Awareness is Existence

[Keep_Relentless]

If you just take a bit of the picture here and there and then weave a theory involving speculation on the rest then it's just playing a game.

Since it seems playing the game is the only option, I'll subscribe to it. ;D
You have been clear though. Regardless I don't know how to apply it.. ;S x)

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

Apply it by seeing the fact of the mind breaking things up all the time. See the distorting effect of certain ways of thought and ideas. If you see it it stops.

[Keep_Relentless]

Keep_Relentless

Apply it by seeing the fact of the mind breaking things up all the time. See the distorting effect of certain ways of thought and ideas. If you see it it stops.

Eliminate bias by viewing more than part. Good. ;D

And what's your latest take on verifying that which is beyond awareness as existent, through awareness? Also worded (by me; crafty!) as conceiving of the inconceivable and knowing beyond knowledge!

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

what's your latest take on verifying that which is beyond awareness as existent, through awareness? Also worded (by me; crafty!) as conceiving of the inconceivable and knowing beyond knowledge!

It's not the latest, it's the only :)

This is rather serious stuff, it can't just be chucked out with a few words. Is that all right?

First, it can't be verified. When there's that state beyond thought there's no one present to verify it. It happens in self-absence. It's its own verification, if you like.

Second, it can't be achieved. It's not that one can be given instructions, follow them, and get an experience. It happens of its own accord when there's humility, silence, the absence of self.

What matters therefore isn't pursuing a conception but negating the attributes of the self. That has to be done for its own sake, not for what it might bring. If there's any motive it won't happen. The self must go because it is the self, because the self is isolating, dividing, corrupting. When there's none of that there's a state of purity in which other things may, or may not, happen.

Our problem is that we want something because we're bored, tired of our lives, and so on. Out of that sterility we seek but such search is an escape. To be aware of that is not to seek but to look into oneself. See what is going on there and end it.

To know that which is beyond knowledge there must be an end to knowledge; the mind must be free of everything known.

[Keep_Relentless]

First, it can't be verified. When there's that state beyond thought there's no one present to verify it. It happens in self-absence. It's its own verification, if you like.

So it is acknowledged that whether there is existence beyond the mind cannot be ascertained. This is theoretical progress then, as I intend it. Can you prove then, that it is possible that there is some existence without knowledge? For it is simply an impression.

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

Can you prove then, that it is possible that there is some existence without knowledge?

Naturally there's something other than the mind because what we call the mind is very small. It may be all we know but it's still a very limited thing, just a lot of thoughts.

That consciousness, which is you, hears about something other and wants it proved or ascertained. Do you mean you want it proved theoretically, intellectually? Or actually? It doesn't mean anything to prove it theoretically because although you may be convinced you still don't know.

[Keep_Relentless]

Keep_Relentless

Can you prove then, that it is possible that there is some existence without knowledge?

Naturally there's something other than the mind because what we call the mind is very small.

I really struggle to follow your reasoning sometimes... :P
No no, this is one for theory, otherwise we have people proclaiming left right and centre that they have stumbled upon physical proof of something outside of their consciousness.

HOW is it possible that, through your mind, you can prove the existence of something outside of it?

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

I really struggle to follow your reasoning sometimes... :P

I know, you're not alone. Many people have said this but it's actually good for you. It gives you something to get your head round :)

Probably the trouble is that what I'm saying is very simple, it's not terribly intellectually difficult or technical. Most of the time it's simply the obvious and for some reason it seems to elude us.

Let's do it again. It'll be longer because I'll have to explain everything.

Can you prove then, that it is possible that there is some existence without knowledge?

First, what do you mean by prove? Either you mean with reasoning and argument like philosophers do, or using equations, symbols, and all that. Or you mean actually experiencing, discovering for yourself that there's something beyond the mind.

I only do the last one. I can't do the first one, it has no meaning for me; I wouldn't know where to start. Also I don't believe that reasoning alone is actual proof of anything because it would have to be verified by experience anyway.

Then what do you mean by existence? I don't think you mean physical existence or aliens etc. I think you just mean is there anything, any state, outside what we call the mind.

Then, what is the mind? This is more complex.

What we normally call the mind is our thinking process, right? We use the mind to calculate a maths problem, work out a shopping list, and so on. It's a process of thought.

In that area are not only the everyday practical things but also our psyche, our dreams, our desires, all the psychological issues and problems. We actually live in our minds. Our thoughts are there, our actions come from there.

Now that area is actually quite small, isn't it? Each one lives in their own 'bubble' as it were. They have their own knowledge, experience, thoughts. It's not an unlimited space, it's very limited. We only know what we've read or experienced ourselves and it's circumscribed, it has definite limits.

