Mermaids do not exist anywhere. But it is true that people have imagined that mermaids existed.

Do ideas exist somewhere? If so, why do not mermaids exist somewhere?

Well, I guess ideas exist. But, if mermaids existed, then they would be women with fish-tails, and there is no reason to think that women with fish-tails exist.
But, have we decided what it means to say that something exists? I don't think so.

You guess ideas exist? If you guess ideas exist, then why aren't you guessing mermaids exist? A mermaid can be an idea, can't it?

If mermaids existed, why would there necessarily be women with fish-tails? If ideas exist, what is there to corroborate their existence? Nothing (without extrapolating figuratively). So why does there need to be physical corroboration for mermaids to exist?

Existence, as I understand it, means X is, in some form. I think what humans are, and can only be, concerned with are those things existing which are spoken; non-existence cannot be spoken. And, there are of course things existing which are not spoken, but, those things don't matter. Those things which are spoken exist, and they matter.

No, a mermaid cannot be an idea, no more that the Eiffel Tower can be an idea. If the Eiffel Tower exists (and it does) it is an edifice in the middle of Paris. And if a mermaid existed (which it does not) it would be a lady with a fish's torso. Why would the Eiffel Tower be an idea if it exists, and a mermaid be an idea if it existed? There is the idea of the Eiffel Tower, and there is the idea of a mermaid. But the former is not the Eiffel Tower, and the latter is no a mermaid. That the idea or concept of a mermaid exists does not mean that a mermaid exists, no more than the fact that the idea or concept of the Eiffel Tower exists means that the Eiffel Tower exists. Suppose that the Eiffel Tower were destroyed. Would that mean that it still exists because the idea or concept of the E.T. exists. Obviously not.

(If mermaids existed, then there would be women with fish-tails, since that is what mermaids are). Just as if the Eiffel Tower exists (which it does) then then is a very tall edifice in the middle of Paris, since that is what the Eiffel Tower is.

Actually, nobody would ask if mermaids exist in imagination. You couldn't ask that question if they didn't.

So, if we're assuming the questioner isn't brain damaged, we'd assume the question is: do mermaids exist outside of imagination.

I would then reason that such an entity would be contrary to nature.

Of course there are plenty of people who have cardiac valves that came from pigs. That would appear to be contrary to nature.. until it happens. So I would say, based on my experience, there are no mermaids.

What I mean by that is that I've never seen one, and it's contrary to my reasoning that there could be one. At that point, I return to the obvious: a mermaid is an idea.

Now if the question comes: is a mermaid the same thing as nothing?

Well, I already realized that a mermaid is an idea. Can an idea be the same thing as nothing? The word nothing explains itself: no thing. Is an idea a thing?

I guess it depends on how we define thing.

One things for sure: the idea must exist in order for any questions to be asked about it.

Well, I guess ideas exist. But, if mermaids existed, then they would be women with fish-tails, and there is no reason to think that women with fish-tails exist.
But, have we decided what it means to say that something exists? I don't think so.

Although my grasp of principles of logic is tenuous at best, I'm going to take a chance here and suggest (based on some recent readings of G.E. Moore) that when we say that something exists, we are asserting a physical or material object that has a spatial relationship with something else which also has a physical or material reality.

If we take the existence of ourselves (that is that we exist) to be a truism, then Elephants, in relation to our physicality, meet this criteria. Mermaids, however, do not.

Elephants exist regardless of our belief in them, or ideas about them. That is, their existence is certainly true. They are physical facts that are not logically or causally dependent on what Moore calls mental facts. (I think this is so, although it could be that I am not understanding what Moore is saying)

Mermaids, on the other hand, are not physical facts, but are rather products of our imaginings, and hence do not certainly exist, though they may possibly come to exist (in theory, as yet unrealized developments in genetic engineering may bring them into physical existence). I suppose it is even possible that mermaids could be shown to logically exist, but I don't know enough about logical argumentation to feel at all comfortable in trying to detail how.....

I await correction,
TTM

Are you saying that the elephant's existence is certainly true as long as it's standing in front of me?

