you can't see it, it does not exist.

@Fido,

Fido;40453 wrote:

Agreed; but I am not the one saying it does not exist because it is dead, or out of sight...

Neither was I. He said since grass was alive it was doing something so it had to exist, but what if it was dead? I said it was decomposing, because dead grass is able to decompose, therefore it has to exist to decompose. I never was saying something doesn't exist because it is out of sight out of mind. I was saying otherwise.

@awoelt,

I feel like I understand my language well enough to communicate with it...This argument is like the one of the tree falling making no sound... To me, the question will alway be of meaning... What see as being has meaning, however slight that may be. When asked if this or that exists, the answer is: does it matter... We do not have to prove everything... We have to prove ourselves, and this we cannot prove by the existence of falling trees in denuded forests, but only on the evidence we alone can deliver... So what matters is very close to us...What has meaning is close to us.. The further off from our lives the more meaningless everything becomes, so that meaning fits around us like a cocoon.

@awoelt,

If something has the potential to be perceived then it exists. Limiting perception though to only the sense sight would be too narrow of a definition of perception.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

If something has the potential to be perceived then it exists. Limiting perception though to only the sense sight would be too narrow of a definition of perception.

Very little of our reality is physical, subject to perception...We live in moral worlds with meanings rather than tangible being...

@DRgenius21,

DRgenius21 wrote:

how aout air?? can u feel it? but its still there

but u can breath it. therefore u r feeling it. but when u can't and u do not see it, u do not know if it exists or not

@awoelt,

Am I the only one who read the title of this and immediately saw an image of an ostrich's head buried in the ground? They remove the predator in question from sight and mind, but that doesn't stop it from eating the bird from the neck upwards.

@awoelt,

The don't really bury their heads... They like to show their asses to God for making them look so stupid....
Did you ever see any porn where the people didn't look like monkeys... I've never made love to a girl where I didn't think everyone in the room was cool, but I have never seen anyone bumpin the uglies where they didn't look like an idiots idea of a characature of some clowns fighting over a good night's sleep...... It is enough to make me want to turn off the lights... But then, that's what I do when I look in the mirror...I paid a lot for it and I don't want any fat people breaking it out of ugliness...

@Fido,

...It seems you watch some very strange porn.

@Kolbe,

Kolbe wrote:

...It seems you watch some very strange porn.

I don't watch porn... I don't mind feeling cool, but the thought that I have to look like those monkey's in the process gives me a limpy... I don't want to plant any poison pictures in your head... Have a few beers with some pliable person, and you won't much care that you look like a monkey... And something else monkey man: Oooo, Oooo, Aaah Aaah Aaah Aaaaaah!!!! What ever that means....

@awoelt,

Well i mean, whenever i drink a coke in a can, i dont see it until i opened the Can, but does that mean it wasnt there before?
Or right now i cant see my legs since theyre under my desk, but i still can feel them, so do they exist or not?

@no1author,

no1author;89855 wrote:

Well i mean, whenever i drink a coke in a can, i dont see it until i opened the Can, but does that mean it wasnt there before?
Or right now i cant see my legs since theyre under my desk, but i still can feel them, so do they exist or not?

If you think the only way you can know that something exists is by seeing it, and if you confuse something's existing with knowing it exists, then you are likely to come to that silly conclusion that if you cannot see it, it doesn't exist.

@awoelt,

It is easier on the evidence to believe invisible things, spirits exist on the basis of the obvious force at a distance than to deny the existence of all we cannot sense... The more we learn the more sensitive our measurments, and the more sensitive our measurments the more we learn...The tangible world that we can know through sense is only a fraction of our world, and what fraction we cannot say... Our real problem is the moral world, the world of intangible ideas, and of relationships... That is where the danger, death, and destruction lay... We can master the physical world only by controling our moral excesses, and yet, such control is impossible to show....

---------- Post added 09-12-2009 at 11:27 PM ----------

kennethamy;89877 wrote:

If you think the only way you can know that something exists is by seeing it, and if you confuse something's existing with knowing it exists, then you are likely to come to that silly conclusion that if you cannot see it, it doesn't exist.

On the whole sense gives us reality, but existence is a larger picture including the span of time, and all changes in the nature of matter... We are correct to say that rocks are real because we can sense them and measure them and hold them as objects; and we are equally correct to say that justice and liberty do not exist because they cannot be shown as objectively real to the senses... Yet, they are a part of our reality, essential to our lives... Nothing is more real than our lives, and nothing is more illusive, so it is difficult to assign any reality to any thing not having an effect on our lives..

@awoelt,

It's not really you can't see it. Its more of can you sense it. The shcroedingers cat experiment proved this, theoretically. Its a if you can't see hear, feel, taste, or even get that freaky sixth sense vibe from it, basically if you do not observe said object then it is both in the can and not in the can at teh same time.

@awoelt,

Something or someone may seem non-existent out of ignorance, it does no mean something may not exist period, just not to someone who is unaware. When the sun goes down and it is unseen, you know it still exists because it has been seen or experienced before. But to someone or something who has never encountered the sun and its heatwaves, it probably would not exist.