We can't think beyond what we know. You know your phone number, for example, but if I asked you what mine is you'd just go blank - and that's just phone numbers. So there's lots and lots we don't know and we don't even know we don't know it.

HOW is it possible that, through your mind, you can prove the existence of something outside of it?

Now you're asking if there's anything beyond that. I think that's your question.

First, if any area is circumscribed there has to be something outside it. A circle has a circumference, a perimeter, a boundary. The boundary is only possible because it exists in a wider area. Isn't that clear? Life or existence is immense, it's not just the little psychological world that we live in.

You're asking whether it's possible to prove that there's something outside and whether it's possible to do that without some kind of knowledge.

If you only mean theoretically, using knowledge of philosophy, logic, and so on, then the answer is yes, it would be necessary. But have you actually proved anything? One can only surmise, come to some kind of conclusion based on reason. It would still have to verified, wouldn't it?

If we start theoretically we end theoretically so we haven't moved away from the area of the mind as knowledge and thought. We're where we started, still in that limited area. So, through knowledge and thought we can't go beyond knowledge and thought. That's clear too, I think.

Now is that all there is to the mind? Please follow this carefully!

As long as the mind is occupied, moving, its space is limited. The very activity defines its limitation. The activity is the limitation! If that activity stops there's silence and that silence has no border, it's limitless. Then the mind is itself the limitless.

That's how you do it.

[Positor]

1. Existence comprises information
2. Information necessitates interpretation
3. Awareness is the ultimate interpretive medium
4. Therefore awareness IS existence

The first of my arguments. Some clarification necessary of course, I will try...

Existence=EVERYTHING IN TOTALITY
Information=BITS OF THING
Awareness=THE INTERPRETER
Interpretation=VALIDATION OF INFORMATION

"Information" is ambiguous. It can mean simply "bits of thing", or it can mean specifically "communicated bits of thing". Your premise 1 uses it in the first sense, but premise 2 implies the second sense. (Interpretation requires (a) a thing interpreted and (b) an interpreter, and (a) must be communicated to (b).) So I think your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

I claim that a conscious experiencer is necessary for the information content of a thing to be

Depends what you mean by "information" – see above.

(and the thing itself)

No, I disagree that a conscious experiencer is logically necessary for the thing itself to be.

inanimacy as a set requiring this to be enabled, being alone unstable. Awareness equals, validates, existence by experiencing it.

This seems vaguely plausible at first sight, but I'm not sure it stands up to analysis. What do you mean by "unstable"? Doesn't instability presuppose existence? And if awareness "validates" existence, doesn't that logically imply that "validatedness" is not an intrinsic property of existence?

[Keep_Relentless]

Probably the trouble is that what I'm saying is very simple, it's not terribly intellectually difficult or technical. Most of the time it's simply the obvious and for some reason it seems to elude us.

The problem with this, much like in everyday language, is that accuracy is sacrificed for communication; and in this setting that is a problem. Maybe usually saying 'How are you?' instead of 'What are you feeling?' isn't a problem, but here it is. :P

Can you prove then, that it is possible that there is some existence without knowledge?

First, what do you mean by prove? Either you mean with reasoning and argument like philosophers do, or using equations, symbols, and all that. Or you mean actually experiencing, discovering for yourself that there's something beyond the mind.

The mind cannot experience beyond the mind... yes, using reason and logic, or math with correct axioms.

Now that area is actually quite small, isn't it? Each one lives in their own 'bubble' as it were. They have their own knowledge, experience, thoughts. It's not an unlimited space, it's very limited. We only know what we've read or experienced ourselves and it's circumscribed, it has definite limits.

No actual infinite may exist... no true representation of infinity...

We can't think beyond what we know. You know your phone number, for example, but if I asked you what mine is you'd just go blank - and that's just phone numbers. So there's lots and lots we don't know and we don't even know we don't know it.

Exactly! Perhaps your phone number doesn't exist? Except now it does because I've thought of it... just not physically.
We can't think beyond what we don't know! And existence, as we conceive of it, is from our conception, yes?

First, if any area is circumscribed there has to be something outside it. A circle has a circumference, perimeter, a boundary. The boundary is only possible because it exists in a wider area. Isn't that clear? Life or existence is immense, it's not just the little psychological world that we live in.

I do not agree with anything here. We can consider anything in our set of everything, so how is there something outside of existence, i.e. outside the realm of is? The comparison with a circle is meaningless imo... a circle has those properties because it must, to be named 'circle'. And the closing remark stands alone as a purely impressionable conclusion.

