Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 01:58 am
To say something exists means what?
Some claim that "an idea exists; and a table exists.
Both exist ...but in a different way."

I disagree that "an idea exists." Why do I say that?

An idea only consists as a construction, a stipulation, of a mind. It is a mental construct.

Employing the analytic tools of Formal Axiology -- in this case, employing the four major dimension of value -- namely, Transpositional Value (abbreviated Tr.) Systemic Value (S); Extrinsic Value (E); and Intrinsic Value (I), we arrive at this result when we apply these dimensions to the undefined concept: Substance.

These - on a spectrum, from least to most - are the degrees of substance

(Tr.) : ephemerality; - fractional value
(S): essence; - finite value
(E): existence; - infinite but countable value
( I ): reality - uncountably infinite value.


And these are Modes of Being:

Ephemeralities tend to desist.
Essences consist
Existents exist
Realities persist.

What I have presented above is a miniature Ontology.

-----It works for me!

It works to order and explain the terms and relations that discuss Being and Substance. [ I take "being" and "substance" as undefined primitive terms . ]

What makes a person, event, or thing real is that a thinking organism projects emphasis and feeling into the declaration that "this is a real
experience!!! In other words, someone Intrinsically-values that person, event, situation, or thing.

I welcome your comments.


For further details see the text printed in blue in the first post at this site:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/epistemology/4644-what-truth-what-does-mean-exist.html#post66491



 
salima
 
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 02:22 am
@deepthot,
hi deepthot-
i like your ideas but i dont have the vocabulary to respond in the manner in which you have presented them. but still i have some desire to try and express my reaction.

things exist-but thoughts also exist. thoughts are possibly electrical signals-they are produced in the brain but may go on forever all the way to other galaxies. why not?

there are traditions that claim everything has a form-including thoughts. we just cannot measure them or put them in a box to observe them. they have been given the name 'elementals' and are said to go on their way continuing to have an influence on reality long after you have forgotten them. concepts have forms-they also are not physical, but they have forms.

energy is energy and matter is matter. where do thoughts and concepts fit in? i think they are actually matter...energy is that thing which runs the manifested universe...am i getting anywhere?
 
sarek
 
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 04:56 am
@deepthot,
What is your definition of 'to exist' within the limits of your chosen frame of reference?

And measured by the standard of that definition how is it that ideas do not conform to that definition?
 
juri006
 
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:26 am
@deepthot,
everything what awareness or concoiusness sees or feels in anyway exists. Smile
of course there are many different types of things existing...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:36 am
@juri006,
juri006;66573 wrote:
everything what awareness or concoiusness sees or feels in anyway exists. Smile
of course there are many different types of things existing...


Many different kinds of things exist. But there is no reason to think that they exist in different ways. I don't know what a different way of existing is.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 12:54 pm
@kennethamy,
I have no real opinion on this subject, but I am tickled by the use of the term "mini ontology".
 
deepthot
 
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 04:07 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;66582 wrote:
I have no real opinion on this subject, but I am tickled by the use of the term "mini ontology".


I am tickled that you are tickled.

It was an abbreviated way of saying "miniature ontology." As you know, 'ontology' is found in the dictionary. So I assume it was the mini that got to you. Smile

At any rate ... glad to be of service, and give someone a laugh. Humor is good for our health.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 04:13 pm
@deepthot,
Yeah it was the mini, Ontology is huge
 
deepthot
 
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 04:24 pm
@sarek,
sarek;66501 wrote:
What is your definition of 'to exist' within the limits of your chosen frame of reference?

And measured by the standard of that definition how is it that ideas do not conform to that definition?


Thanks, sarek, for some good questions!

Existence =def.= Extrinsic Value of Substance. To exist is to have a countable degree of substance. (The latter is an undefined term in my Ontotlogy.)

Ideas, thoughts, systems, ideologies, models, technicalities are Systemic Values -- and thus only are conceptions of a mind. Hence they have finite meaning, and constitute a finite degree of substance: they are not as substantial as a material thing. The latter, a consensus of people would agree, does exist. Material things - empirically observable - are Extrinsic values, E-values. Let us say the idea is "a geometric circle." Its definition is finite: a cross-section of a sphere is one way to define it. Or the area in a plane equidistant from a fixed point. These are finite descriptions. This is the idea of 'a circle.'
In contrast, things have infinite, but countable, expositions.

Does that answer your questions? I trust it is an adequate reply.

---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

salima;66494 wrote:
hi deepthot-
i like your ideas but i dont have the vocabulary to respond in the manner in which you have presented them. but still i have some desire to try and express my reaction.

things exist-but thoughts also exist. thoughts are possibly electrical signals-they are produced in the brain but may go on forever all the way to other galaxies. why not?


Why not, indeed.

I just don't know. We ought to have humility in this regard. Relative to the size of one of the small stars in this universe we are just too small to see the big picture. Some would argue the signal fizzles out after a short distance... but How short is short?

If there is factual evidence of telepathy, then I will grant that in a sense thoughts exist.

