numbers vs. words

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;142780 wrote:

How can you avoid the concession?
1) being imaginary is a property
2) therefore imaginary properties exist.

Fallacy of equivocation. Being imaginary is not an imaginary property. It is a real property of things of the imagination. Like Daffy Duck.

It is like saying that being silly is a silly property.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;142833 wrote:

Being imaginary is not an imaginary property. It is a real property of things of the imagination.

I'm well aware of it.
1) being imaginary is a property
2) therefore there is some imagined thing that has the property of being imagined
3) if that thing is real, then all properties of that thing are real
4) if that thing is not real, then some properties of that thing are imaginary
5) there is some thing which is both imagined and isn't real
6) therefore there are imaginary properties.
There's no equivocation and anyone who has been on this thread as long as Fast, or yourself, shouldn't need the thing spelled out in its entirety.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;142833 wrote:

Fallacy of equivocation. Being imaginary is not an imaginary property. It is a real property of things of the imagination. Like Daffy Duck.

It is like saying that being silly is a silly property.

[CENTER]:bigsmile:
Would it be possible to use the word Quality in-stead of property. I know it's silly, but I do not like teh use of Property in the Phsere of the Mind. It's all a miracle still... Actor un-known>

Imagination is Real. It's a Potential of Effects. Did some-one read Satre on the Sub-ject of Emotion and Magic ? I try-ed but think some got lost in the translation and my French is crap.

Spanish words 4 to-day:

Teo-Logo Scientist of God
Teo-Rico In Theory

Para-Digma ?
[/CENTER]

[CENTER] Laughing

Pepijn Quarck Show.......
[/CENTER]

@Ahab,

[QUOTE=Ahab;142724]I can imagine my friend, Joe, taking an airplane ride to San Francisco. Then I am imagining a real person taking a trip. Just because I can imagine Joe in certain situations doesn't make him imaginary.[/QUOTE]What about the airplane? Are you imagining that your friend is riding a real airplane or an imaginary one? I would hope the former.

[QUOTE]If I were trying to imagine a real coyote I wouldn't imagine one that could fall hundreds of feet, be flattened into a pancake by a huge boulder, then pop back into normal shape without a scratch and resume running after the Roadrunner! [/QUOTE]But, you're imagining a real coyote as if it could do such things. That's the magic of having an imagination!

When little Johnny runs around the front yard with arms spread wide imagining that he's flying an airplane, then yes, one might say to the neighbor that he's flying in his imaginary airplane (not that he actually is, of course), but little Johnny is not imagining that he's flying an imaginary airplane (what fun would that be?); he's imagining (pretending) that he's flying a real airplane.

[QUOTE]Why do you think that when we imagine Wile we imagine him to be a real coyote?[/QUOTE]I don't think your question asks what you think it does. You have already stated that you believe "Wile E. Coyote" does not refer to a real creature, yet because I believe it does, my answer to your question isn't going to be understood so long as you continue to insist that the referent of term successfully refers. Again, I think it's a referring term that fails to refer, not a referring term that succeeds in referring. And none of that should be confused with a non-referring term.

@fast,

fast;142971 wrote:

What about the airplane? Are you imagining that your friend is riding a real airplane or an imaginary one? I would hope the former.

It could be Southwest Flt #35 to S.F. , so I would be imagining a real plane. Or I could imagine him riding in an imaginary one.

Quote:

But, you're imagining a real coyote as if it could do such things. That's the magic of having an imagination!

You can imagine real coyotes and you can imagine imaginary coyotes.
You can imagine a real coyote doing imaginary things or doing real things.
You can imainge an imaginary coyote doing imaginary things or doing real things.

Wile E. Coyote has never been and never will be a real coyote. You still have not given me a reason for thinking he is real. And your insistence that he is real is quite odd in light of the fact that you also insist he does not exist.

Quote:

When little Johnny runs around the front yard with arms spread wide imagining that he's flying an airplane, then yes, one might say to the neighbor that he's flying in his imaginary airplane (not that he actually is, of course), but little Johnny is not imagining that he's flying an imaginary airplane (what fun would that be?); he's imagining (pretending) that he's flying a real airplane.