You're asking whether it's possible to prove that there's something outside and whether it's possible to do that without some kind of knowledge.

If you only mean theoretically, using knowledge of philosophy, logic, and so on, then the answer is yes, it would be necessary.

Good, now, can you offer the reason that determines this conclusion?

But have you actually proved anything? One can only surmise, come to some kind of conclusion based on reason. It would still have to verified, wouldn't it?

This, much like determinism, and some aspects of the existence of God, is not something possible to verify empirically. The areas in which I focus can be likened to mathematics, the science that draws 'necessary conclusions'. I do not agree that 2 + 2 = 4 must be verified empirically.

[charon]

Keep_Relentless

accuracy is sacrificed for communication

Absolutely. Even if we describe something extremely accurately there's always the chance of it being misunderstood.

The mind cannot experience beyond the mind... yes, using reason and logic, or math with correct axioms

We have to be careful with this. We must be careful we're not assuming that we can never know anything other than the mind's limits. That may not be true.

It is true that the mind as thought can't go beyond itself. Thought can't extend beyond its own limits nor can it end itself to find out. If we conclude that nothing further is possible then we're forced to conclude that the only thing left is logic, math, etc - which is still thought, of course. So thought is still moving in its own circle.

No actual infinite may exist... no true representation of infinity...

It may or may not, we have to find out. The danger in this is coming to a conclusion which prevents further inquiry. Conclusions are dangerous in this respect, they stop us moving further. The mind that is learning is always moving, probing; it never concludes and stops. Concluding puts a stop to learning.

Perhaps your phone number doesn't exist?

Of course it exists but the point of the example was to demonstrate that we can't know anything that's not in our 'database' of knowledge.

Knowledge is always limited. All the knowledge in the world, however vast, is still limited. If it wasn't we couldn't discover more things and add to it.

existence, as we conceive of it, is from our conception, yes?

Yes, and any conception will be incomplete for that reason.

how is there something outside of existence, i.e. outside the realm of is?

Ah, there's nothing outside the realm of 'is'!

'Is' isn't the same as our knowledge. It's our knowledge which is limited because what is known is always of the past. Knowledge is the already-discovered. We can't know the present because it's always new, and the future likewise.

When you say 'is' that's what you mean, that which actually 'is' at any moment. We can never completely know that, it's beyond measure. That 'is' also contains all the knowledge, right? The 'is' contains everything. The whole past, present and future are implicit in the 'is'.

can you offer the reason that determines this conclusion?

I've done so above.

This, much like determinism, and some aspects of the existence of God, is not something possible to verify empirically

The last part of my post, which you haven't responded to, is the answer to that.

What's important is to see that as long as we stay within the confines of our thought there's never anything new. That's a fact, isn't it? We go round ceaselessly in circles, reaching conclusions, speculating, getting ideas we think are new but aren't really, and so on.

It's only when we leave that world that there's something new. That's what's important, to discover the unknown, otherwise it all becomes rather pointless, doesn't it?

[Don Juan]

1. Existence comprises information
2. Information necessitates interpretation
3. Awareness is the ultimate interpretive medium
4. Therefore awareness IS existence

The first of my arguments. Some clarification necessary of course, I will try...

Existence=EVERYTHING IN TOTALITY
Information=BITS OF THING
Awareness=THE INTERPRETER
Interpretation=VALIDATION OF INFORMATION

So busy these days and can't have enough time to focus and reflect...and it is also taking me some time to understand these arguments...I have some questions and comments...

-I claim that a conscious experiencer is necessary for the information content of a thing to be (and the thing itself), in animacy as a set requiring this to be enabled, being alone unstable.

Do you mean to say that the genetic information in every cell needs a conscious experience or else it is or will be unstable?

Awareness equals, validates, existence by experiencing it.

Do you mean to say that awareness necessarily has all the details and can point to all the details specifically at once and simultaneously since the content of existence would be tremendously varied though interrelated some of which are happening in parallel and some in sequence?

As a part of awareness, the individual verifies as existent all that is conceived of. Where awareness is not, there is no means for verification.

Do you mean you need to be consciously aware first that your finger is in pain before you pull it from a flame?

Furthermore, as awareness as an apparent whole is divided into individual entities, the individual may only verify as existent that which they are aware of.

When somebody say to someone, “Watch out! There’s a speeding car!...from your back!” Should he answer, “Who cares, I am not aware of it so it does not exist, you and your voice exist though and...but I think you don't have a mind”?

As they are not aware of other minds, objectivity, and facts communicated them by "others", these are not actually existent.

Since these are not existent, then from a personal point of view, other people are zombies appearing and acting like normal persons.