I assumed, for purposes of theory, that the attributes describing the concept "idea" were finite in measure. Thus they would be an application of Systemic Value - which has a finite cardinality, by its very definition.

Thanks for a provocative and stimulating adventure in ideas! A mini-one.:whistling:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 06:12 pm
@deepthot,
deepthot;66601 wrote:

If there is factual evidence of telepathy, then I will grant that in a sense thoughts exist.



Why do you think that only if we have evidence of telepathy, do we have evidence that thoughts exist? This morning, I am quite sure I had a number of thoughts. About what I would have for breakfast, about whether I should begin reading a new book, and a number of thoughts passed through my mind about President Obama's speech in Cairo. Since I know I have had those thoughts, I must have evidence that thoughts exist other than whether there is evidence for telepathy. I think that thoughts exist is the same sense that my chair and table exist. In fact, I believe that everything that exists, exists in the same sense of "exist", since I don't see any reason to think that there is more than one sense of "exist", although, of course, many different kinds of things exist.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:31 pm
@kennethamy,
I agree. Certain people need to distinguish between conception and reality -- and realize that while my thoughts do exist, that in no way shape or form grants me, or anyone, the ability to manipulate and exploit those distinctions to fit certain worldviews. I would be more specific but I dont feel like getting into any informal interactions at present. School is draining...
 
deepthot
 
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 12:45 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;66613 wrote:
Why do you think that only if we have evidence of telepathy, do we have evidence that thoughts exist? This morning, I am quite sure I had a number of thoughts. About what I would have for breakfast, about whether I should begin reading a new book, and a number of thoughts passed through my mind about President Obama's speech in Cairo. Since I know I have had those thoughts, I must have evidence that thoughts exist ....


The first post in this thread proposes that we use language in a different way from now on, for the sake of clarity and understanding. I have no doubt that you had a number of thoughts this morning -- and even more since then.

You fail to convince though that there is no difference in type between what you call "the existence" of your thoughts (say about a unicorn) and the existence of material things that correspond to scientific models - such as what happens when you put your face to a window, observe raindrops on the pane and dimples occurring in a puddle outside, and comment "It is raining out." In the latter case there is a perceived correspondence between your perception and events that may gain easy inter-subjective agreement.

Or maybe a thought is an incoherent one rather than a fantasy or a daydream. Some people think of nonsense -- of course not you, nor me.

Or, if the thought is an intense one - filled with emotive overtones of empathy, identification, emphasis, focus, and involvement - it could well be a case of Intrinsic evaluation of-and-with what is being valued - what Buber would have called "an I-Thou experience"; or what Husserl would name "Intentionality." These more-than-exist. These are (what we would describe as) REAL !!!

Another way of explaining all this is to say I am drawing a distinction between
(s) conception;
(E) perception; and
(I) experience.

And I would further differentiate among conceptions to note that there are (S) technical thoughts (such as how computers operate); (E) every-day social and economic thoughts; and (I) thoughts of love and poetry. They all consist as thoughts in minds.

Things in the world exist.

I-And-Thou experiences are realities.
And mystics (and devout worshipers) would assert that God is the Reality of all realities.


{ When I spoke of telepathy I was responding to the idea that thoughts are actually electrical impulses, and the hypothesis was that eventually some sensor or other intelligent life could somehow detect these and process them, and comprehend what the thought was to the sender. It was all hypothetical. ...Shall we say it was just a thought experiment.' } Thoughts have a low degree of subsistence; true love - and some would argue perhaps spirituality - have a high degree of it.

In this discussion we are into Modes of Being ....



 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 12:48 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;66632 wrote:
The first post in this thread proposes that we use language in a different way from now on, for the sake of clarity and understanding. I have no doubt that you had a number of thoughts this morning -- and even more since then.

You fail to convince though that there is no difference in type between what you call "the existence" of your thoughts (say about a unicorn) and the existence of material things that correspond to scientific models - such as what happens when you put your face to a window, observe raindrops on the pane and dimples occurring in a puddle outside, and comment "It is raining out." In the latter case there is a perceived correspondence between your perception and events that may gain easy inter-subjective agreement.

Or maybe a thought is an incoherent one rather than a fantasy or a daydream. Some people think of nonsense -- of course not you, nor me.

Or, if the thought is an intense one - filled with emotive overtones of empathy, identification, emphasis, focus, and involvement - it could well be a case of Intrinsic evaluation of-and-with what is being valued - what Buber would have called "an I-Thou experience"; or what Husserl would name "Intentionality." These more-than-exist. These are (what we would describe as) REAL !!!

Another way of explaining all this is to say I am drawing a distinction between
(s) conception;
(E) perception; and
(I) experience.

And I would further differentiate among conceptions to note that there are (S) technical thoughts (such as how computers operate); (E) every-day social and economic thoughts; and (I) thoughts of love and poetry. They all consist as thoughts in minds.

Things in the world exist.

I-And-Thou experiences are realities.
And mystics (and devout worshipers) would assert that God is the Reality of all realities.