So what? I've already pointed out that we can imagine real things. This doesn't entail that we cannot imagine imaginary things.
Why do you think we call something imaginary? It can't be due to the mere fact that we imagine it. After all I can imagine my real friend and he would be quite offended if you said he was an imaginary being.

Quote:

I don't think your question asks what you think it does. You have already stated that you believe "Wile E. Coyote" does not refer to a real creature, yet because I believe it does, my answer to your question isn't going to be understood so long as you continue to insist that the referent of term successfully refers. Again, I think it's a referring term that fails to refer, not a referring term that succeeds in referring. And none of that should be confused with a non-referring term.

You've given no reason for your claim that' Wile E. Coyote' refers to a real coyote. The creator who thought up the name 'Wile E. Coyote' gave it to an imaginary creature.

The only sense I can make of you position is that you think all imaginary beings are real beings that don't exist. Is that correct?
I've asked you several times already what you think an imaginary being is. Maybe it is time you answered that question.

@Ahab,

Heer O.B. Bommel riep zijn trouwe bediende Joost. Toen er geen Joost na al zijn bellen verscheen, verdween de glimlach van het gezicht van de heer. Kwart voor drie was kwart voor drie. In al die jaren trouwe dienst was de thee nog niet later afgeserveerd. Juist nu dhr. Balkenden op bezoek zou komen. Doddeltje keurde de Verkade kaakjes nog eens... {woord voor woord}

@Extrain,

[QUOTE=Extrain;142781]This is a good question; I am inclined to go with (B) or (C). But I am not sure why you are opting for (D), since nobody (that I know of) even intends for their use of the purported name "Wile E. Coyote" to refer to an actual living coyote except you (even though you clearly don't think an actual living coyote exists). So why choose (D) anyway? Your choice seems plainly contrary to most people's (excepting schizophrenics') actual practice of using fictional names...[/QUOTE]

The driving force behind my denial that Wile E. Coyote exists is the fact that there is no Wile E. Coyote (aka no real Wile E. Coyote in the wild). The driving force behind my denial that unicorns exist is the fact that there are no unicorns (aka no real unicorns). There is no actual Wile E. Coyote in the real world, and simply put, there are no unicorns either.

In philosophy, people sometimes confuse meaning with reference. You're talking about how (you think) people are intending to use the term, "Wile E. Coyote," but that is an issue concerning meaning, not reference.

Let's examine 'B' a little more closely: B) the term refers to the imaginary creature Wile E. Coyote. When we talk of imaginary creatures, we're not talking about real creatures. Take the word, "imaginary" out and notice the difference: B) the term refers to the creature Wile E. Coyote. What would it mean to say that the creature Wile E. Coyote is imaginary? It would be a denial that it's a real creature that exists in the real world. What doesn't exist? The living, breathing, roadrunner-chasing creature does not exist. But, to say it's imaginary isn't to say that something does exist and what exists is an imaginary creature. That's ludicrous. Saying so is a function of confusing the act of imagining with what is imagined.

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;142984 wrote:

Heer O.B. Bommel riep zijn trouwe bediende Joost. Toen er geen Joost na al zijn bellen verscheen, verdween de glimlach van het gezicht van de heer. Kwart voor drie was kwart voor drie. In al die jaren trouwe dienst was de thee nog niet later afgeserveerd. Juist nu dhr. Balkenden op bezoek zou komen. Doddeltje keurde de Verkade kaakjes nog eens... {woord voor woord}

Babelfish: Lord O.B. called Bommel faithful served Joost be. When there no Joost are after already bels appeared, disappeared smile of the face of the lord. The quarter for three was the quarter for three. In all those years faithful service the tea not yet later afgeserveerd was. Correct now Mr. Balkenden on a visit would come. Doddeltje inspected the Verkade biscuits once more

@Ahab,

[QUOTE=Ahab;142980]I've asked you several times already what you think an imaginary being is. Maybe it is time you answered that question.[/QUOTE]Well, let's see, hmmm. I guess for starters, I would say that it's a product of the imagination. Also, and because it's a product of the imagination, I say that it doesn't exist. I would never (as one might say) mistake it for furniture.