I obviously have equated verification of existence with the property of existence. I.e. What is not verified (through awareness; conceived of) cannot exist.

So far the actual specific neural firings in your brain does not exist, at least a part of it because you cannot verify it all, can you?

[Keep_Relentless]

Do you mean to say that the genetic information in every cell needs a conscious experience or else it is or will be unstable?

Yes, I claim that every object with the property of existence necessarily cannot be independent of a single sentient being.

Do you mean to say that awareness necessarily has all the details and can point to all the details specifically at once and simultaneously since the content of existence would be tremendously varied though interrelated some of which are happening in parallel and some in sequence?

Yes, though that is perhaps a misleading interpretation. It appears preposterous because all of existence must exist simultaneously and therefore in the mind... but certainly not implausible if all that one thinks of at any one time is taken to be all that exists, and all that appears to the senses is all that is, and change occurs, bringing new objects into existence at the exact moment we become aware of them...

Do you mean you need to be consciously aware first that your finger is in pain before you pull it from a flame?

Heat only exists as we feel it, that is the only difference, then we are not "living in the past" because the property itself, of temperature, does not exist until it is experienced (either as physical or conceptual).

When somebody say to someone, “Watch out! There’s a speeding car!...from your back!” Should he answer, “Who cares, I am not aware of it so it does not exist, you and your voice exist though and...but I think you don't have a mind”?

Practice has taught us that if we are going to jump off of the Eiffel Tower, we will die There is no conclusive reason to willingly base your actions on this, but it appears to work, so we cannot help but trust it. If you have been struck by a missile you were previously unaware of and that didn't exist within your sight at the point of impact (like a bird... hah) then you know that change is capable of bringing in crippling sensations at any moment... and experience tells us that the warning from a friend of a lethal situation is a clear indication, perhaps we should obey... but having said that, accepting determinism as I do and accepting that the future is totally unpredictable in theory (save that something must happen) it makes no moe sense to move than not to move.

Since these are not existent, then from a personal point of view, other people are zombies appearing and acting like normal persons.

Exactly. What a lovely thought.

[

So far the actual specific neural firings in your brain does not exist, at least a part of it because you cannot verify it all, can you?

I consider the mind an indivisible set rather than a collection of nerves etc. Knowledge of the brain is learned, the mind necessarily knows itself, there are heavy differences.

[neuro]

Heat only exists as we feel it, that is the only difference, then we are not "living in the past" because the property itself, of temperature, does not exist until it is experienced (either as physical or conceptual).

What do you mean by "we feel it?"
"Our thermoceptors discharge and produce a reflex by which our arm moves away from the flame",
or "we become aware of the high temperature of the flame, and therefore we bring it into existence" (although we already have withdrawn our hand, almost one second before)?

[owleye]

Heat only exists as we feel it, that is the only difference, then we are not "living in the past" because the property itself, of temperature, does not exist until it is experienced (either as physical or conceptual).

What do you mean by "we feel it?"
"Our thermoceptors discharge and produce a reflex by which our arm moves away from the flame",
or "we become aware of the high temperature of the flame, and therefore we bring it into existence" (although we already have withdrawn our hand, almost one second before)?

I haven't posted on this thread in awhile, but Keep_Relentless's relentless assertions seem to have only one point to them, namely that nothing exists apart from his Cartesian sphere of awareness. Where he fails in his assertions is his use of language to express them. He can't find the language that properly characterizes these assertions because in expressing them by language he presupposes the existence of things apart from his being aware of them. To get around this he might want to use the Cartesian trick of there being an evil-genie (something like the "Matrix") that is able to produce these images, sensations, feelings, or whatever perceptions are conjured up in him, but even if this were the case, there remains something external to this awareness world that makes it possible. More recently, Wittgenstein made powerful arguments that refuted the idea that private language was even possible.

More to the point, he should realize that awareness doesn't bring heat into existence as he asserts it does. If heat were exclusively an effect of his awareness of it, he would not assign any existence to it at all. (Note that heat is usually thought of as a property, not an entity, so in applying the term 'existence' to it he would probably be referring to the existence of the property, which additionally makes the assumption that it is a property of something that does exist.) instead it would rather be due to something he isn't able to determine and he would, if only out of caution, merely state "I feel hot", not "It feels hot", the latter locution relegating the heat to something not him. When it remains solely within him, its existence would be considered an illusion, which if recognized as such, would be denied.

