You can't even know that much for certain: you are assuming that because thought exists, there must also exist an agent which is thinking that thought.

Descartes blew it when he leapt into the cogito and stated his conclusion 'I am' as part of the premise 'I think'.

It is certainly true that all our previous experience seems to indicate that thinking does require an agent, but universalising this into an unquestionable principle is pretty lousy philosophy.

So logic is empirical?

No, its an arbitrary axiomatic set of rules, which strictly speaking should only be used to construct 'arguments', without the expectation that it will tell us anything about the world as a whole on the basis of those 'arguments'.

Well, it obviously cannot be "I spell correctly, therefore I am." :rolleyes:

Well, it obviously cannot be "I spell correctly, therefore I am." :rolleyes:

Hush now, his use of a peculiar idiolect adds a strength of conviction to his doubts as to whether the rest of us actually exist.

Things exists, because they exist outside of the mind.

For example, it could be argued that reality is created because we all believe in it. Since humanity is able to sense it, and we all agree upon it, it is so. This is like a game, we all agree on the "rules" therefore we all are able to engage in reality (like a very, very big rpg).

However, this does not work out too well. If the mind cannot see or sense something, or believes something else (like the sun going around the earth, not the other way around), it does not change the reality. Even if a mass of people, or the whole of humanity believes something, that does not change it to be so(there are no unicorns, despite just about every culture having a legend of one).

Since the mind cannot affect reality, to change it, it can be said to exsist outside of the mind.

Things exists, because they exist outside of the mind.

This is unproven, and as such the rest of your post is mere speculation.

I think both theories are bunk. You realize, that the brain is made of matter, its not a spiritual void in your skull, its a pulsating mass of axons, neurons, and glial cells. We exist, thought has nothing to do with anything.

I think both theories are bunk. You realize, that the brain is made of matter, its not a spiritual void in your skull, its a pulsating mass of axons, neurons, and glial cells. We exist, thought has nothing to do with anything.

The matter at hand here is not the discussion of the nature of the brain, but instead the nature of the mind. It may very well be that it is an emergent characteristic of the brain or just an epiphenomenon, but this is far from certain.

So logic is empirical? But isn't the scientific method, which you seem to be suggesting as a basis for logic, dependent on logical principles itself? How else can we move from observation of individual phenomena to general rules?

For that matter, if logic is rooted in experience, then we can't use it to say that our experience exists, or is genuine, because that would be begging the question. I cannot think of any other way to demonstrate that it is.
What I said was case-specific. The premises of logic are based on observation and rationale ("All men are mortal."). You suggested a rule based on a "truth" premise ("if A implies B and A is true, B is true"); hence, it must reflect reality. So if this rule doesn't work, it's because reality doesn't work.

The scientific method usually does not begin with a "truth" premise; rather, it strives towards truth but will never reach it, ever ready to expand and refine it's current theories into something better.

The rules of logic are not the same as the rules of science. The rules of logic allow for absolute truth. Logic is entirely a mental exericse. ...Or what Grampus said.

When I said "you perceive nothing" I meant "you don't perceive at all." Thought that was clear, sorry.
I knew that, actually; linguistically we exchange the meaning of things like that, a lot. But when you're striving for a consistent philosophical position, you do have to be specific about your wording. So I try to be.

If I do not perceive anything, then I am not reading what you are writing.
How do you know you are?

This is really the crux of my point, and I would respond the same way to your next statement.

Any justification you can possibly come up with ultimately ends in assumptions you take on faith.
Much about the philosophy of metaphysics is taken on faith, yes. It's main axiom is "existence exists". And the evidence (not proof, mind you) is in our experiential existence, as we define it. We experience existence; such a precious thing. I don't know why anyone would want to deny it.

I'm not sure how to answer your questions; they seem to me to be questioning the defintions of things. Although I'm sure you're trying to question concepts, it makes no sense to me to question experiential things. Because, you see, I know I am "reading", because "reading" is the word that describes what it is that I am doing. So if you're questioning when I say I am reading, my first thought is to question that you know what "reading" means. Which, of course, leads to a silent mental scream. :)

But in your question, the emphasis is on "I", not on "reading." How do I know it is me doing it? Because I cannot deny that I am. The rationale is in that agent that you question: how can we deny a sense of awareness while being aware of a denial of our a sense of awareness? And if we have that consciousness, then we are aware of things that exist, even concepts. And if we are aware of doing things, then there is a "we" that does them.

I was not talking about our concept of "I", which certainly depends on a subjective perspective, from the simple fact that it is "ours." I was talking about the entity "I".
Entities are things. The "I" in question is that concept, an abstracted symbolized thing to stand in contrast to the "not-me" things that we perceive.

Symbolizing is what humans do best. We're quite good at it. It is the way we understand the world. The things we perceive are symbolized in the mind as perceived things. The input through the eyes becomes an image in the mind. The imagination, too, creates images in the mind. One is real, the other unreal.

Conceptual things exist, because (by the metaphysical definition I used in my first post) existence is not limited to reality. If I ask you to imagine a butterfly, that butterly exists as an imagining. If it didn't exist, it would be nothing ("no thing") and so we'd have nothing to talk about. Unreal things exist.

Our modern definition of existence restricts existence to reality, in the way mentioned by the original poster. However, if you check the Mirram-Webster dictionary, the metaphysical definition is there (2.a - I looked it up just a bit ago, for another thread). Both definitions are there, because both are understood and used, no doubt in different environments. The metaphysical defintion allows us to understand how it is that we can exist, even though our "I" is a conceptual thing.