By the way, I don't think there is something inside our minds either that instantiates the existence of imaginary beings. They simply do not exist.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;142858 wrote:

I'm well aware of it.
1) being imaginary is a property
2) therefore there is some imagined thing that has the property of being imagined
3) if that thing is real, then all properties of that thing are real
4) if that thing is not real, then some properties of that thing are imaginary
5) there is some thing which is both imagined and isn't real
6) therefore there are imaginary properties.
There's no equivocation and anyone who has been on this thread as long as Fast, or yourself, shouldn't need the thing spelled out in its entirety.

But what is imagined is not real. How can it be? It is imagined. Of course, people can fake what they claim to have imagined, so that they are not imagining what they claim to be imagining. But that would be very weird, for why would anyone what to deceived someone else about what he was imagining? If something is not real, then, of course, it has no properties. But someone who believes it is real will probably imagine that it has properties. But those will not be both properties and imaginary. They will not be properties.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;142992 wrote:

But what is imagined is not real. How can it be?

So, today you cant imagine a real dog show??

kennethamy;142992 wrote:

those will not be both properties and imaginary. They will not be properties.

Is there any reason that I should accept both this claim and the claim that the existence of numbers is known by the fact that they have properties?
Yet again, Rudolph is purely imaginary and Rudolph has a red nose, if having a red nose is not a property, what on Earth is it?

@ughaibu,

[QUOTE=ughaibu;142858]1) being imaginary is a property [/quote]
What does that mean? I fear it implies a contradiction. It sounds like you're saying object X is imaginary, but if object X is imaginary, then object X does not exist; however, you're also saying that a property of X is that it's imaginary, and if X has properties, then X exists. Well Houston, we have a problem, for it cannot be the case that X exists and be the case that X does not exist. Since we agree that X does not exist, then it doesn't seem (to me at least) that being imaginary can be a property of X--mainly because X does not exist.

@fast,

fast;142991 wrote:

Well, let's see, hmmm. I guess for starters, I would say that it's a product of the imagination. Also, and because it's a product of the imagination, I say that it doesn't exist. I would never (as one might say) mistake it for furniture.

By the way, I don't think there is something inside our minds either that instantiates the existence of imaginary beings. They simply do not exist.

So when I imagine my friend George he is simply a product of my imagination?

You are still failing to take into account that we can imagine something that is real and something that is not real.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;142989 wrote:

Babelfish: Lord O.B. called Bommel faithful served Joost be. When there no Joost are after already bels appeared, disappeared smile of the face of the lord. The quarter for three was the quarter for three. In all those years faithful service the tea not yet later afgeserveerd was. Correct now Mr. Balkenden on a visit would come. Doddeltje inspected the Verkade biscuits once more

Makes the original more mystic. Let's try an-other stringh of words...

Om prcies kwart over drie verscheen de former PM to the castle his Father had build with dirty petroleum. Heer O.B. Bommel could single-handedly stand up for the people of Rommeldam. There he didn't need a former PM for. Joost lapsed ... Pardon, je suis sans palabras . Hollands Bitte, yelled the Mayor who had been the highest official but just retreated.

To be continued:lol:

@fast,

fast;142996 wrote:

What does that mean?

It means what it says, and you'll have noticed that your mentor doesn't dispute that there is a property of being imaginary, so you'd better sort that out between you.
I hope you'll agree that it is possible to imagine some thing, and if that thing that you're imagining doesn't exist anywhere in time or space, like your number three, then that thing will be irreducibly imaginary. That property of being irreducibly imaginary distinguishes such an object, purely of the imagination, from other objects which have spatio-temporal locations, and those distinguishing features of objects are properties. It is therefore the case that all irreducibly imaginary things have, at least, the property of being imaginary.

@ughaibu,

Would the opposite also be posible ? I do not soeak of matter but of social phenomena like trust in leaders, economy and the value of your savings ?
Are these things not becoming increasingly real ?

@Ahab,

Ahab;143001 wrote:

So when I imagine my friend George he is simply a product of my imagination?