(He should also adopt this language form to express his awareness in other sensory experience. Sighted objects wouldn't exist, just as heated objects don't exist, in K_R's solipsistic world (only heated subjects could exist, though "I" remains problematic, I believe.). His language needs to be restricted to reflect this. For example, he should say "I sense a reddish tinge in my sight field, or something like this and even more primitive." Interestingly, I seem to recall that Newton, following the advice of Descartes, made an attempt to found evidence gathering in such language. Of course, he was no solipsist, nor was Descartes.)

James

[Keep_Relentless]

Heat only exists as we feel it, that is the only difference, then we are not "living in the past" because the property itself, of temperature, does not exist until it is experienced (either as physical or conceptual).

What do you mean by "we feel it?"
"Our thermoceptors discharge and produce a reflex by which our arm moves away from the flame",
or "we become aware of the high temperature of the flame, and therefore we bring it into existence" (although we already have withdrawn our hand, almost one second before)?

The latter. The withdrawal would then simply be involuntary.

You are correct in your subsequent assertions that there is much language difficulty, and perhaps I have not spoken consistently with my views enough to realise many of them (for in everyday life I definitely cannot parade about with this worldview in any sort of practical manner). I have been wondering for some time, to address one matter in particular, about what the "I" truly constitutes physically. It is obvious that in my worldview "I" is equivalent to "all", and being a Hard Determinist this carries over quite cleanly into the physical world, for nothing is truly voluntary, so the apparent body of "I" cannot be separated from anything else in that regard.

[Keep_Relentless]

More to the point, he should realize that awareness doesn't bring heat into existence as he asserts it does. If heat were exclusively an effect of his awareness of it, he would not assign any existence to it at all. (Note that heat is usually thought of as a property, not an entity, so in applying the term 'existence' to it he would probably be referring to the existence of the property, which additionally makes the assumption that it is a property of something that does exist.) instead it would rather be due to something he isn't able to determine and he would, if only out of caution, merely state "I feel hot", not "It feels hot", the latter locution relegating the heat to something not him. When it remains solely within him, its existence would be considered an illusion, which if recognized as such, would be denied.

Heat, in this example, necessarily containing the property of existence (for it to be spoken of in any meaningful context), would not be an effect of my awareness, but an equivalence of it, hence awareness equaling existence. This is due, as is all, to necessity, from determinism and logic as I perceive it: if there is to be existence, there must be rules and structure, no matter what else there is. I may say "it feels hot" because the "it" is an extension of "I"... the basis of this being an illusion, or the undermining of all other dominant proposals as a result, is as of yet unknown to me. For one, as one has mentioned and perhaps even you have mentioned, an illusory object necessarily requires a "true" object with which to contrast it and justify its illusory aspect.

(He should also adopt this language form to express his awareness in other sensory experience. Sighted objects wouldn't exist, just as heated objects don't exist, in K_R's solipsistic world (only heated subjects could exist, though "I" remains problematic, I believe.). His language needs to be restricted to reflect this. For example, he should say "I sense a reddish tinge in my sight field, or something like this and even more primitive." Interestingly, I seem to recall that Newton, following the advice of Descartes, made an attempt to found evidence gathering in such language. Of course, he was no solipsist, nor was Descartes.)

James

I can still refer to others that I have experienced with my senses correctly, I believe, as they do exist, but within awareness (awareness being all), and within "me". I cannot refer to "you" correctly as I have not experienced a "you" at all, yet you may exist as some figment of my imagination if I can characterise you adequately from within my thoughts. I do though, see "your" messages as colour configurations forming conceptually recognisable and interpretable shapes.

[owleye]

Heat, in this example, necessarily containing the property of existence (for it to be spoken of in any meaningful context), would not be an effect of my awareness, but an equivalence of it, hence awareness equaling existence.

Try as you might, you won't be able to make existence into a property. If existence ware a property of heat, this would imply it added some feature to it. What does existing heat add to heat that wasn't already there? Oridnarily, we would say if something exists then we may become aware of it. In your solipsistic perspective, however, such language is inappropriate. Instead, you have to contrive the case that existence isn't anything except what you are aware of, and, as such, can't be related to some object external to that awareness and might exist apart from you. You have to contrive a kind of existence that the rest of us would dismiss, we being very content with the idea that we aren't always hallucinating. For you, hallucination is the real thing -- it's what exists, making a mockery of the words used in ordinary language, which is to say your position requires that hallucination and existence mean the same thing.

I can still refer to others that I have experienced with my senses correctly, I believe, as they do exist, but within awareness (awareness being all), and within "me". I cannot refer to "you" correctly as I have not experienced a "you" at all, yet you may exist as some figment of my imagination if I can characterise you adequately from within my thoughts. I do though, see "your" messages as colour configurations forming conceptually recognisable and interpretable shapes.