{ When I spoke of telepathy I was responding to the idea that thoughts are actually electrical impulses, and the hypothesis was that eventually some sensor or other intelligent life could somehow detect these and process them, and comprehend what the thought was to the sender. It was all hypothetical. ...Shall we say it was just a thought experiment.' } Thoughts have a low degree of subsistence; true love - and some would argue perhaps spirituality - have a high degree of it.

In this discussion we are into Modes of Being ....





I wonder why you believe that your new stipulation of how we ought to use the term, "thought" has anything to do with what we ordinarily call, "thoughts", and why you use the same word for what you seem to be talking about. For what you are talking about certainly seems to have no connection with what is ordinarily meant by the term, "thought". It just seems to be arbitrary that you use the term, "thought" for both. And a little confusing too.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 01:41 am
@deepthot,
I agree that existence and reality are different. I have explored this elsewhere, on the basis that (as you say) existing objects are distinguisable from other things - so they are countable. But mathematical laws (for example) are of a different order to existing things.

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

I don't agree that 'anything that can be thought of, exists' as a number of contributors appear to say on this forum, because then there is no distinction between things that really exist and figments of the imagination.
 
nameless
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 03:48 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;66493 wrote:

-----It works for me!

Then why post this?

"Everything exists!"
The simple model (and complete set) is "everything exists" (in context).
Further subdivision is a violation of Occams razor, your (any) model with it's 'divisions' is added complexity with no return, and thus, trivial.
The simple model (and complete set) is "everything exists" (in context).

One good discussion on the subject can be found here;
No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 05:15 am
@deepthot,
Hey Nameless - I have a great idea - there is a large mound of unclaimed gold bullion very near to where you are right now. I know, because I imagining it, therefore it must exist. So, why not go and get a whole bunch, and then sell it and buy a private jet, and fly away!
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 07:09 am
@nameless,
nameless;67299 wrote:
Then why post this?

"Everything exists!"


Because, I suppose, everything (that exists) exists. And nothing that does not exist, exists. But there is nothing wrong with going into details, is there?
 
nameless
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 03:26 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;67308 wrote:
Hey Nameless - I have a great idea - there is a large mound of unclaimed gold bullion very near to where you are right now. I know, because I imagining it, therefore it must exist. So, why not go and get a whole bunch, and then sell it and buy a private jet, and fly away!

Jee Jeeprs, do you find the concept of 'context' that difficult?
Look it up in a few dictionaries, try to understand, and if you still don't, perhaps I can place it in such a 'context' that might help you to understand, if you like.

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------

kennethamy;67317 wrote:
...there is nothing wrong with going into details, is there?

I see nothing 'wrong' at all.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 06:52 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;66771 wrote:
I wonder why you believe that your new stipulation of how we ought to use the term, "thought" has anything to do with what we ordinarily call, "thoughts", and why you use the same word for what you seem to be talking about. For what you are talking about certainly seems to have no connection with what is ordinarily meant by the term, "thought". It just seems to be arbitrary that you use the term, "thought" for both. And a little confusing too.



Where in heaven did I make a "stippulation of how we ought to use the term 'thought'?!

The original post began with a question about the concept "idea" and what is its ontological status. You subtly shifted the concept to the word thought. It is not a "term" in my system. I feel like lots of straw men are being tossed out there at me.

Is "thought" a term in any system of yours?

This is the Epistemology Forum. Hence I was proposing a structure for Ontology here.

Yes, some new terminology is entailed. The same thing happened in Physics when we were told to think in terms of orbits, and cloud states where an electron may probably be, and nano-events completely unobservable by any naked eyes - such as quarks and alpha-rays and gravitons. It is too bad if some cannot adjust.
Perhaps there is something to Future Shock. [Present company excepted, of course.]
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 8 Jun, 2009 07:49 pm
@nameless,
nameless;67465 wrote:
Jee Jeeprs, do you find the concept of 'context' that difficult?
Look it up in a few dictionaries, try to understand, and if you still don't, perhaps I can place it in such a 'context' that might help you to understand, if you like.

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------


I see nothing 'wrong' at all.


Or even wrong. As I said.

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------

deepthot;67530 wrote:
Where in heaven did I make a "stippulation of how we ought to use the term 'thought'?!

The original post began with a question about the concept "idea" and what is its ontological status. You subtly shifted the concept to the word thought. It is not a "term" in my system. I feel like lots of straw men are being tossed out there at me.

Is "thought" a term in any system of yours?

This is the Epistemology Forum. Hence I was proposing a structure for Ontology here.

Yes, some new terminology is entailed. The same thing happened in Physics when we were told to think in terms of orbits, and cloud states where an electron may probably be, and nano-events completely unobservable by any naked eyes - such as quarks and alpha-rays and gravitons. It is too bad if some cannot adjust.
Perhaps there is something to Future Shock. [Present company excepted, of course.]


Only, philosophy is not physics. And what is supposed to be the matter with the old terminology?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 05:18:46