sometime sun;173582 wrote:
Originally Posted by sometime sun
Can something that only exists by definition its self have value.
Or is the value only attributed by the definition?
Which is more valuable the described existence or existing description?
Auction lot, is it a antique or a chair?
I am asking what is the value of definition.
Also what is the definition of value.
Perhaps a new word needs to be coined 'defination'
definition of a definition;
1 a statement of the meaning of a word or phrase. 2 the act of defining a word or phrase. 3 the act of demarcating the extent or boudaries of something. 4 the quality of having clear, precise limits or form. 5 the degree of clearness and preciseness of limits or form- by definition because of what something or someone essentially is or does.
ACT, QUALITY, FORM.
The definition is a quality and form I was asking about.
We base our judgements (which is a measure) which are a value on the definition before the fact or act.
The definition even description is what adds the value more than the thing itself.
We think something is more valuable because there is more definition.
A antique is more valued and than a mere chair.
We base and allot value on the definition before finding what something is actually provably usable for.
So what is worth more an antique chair that may break so can never be sat upon, or a plastic garden chair which will never break?
What is the value of the aesthetic?
What is the value of the function?
Does the art make more valuable than the paint?
Many things exist that are more valuable because of their definition.
What I am asking is if something has a function and is used and usable does it first need definition to be valuable or is only value attributed by function.
In which case a soul is both a function for some so has value.
And soul for some has no function but doe shave definition so despite no function is still valued.
(I hope this helps, I was a little nervous writing it)
---------- Post added 06-06-2010 at 12:55 AM ----------
You see now I found this heart-full.
I would rather suck you mind though.
As said if you want a clue, just ask for one.
---------- Post added 06-06-2010 at 01:02 AM ----------
You just here said a soul cannot be owned, agreed soul is a psychological construct and then said a psychological construct can be owned.
This says that a soul by your own definition can be owned.
Please describe further 'price stability'
If I say that there is a spaghetti monster who made the universe, the idea exists in my brain as a material neuronal pattern. However, this does not mean that it exists anywhere other
then a neuronal pattern in my brain.
If I can convince you, however, that it does exist and I further convince you of the advantages of also believing it I might even be able to get you to part with some money for the privilege of knowing the intimate details of my belief. Therefore, a price can be assigned to ownership of that belief.
However, since the belief has no external validator (a real-world spaghetti monster that exists outside of the confines of my own imagination), there is a risk of someone else coming along and coming up with a more attractive idea, thus causing a demand destruction in the demand for my idea.
In other words, without an external validator acting as a regulator on the supply and demand of ideas, they have no price stability.
Which is why, of course, religions generally engage in the practice of producing material artefacts of their belief system as after-the-fact physical validators.