Your reason for believing they do exist seems to me to depend on their existence between moments in which you are aware of them. Otherwise you would contend with each awareness there would be a new existence springing to life, without any connection between the two. Your claim rests on the coincidence of the appearance of persistence objects, which apparently you are unable to control, and have leapt to the conclusion that, though there's nothing out there that might be producing these objects, you wish to communicate with them anyway. This sort of behavior ordinarily would make you the target of psychological evaluation, but as I don't believe for a moment that you really are a solipsist, I daresay all this is nonsense.

James

[Keep_Relentless]

Try as you might, you won't be able to make existence into a property. If existence ware a property of heat, this would imply it added some feature to it. What does existing heat add to heat that wasn't already there? Oridnarily, we would say if something exists then we may become aware of it. In your solipsistic perspective, however, such language is inappropriate. Instead, you have to contrive the case that existence isn't anything except what you are aware of, and, as such, can't be related to some object external to that awareness and might exist apart from you. You have to contrive a kind of existence that the rest of us would dismiss, we being very content with the idea that we aren't always hallucinating. For you, hallucination is the real thing -- it's what exists, making a mockery of the words used in ordinary language, which is to say your position requires that hallucination and existence mean the same thing.

I call existence a "necessary property"... no thing cannot not exist. Even the former sentence does make a mockery of language as you put it.
While this interpretation is a good one, I generally take the viewpoint that hallucinations and insanity are unfounded terms... a hallucination is as real as all else, a perspective simply is, for there is no objective to contrast it with.
I could, in practice, say that there "is a chance" that the object which is usually said to exist will exist with a successive process of change. This and "becoming aware of that which exists" in the "common tongue" could be considered equivalent, the sole difference being that I do not believe that that which I imagine outside of myself is genuine.

Your reason for believing they do exist seems to me to depend on their existence between moments in which you are aware of them. Otherwise you would contend with each awareness there would be a new existence springing to life, without any connection between the two. Your claim rests on the coincidence of the appearance of persistence objects, which apparently you are unable to control, and have leapt to the conclusion that, though there's nothing out there that might be producing these objects, you wish to communicate with them anyway. This sort of behavior ordinarily would make you the target of psychological evaluation, but as I don't believe for a moment that you really are a solipsist, I daresay all this is nonsense.

James

That is ok, but this is founded on solipsism and I surely identify myself with it.
The connection between the two is unavoidable, a part of "human nature" you could say, a part of the befuddling connection between conceptualisation and physicality. It is like the natural characterisation of species before you realise the line cannot be drawn so clearly, or the characterisation of males and females unquestionably before you learn of hermaphrodites or those that possess other qualities of both.

[owleye]

Try as you might, you won'I call existence a "necessary property"... no thing cannot not exist. Even the former sentence does make a mockery of language as you put it.
While this interpretation is a good one, I generally take the viewpoint that hallucinations and insanity are unfounded terms... a hallucination is as real as all else, a perspective simply is, for there is no objective to contrast it with.

I would agree that you need to make these terms unfounded to be consistent with your stance, one being no more being real than any other. With respect to 'existence being a necessary property', my objection was to it being a property, not to it being necessary. You haven't paid attention to my argument against this. I'm aware that some more recent philosophers have found ways to think of existence being a property, which I find very complicated and don't really understand, but at least they have the virtue of understanding the argument I gave, which was my attempt at making use of Kant's argument against the existence of a god that depended on existence being a predicate (property) whereby existence could be of the more or less kind, one in which God would have the highest degree of existence. You should be able to see from this how you have misconstrued what existence means.

I could, in practice, say that there "is a chance" that the object which is usually said to exist will exist with a successive process of change. This and "becoming aware of that which exists" in the "common tongue" could be considered equivalent, the sole difference being that I do not believe that that which I imagine outside of myself is genuine.

You are adopting the stance that because you can't be sure that things exist outside of your awareness of them, that awareness is what causes existence. Now, though you state this position, by also stating it as your belief, in other words, that you hold the position that things do not exist apart from your being aware of them, and then also that that there might be a chance that they do exist apart from your being aware of them, based on some regularity, you at the same time reveal that you are wavering in your belief. Are you wavering? Do you find that you are relying on the existence of a world apart from your awareness, despite your belief? As some would say of belief, that it is a disposition, could it be that you only think you are believing there is no world outside your awareness of it, but in fact are disposed to act in ways that are consistent with there being a world outside your awareness of it?

James

[BadgerJelly]

Correct me if I am wrong Relentless but are you basically saying that your awareness of reality is the most viable evidence you have for your own existence? (Obviously accepting that this "awareness" could be a trivial projection.)