No, of course not! There is a difference between a real being that you have pictured in your mind and an imaginary being. To say of a being that it is imaginary is to deny that there is a real being. Imagining your friend George doesn't make him an imaginary being.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 11:14 AM ----------

[QUOTE=ughaibu;143004]I hope you'll agree that it is possible to imagine some thing, and if that thing that you're imagining doesn't exist anywhere in time or space, like your number three, then that thing will be irreducibly imaginary.[/QUOTE]The number three isn't imaginary. It's abstract. It has properties. I'm not simply saying that it has properties. It actually does have properties. For example, it has the property of being an odd number.

You, on the other hand, are simply saying that Rudolph has properties when in fact Rudolph doesn't have properties. If Rudolph did exist, it wouldn't be abstract. It would be concrete and have those very same properties you mention, but because it doesn't exist, it's false to say it has those properties you mention.

By the way, and to be clear, Rudolph is neither a concrete object nor an abstract object. It's not an object at all. Remember, it doesn't exist. But, if it did, then it would be concrete.

@fast,

fast;143015 wrote:

The number three isn't imaginary. It's abstract. It has properties. I'm not simply saying that it has properties. It actually does have properties. For example, it has the property of being an odd number.

But this claim is quite completely vapid because the so called property depends on exactly the same kind of object. You're boot-strapping.

fast;143015 wrote:

You, on the other hand, are simply saying that Rudolph has properties when in fact Rudolph doesn't have properties. If Rudolph did exist, it wouldn't be abstract.

Of course Rudolph is abstract because fictional objects are a subset of abstract objects.

fast;143015 wrote:

Rudolph is neither a concrete object nor an abstract object. It's not an object at all. Remember, it doesn't exist.

But this is exactly what is under contention and exactly what you have continuously failed to support. You claim that numbers exist because they have properties but Rudolph doesn't have properties because it doesn't exist, this reasoning is fallacious, it's obviously fallacious and it's been brought to your attention several times that it's fallacious.

@fast,

fast;142987 wrote:

The driving force behind my denial that Wile E. Coyote exists is the fact that there is no Wile E. Coyote (aka no real Wile E. Coyote in the wild). The driving force behind my denial that unicorns exist is the fact that there are no unicorns (aka no real unicorns). There is no actual Wile E. Coyote in the real world, and simply put, there are no unicorns either.

In philosophy, people sometimes confuse meaning with reference. You're talking about how (you think) people are intending to use the term, "Wile E. Coyote," but that is an issue concerning meaning, not reference.

Let's examine 'B' a little more closely: B) the term refers to the imaginary creature Wile E. Coyote. When we talk of imaginary creatures, we're not talking about real creatures. Take the word, "imaginary" out and notice the difference: B) the term refers to the creature Wile E. Coyote. What would it mean to say that the creature Wile E. Coyote is imaginary? It would be a denial that it's a real creature that exists in the real world. What doesn't exist? The living, breathing, roadrunner-chasing creature does not exist. But, to say it's imaginary isn't to say that something does exist and what exists is an imaginary creature. That's ludicrous. Saying so is a function of confusing the act of imagining with what is imagined.

But there is no question in this case of there being a real creature that has turned out not to exist. The creator of Wile E. Coyote was not imagining him as a real creature that doesn't exist but as an imaginary creature. That imaginary creature doesn't exist. But to say an imaginary creature doesn't exist is not to say that a real creature doesn't exist. Imaginary things are only products of the imagination.

It still looks to me like you are saying an imaginary being is a real being that does not exist. That does not make sense to me.

@Ahab,

[QUOTE=Ahab;143031]But there is no question in this case of there being a real creature that has turned out not to exist. The creator of Wile E. Coyote was not imagining him as a real creature that doesn't exist but as an imaginary creature. That imaginary creature doesn't exist. But to say an imaginary creature doesn't exist is not to say that a real creature doesn't exist. Imaginary things are only products of the imagination.

It still looks to me like you are saying an imaginary being is a real being that does not exist. That does not make sense to me.[/QUOTE]
There was no creator of Wile E. Coyote. What was created was the character Wile E. Coyote. If there was a creator of Wile E. Coyote, we wouldn't be denying the existence of Wile E. Coyote.

Philosophy Forum

numbers vs. words

Quick Links

My Account

able2know