If the elephant is in San Diego, then it seems like it's a mental fact. No?

Although my grasp of principles of logic is tenuous at best, I'm going to take a chance here and suggest (based on some recent readings of G.E. Moore) that when we say that something exists, we are asserting a physical or material object that has a spatial relationship with something else which also has a physical or material reality.

If we take the existence of ourselves (that is that we exist) to be a truism, then Elephants, in relation to our physicality, meet this criteria. Mermaids, however, do not.

Elephants exist regardless of our belief in them, or ideas about them. That is, their existence is certainly true. They are physical facts that are not logically or causally dependent on what Moore calls mental facts. (I think this is so, although it could be that I am not understanding what Moore is saying)

Mermaids, on the other hand, are not physical facts, but are rather products of our imaginings, and hence do not certainly exist, though they may possibly come to exist (in theory, as yet unrealized developments in genetic engineering may bring them into physical existence). I suppose it is even possible that mermaids could be shown to logically exist, but I don't know enough about logical argumentation to feel at all comfortable in trying to detail how.....

I await correction,
TTM

-------
Oh, and by the way: Bringing Fish-Tailed Women Home Strictly Forbidden on Pain of Death - Pravda.Ru
This was under the "Science" heading. Awesome, eh?

Are you saying that the elephant's existence is certainly true as long as it's standing in front of me?

No. Why would I say that?

I can't see my house from where I work, yet my house certainly exists as a material object that has a spatial relationship to something else that exists by the same criteria.

My parents exist at a distance of about 650 miles from where I am at this time. I don't need to have them standing in front of me at all times to be certain that they exist.

No. And elephant in San Diego is not a mental fact. What makes you think it is? It is an elephant in San Diego.

---------- Post added 10-26-2009 at 07:50 PM ----------



Some people say that God or angels exist, and they are not saying that "a physical or material object that has a spatial relationship with something else which also has a physical or material reality".

I don't know what it would mean to say that a mermaid was a fact, but it is a fact that mermaids do not exist. That is to say, it is true that mermaids do not exist.

I do not think that they may "come to exist". How would that happen?

I do not know what it means to say that mermaids may logically exist.

I can't see my house from where I work, yet my house certainly exists as a material object that has a spatial relationship to something else that exists by the same criteria.

Some people say that God or angels exist, and they are not saying that "a physical or material object that has a spatial relationship with something else which also has a physical or material reality".

Sorry. Mad scientist reference. I was supposing that if a half woman/half fish creature were to be created through genetic manipulation in a laboratory, it could be called a mermaid. Or would it just be called a half woman/half fish as a mermaid is just a fictional reference?

What do you think people mean when they say this? I think they mean what Tick says - they believe that God or angels exist (that is, they usually aren't stating they have physical corroboration). Are you as confident that angels and God don't exist as you that unicorns don't exist?

Aren't they really saying that they believe God or angels exist? Is it possible that in this case the spatial relationship that I thought Moore was referring to is an implied relationship between, say, man and God?

Now, I don't understand what question about "existence" you still have yet to answer. What part are you confused about? Or is there nothing you are confused about (why make this thread then?)?

Ken,

What I'm really trying to do is probe an answer to this question I asked earlier:



What discussion would you like this thread to take? It seems you have clarity on the issue, so I don't quite understand why you made the thread. What issues do you still want to discuss and/or are confused about?

Yes. Let me put it this way: Plato asked this question: when I assert that X(s) don't (do not) exist, what am I talking about? It cannot be that I am talking about X(s) since if my statement is true, there are no X(s) to talk about. So (Plato asked) how can I truly say that something does not exist, and, more generally, how can I talk about what does not exist (mermaids, unicorns, and the like)? The crucial case is, of course, the "negative existential" of the form, "X(s) do not exist". For those assertions are often true, but yet, how can they be?

It cannot be that I am talking about X(s) since if my statement is true, there are no X(s) to talk about

So (Plato asked) how can I truly say that something does not exist, and, more generally, how can I talk about what does not exist (mermaids, unicorns, and the like)?

For those assertions are often true, but yet, how can they be?