[littletrio]

Try as you might, you won't be able to make existence into a property. If existence ware a property of heat, this would imply it added some feature to it. What does existing heat add to heat that wasn't already there?

I can easily make a property out of this existence. I will use water as my example/supposition.....One, is at the kitchen sink, turns on the hot water and lets it run to get to temperature. Then proceeds to turn on the cold water to mix hot and cold water to rise off dishes. The dishwasher when finished shuts off the valves. The remaining hot water in the hot water lines and starts to cool. However, the dishwasher forgot a glass and turned the hot water back on to rinse, one last piece. The hot water came to temperature rapidly because of the remaining hot water in the pipes. Therefore, existing heat can add to heat that wasn't already there. I think.

[owleye]

I can easily make a property out of this existence. I will use water as my example/supposition.....One, is at the kitchen sink, turns on the hot water and lets it run to get to temperature. Then proceeds to turn on the cold water to mix hot and cold water to rise off dishes. The dishwasher when finished shuts off the valves. The remaining hot water in the hot water lines and starts to cool. However, the dishwasher forgot a glass and turned the hot water back on to rinse, one last piece. The hot water came to temperature rapidly because of the remaining hot water in the pipes. Therefore, existing heat can add to heat that wasn't already there. I think.

Huh? Are you suggesting that the second use of 'heat' in the sentence "existing heat can add to heat that wasn't already there", didn't exist until it was made to exist by existence? This is absurd on its face. Existence has no degree to it. Things don't have any greater or lesser degree of existence. Things either exist or they don't. Yes, there could be greater or lesser degrees of heat, but this is because heat is a property of some object or thing, not an object or thing in itself.

James

[neuro]

littletrio and owleye,
I believe this only is a misunderstanding: it seems that littletrio interpreted "existing heat" as "heat which is already there" and the second part of the sentence as "heat that wasn't already there", whereas owleye meant to compare what one implies by "existing heat" with what "heat" implies by itself, and considered that the former expression does not add anything "that wasn't already there" in the latter ("existing heat" = "heat")

[owleye]

littletrio and owleye,
I believe this only is a misunderstanding: it seems that littletrio interpreted "existing heat" as "heat which is already there" and the second part of the sentence as "heat that wasn't already there", whereas owleye meant to compare what one implies by "existing heat" with what "heat" implies by itself, and considered that the former expression does not add anything "that wasn't already there" in the latter ("existing heat" = "heat")

If this is littletrio's intent, then it could more accurately be described as "heat, with the property that it exists in state 2 added to the heat that started with the property that it existed in state 1". However, in putting it in this way, what is being said is that heat has the property of having states of existence, not the property of existence. If littletrio is not implying states, but merely indicating that something is added or subtracted from heat, and could be indicated by a temperature gauge, then, of course, all he's saying is that heat has the property of yielding different temperatures under different circumstances. On the other hand, if he is thinking of two different "heats" being added together, each having their own existence, then either there is a mixing of the "heats" into a third "heat" which exists as a result of the mixing or that each of the heats remain in existence separately, and exist as a unit in name only.

I should add, if only for emphasis, that heat is not an object, as such, despite all the usage being put to it here. Heat itself (as a form of energy) is a property of some or another object (say a room) and is usually associated with the motion and collisions of smaller objects of which it is composed. (NB:I don't wish here to get into a discussion of composition here.). Note that when objects are in motion relative to each other, this does not mean that motion is an object that may or may not exist. All it means is that objects have the property of being in motion relative to each other. Properties or states of objects, like objects themselves, may exist or not, but existence shouldn't be thought of as a property or state or object.

James

[littletrio]

Wow, I bow in your greatness. I have much to learn.

[BadgerJelly]

existence shouldn't be thought of as a property or state or object.

?

[owleye]

Wow, I bow in your greatness. I have much to learn.

Yes, I suppose I sound like this (i.e., arrogant), and I apologize for that, but my intent is to move the discussion to at at least the late 19th century. Existence is one of those difficult topics that has only been made more difficult by the discoveries of science in the 20th century (which, I should add, is from a materialist/physicalist perspective -- existentialism has its own set of difficulties for phenomenonalists). Prior to much of the 19th century, existence had been considered something like entities occupying a place in space for a duration of time, in a Newtonian framework. The problems of existence were dedicated to issues of atomic theory where if atoms were of a certain size (i.e., they occupied a space for a time period), it would seem that they must have parts to them, like billiard balls that could in principle be spliced up into pieces. And this argument moves the issue to smaller pieces all the way down to zero, which would, in effect, make them vanish.