This leads back full circle, to your stance that "we" are not real. Yes, "I" is a conceptualized thing, but we do exist. And the "truth" of things is irrelevant, because regardless of what the reality of things might be, we must, and do, behave as if we are actually real. What other choice is there? Personally, I'd prefer a hug to denial of my existence.

:fluffle:

me And my friend were pondering over this a while ago- the question of what exists and what is existance. now Without reading any books on the subject (yet) some of you might find that this is old news (if so please tell me). basically My arguament was that only the mind has existance and matter does not, as i know with complete certainty that my mind is there ("I think therefore I am") but I do not know that matter exists with any amount of certainty. everything Around me I percieve but does not have existance- a good analogy is that of virtual reality- if i stepped into a VR machine i can perceive things around me (that car is two metres ahead of me) but i know that that is not "there". now The only difference between the VR machine and the "real" world is that you believe the "real" world is just that, real. why? there is no difference. (by the way i'm also assuming that in this VR world there are other "players" who are people with minds- not artificial intelligence). so Really it just comes down to your belief and after discovering that you have no good reason for believing that matter exists *poof* bye bye old belief.

the Arguament he gave against this was that the mind exists but when the body(and perception) dies this has an effect on the mind so that it no longer has a purpose. he argued that because matter has had a real effect on the mind that it must, in some way, exist. but, assuming this is true (I argue) what makes you think that there is only one brain per mind? maybe There is an infinate amount of perception and the mind uses another as soon as one dies.

OK i'm not sure if i've made everything very clear (i'm no philosopher after all) but what do you think? am I right?

Nonsense, the properties of thought are purly secondary (that is caused) by the physical world. Who one is as a person is determined by the physical structure of the brain (which is why drugs, fevers, madcow, physical damige change the way a person acts or thinks). Thought by itself creates nothing or changes nothing in the physical world. Thought in fact is not some magical voice in the head, it is the electrical signals that are exchanged between the brain cells (consult a expert in neurology for further details).

The premises of logic are based on observation and rationale ("All men are mortal."). You suggested a rule based on a "truth" premise ("if A implies B and A is true, B is true"); hence, it must reflect reality. So if this rule doesn't work, it's because reality doesn't work.

Logic doesn't deal with 'reality', only the way that we are allowed to form relations between propositions within that particular version of logic.

Amestria']Thought by itself creates nothing or changes nothing in the physical world. Thought in fact is not some magical voice in the head, it is the electrical signals that are exchanged between the brain cells (consult a expert in neurology for further details).

Aside from the appeal to authority here, you have made a gaffe in that you have identified thought as a purely physical process (which it may very well be) and then claimed that it doesn't affect the physical world. This is obviously untrue as the electrical activity in one part of the brain alters the nature of other parts of the brain and thus the physical world. If you are going to claim that 'thought by itself' doesn't affect the physical world and maintain that it is electrical activity, then you must show that electrical activity itself cannot affect the physical world.


,,,which is just to skim over the matter and ignore for the moment the experiential and intentional nature of thought: not only do we have electrical activities in the brain, but we also experience those activities. To attempt to paint a picture of thought as something simple without addressing the question of self-consciousness is to fudge the issue severely.

Logic doesn't deal with 'reality', only the way that we are allowed to form relations between propositions within that particular version of logic.
But truth does 'deal' with reality; they have a direct relationship.

Amestria']Nonsense, the properties of thought are purly secondary (that is caused) by the physical world. Who one is as a person is determined by the physical structure of the brain (which is why drugs, fevers, madcow, physical damige change the way a person acts or thinks). Thought by itself creates nothing or changes nothing in the physical world. Thought in fact is not some magical voice in the head, it is the electrical signals that are exchanged between the brain cells (consult a expert in neurology for further details).
Thought is the 'activity' that appears in the brain as a result of chemcial reactions, or whatever the physical explanation is. But that is only one perspective of thought, and only one perspective of what is going on in the brain. And it is not our perspective. Ours is the subjective perspective, the one that translates the 'encoded message on the brain' (as someone else called it) and creates that "magical voice" in the head through the power of symbolisation and imagination, so that we might understand it.

Thought (what you called Malaclypse's "nonsense") is not something seperate from thought as you choose to look at it, but it is a different view of the same thing, not caused by the other. ...Unless it can be said that one person's perspective is caused by an abstracted one.

But truth does 'deal' with reality; they have a direct relationship.

I don't follow here: are you claiming that the arbitrary rules of a logic system can either be true or false in accordance with a correspondence theory of truth?

I don't follow here: are you claiming that the arbitrary rules of a logic system can either be true or false in accordance with a correspondence theory of truth?
No, I am not talking about the logic system at all; I was addressing a specific case that used logic in the premise. That's said in the part you snipped out before the part of my thread you quoted. ;)

The specific case was a logic problem that dealt with truth.

Well, at the end of it all at least I learned one thing: how to spell existance. Oh wait, no I didn't.

The specific case was a logic problem that dealt with truth.

Surely what Soheran was talking about was actually concerned with validity - whether logic was truth preserving?

Surely what Soheran was talking about was actually concerned with validity - whether logic was truth preserving?
Okay... I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry.

I was actually thinking about this the other day. Okay, existance cant technically be defined, since you have to compare it to something. we know the world in books and movies isnt real, becasue we compare it to our own. But our own world, we live in it, we interact with the matter in it. So it exists in some sense, by which it exists in every sense. Saben, mis amigos?