Well, quantum theory has had the dual effect of explaining how atomic theory works (how chemistry is made possible), while at the same time giving us huge headaches, namely those associated with "particles" that are also "waves." While the idea of occupying a space over a time period remains with us, at least in the sense in which particles make their appearance, we also have to adopt the language of wave theory (empty as it might be of "entities in wave-like motion"), one which is difficult to reconcile with any existence at a location in space over a period of time, where wave theory gets modeled as a field. Indeed, in quantum theory it is possible that future events affect the past because of this. (Also note that 'events' rise in importance compared to objects because of Relativity theory.) Quantum theory plays havoc on the kind of existence that I'd been expressing. It's often been said that if you don't understand the weirdness of quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory.

But there's another thing that needs to be emphasized in order to bring the discussion to the start of the 20th century. And this has to do with logic. One of the main advances in logic occurred in the wake of all the discussion in the 19th century with continuity and the possibility of space being non-Euclidean. Though there were many advances in mathematics during this period, it wasn't until Frege, I believe, that a logic was developed to account for all of it, one which also established existence itself on a particular footing, one that has come to be understood in logic as "There exists an X such that ..." and "For all X such that..." where the ellipses indicates that what is left out are the properties of X. Existence proofs and disproofs were thus enabled by this kind of logic. This logic became the breakthrough that overcame the limitations of Aristotelian logic that dominated the thinking for 2000 years.

It is this existential logic that I'd been referring to when I distinguished existence from the qualities (and quantities and relations) attributed to things that exist.

Now, if you've followed the trend in computer science, regarding programming languages, coupled with the physical adaptation of a binary logic) you might have noticed that some of the them have moved toward a particular line of thinking that is similar to this existential logic, namely that which has objects of a class, or entities having a relationship with other entities, each of which have attributes, and possibly methods or procedures or rules which in order to be executed on a digital computer have to be instantiated (thus occupying physical memory in one form or another (clouds anyone?). These are models that assist the developer in developing applications having some use in society, and will have an effect on how we make use of it our daily life (you may remember how we had to adapt to the rigid requirements of punched cards (IBM approvingly regarding them as IBM cards) of the early years. For that reason, I think, computer scientists have tried to find better and better models that presumably provide a more accurate rendering of whatever it is they are trying to model, which has to include some model of existence. It may require moving to the logic of a quantum computation for some applications, and for other applications, adopting a methodology of information processing more similar to how the brain processes information.

Modern logic, mathematics and computer science as well as modern philosophy have since moved beyond the 19th century and I'm afraid I haven't. So I stand with you in my reverence for whatever advances have been achieved in these areas by the great thinkers of the twentieth century. Xcthulhu is our logic expert on this aspect of modernity, with Lomax having that well-rounded appreciation of how it applies. (Xcthulhu and others are also experts in computer science and mathematics.) And there are still others who from time to time show us how logic works (I'm thinking here of Owen, though there are undoubtedly others.) Unfortunately for me when I read what they have to say, I kind of glaze over it because it's almost always written in symbolic form, a form I'm not particularly conversant in. And so, I, too, have much to learn.

James

[littletrio]

Owl, I wouldn't call you arrogant. I am not looking for somebody to flatter me. I am looking for somebody who will teach me and guide me towards the truth. I appreciate your candor, frankness, and intelligence. My only regret is that it took my so long to get here. Maybe, that is the way it was meant to be, tiny steps.

[littletrio]

littletrio and owleye,
I believe this only is a misunderstanding: it seems that littletrio interpreted "existing heat" as "heat which is already there" and the second part of the sentence as "heat that wasn't already there", whereas owleye meant to compare what one implies by "existing heat" with what "heat" implies by itself, and considered that the former expression does not add anything "that wasn't already there" in the latter ("existing heat" = "heat")

I was simply trying to relate heat to awareness and existence. Therefore proving that awareness is not needed for existence. For what happens in nature can be held in relation to all properties of philosopy, physics, and logic. The simple answer is the normally the correct answer, viz.. Occam's Razor. I believe Owl gave a logic breakthrough example which solved many problems in logic but was in effect extremely simple. One must change the way he thinks sometimes to overcome a obstacle, i.e. if one is strong in science, maybe try the logic or philosophical approach. I have come to realize that it is common for all three qualities to be present in all of the great minds of those fields.

Going back to the heated water example...If the water is heated with a instant water heater....the hot water did not exist, but one is aware that the water will be heated by the water heater or could be completely ignorant of the fact. True, awareness was needed to create, but this could happen in nature, viz....volcano, geo thermal, fault, etc. Therefore, awareness is not need to exist.