@Serena phil,

Serena;89953 wrote:

Something or someone may seem non-existent out of ignorance, it does no mean something may not exist period, just not to someone who is unaware. When the sun goes down and it is unseen, you know it still exists because it has been seen or experienced before. But to someone or something who has never encountered the sun and its heatwaves, it probably would not exist.

Who claims that when something is not seen, it does not exist? I thought only little children thought that. They place something before their eyes, and think that you have vanished. However, if something is not only not observed, but not even observable, it may still exist, of course, but then, the burden of proof is on those who claim it exists. You see what I mean? It isn't that it doesn't exist because it cannot be observed, but, still, those who claim it exists, are obliged to support their claim.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;90053 wrote:

Who claims that when something is not seen, it does not exist? I thought only little children thought that. They place something before their eyes, and think that you have vanished. However, if something is not only not observed, but not even observable, it may still exist, of course, but then, the burden of proof is on those who claim it exists. You see what I mean? It isn't that it doesn't exist because it cannot be observed, but, still, those who claim it exists, are obliged to support their claim.

I never said it does not exist period, but there are certain degrees of existence. Something may not exist to an individual if they are completely unaware and unobservant of it, but that does not assert total non-existence.

If you were already previously exposed something and it cannot currently be seen it would still exist, such as the sun at night. Unless you are someone who was never informed of what the sun is or never sensed it in any way, it probably would not exist to you. But that does not mean the sun would totally not exist.

Total non-existence is probably impossible or nearly impossible to assert especially is the concept has already been brought upon. It may be easy for one to claim that fairies do not exist, but the whole idea of a fairy is already in existence and thus cannot be fully claimed that it does not exist because it has never been seen. But it does not make for total existence either unless a fairy has been fully proven through observation.

@Serena phil,

Serena;90074 wrote:

I never said it does not exist period, but there are certain degrees of existence. Something may not exist to an individual if they are completely unaware and unobservant of it, but that does not assert total non-existence.

If you were already previously exposed something and it cannot currently be seen it would still exist, such as the sun at night. Unless you are someone who was never informed of what the sun is or never sensed it in any way, it probably would not exist to you. But that does not mean the sun would totally not exist.

Total non-existence is probably impossible or nearly impossible to assert especially is the concept has already been brought upon. It may be easy for one to claim that fairies do not exist, but the whole idea of a fairy is already in existence and thus cannot be fully claimed that it does not exist because it has never been seen. But it does not make for total existence either unless a fairy has been fully proven through observation.

Why should what you call "degrees of existence" depend on what someone knows (or does not know). Something either exists, or it does not. No degrees. If it exists, someone may be more or less aware of its existence. So there are degrees of awareness of its existence, but there are no degrees of existence. Of course some things to do exist. Five-sided triangles do not exist. The notion is self-contradictory. The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. The first man to walk on the Sun does not exist. and so on. The fact that the idea of a fairy exists has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a fairy exists. The idea of a fairy is not a fairy. So nothing follows about the existence of a fairy from the fact that the idea of a fairy exists. Just as nothing follows about the existence of a Spaghetti Monster from the existence of the idea of a Spaghetti Monster. The idea of X is one thing. X (if there is an X) is a different thing.

@awoelt,

The concept of a spaghetti monster and so forth is about as much of an existence as it's known to have, it does not justify actual physical existence. A conceptual thought gave it that much existence because the idea exists, but no physical existence.

Still, out of ignorance, could something not exist only to an individual who is unaware, again this does not justify the actual existence or non-existence of something that is unknown. Non-existence out of ignorance could still qualify as a different level (or whatever you wish to call it) of existence because it only does not exist to that individual until they are informed about it, but not as a whole. There is a difference between the existence of something through thought and its physical actuality. There is a gray area involved of thought, otherwise it should be easier to assert that God does not exist. God's concept exist, that is as much as we know. As well as the concepts of a spaghetti monster, fairies and so forth.

@Serena phil,

Serena;90091 wrote:

The concept of a spaghetti monster and so forth is about as much of an existence as it's known to have, it does not justify actual physical existence. A conceptual thought gave it that much existence because the idea exists, but no physical existence.

Still, out of ignorance, could something not exist only to an individual who is unaware, again this does not justify the actual existence or non-existence of something that is unknown. Non-existence out of ignorance could still qualify as a different level (or whatever you wish to call it) of existence because it only does not exist to that individual until they are informed about it, but not as a whole. There is a difference between the existence of something through thought and its physical actuality. There is a gray area involved of thought, otherwise it should be easier to assert that God does not exist. God's concept exist, that is as much as we know. As well as the concepts of a spaghetti monster, fairies and so forth.

Obviously, that someone (or everyone, for that matter) is unaware of the existence of something, does not imply that it does not exist. Otherwise, we would have to say that before there were people on Earth, the Earth did not exist. And that is absurd. Whether something exists or not is a matter of evidence and proof, independently of whether the concept of that something exists.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;90053 wrote:

Who claims that when something is not seen, it does not exist? I thought only little children thought that. They place something before their eyes, and think that you have vanished. However, if something is not only not observed, but not even observable, it may still exist, of course, but then, the burden of proof is on those who claim it exists. You see what I mean? It isn't that it doesn't exist because it cannot be observed, but, still, those who claim it exists, are obliged to support their claim.

Just the opposite... The first lesson every child learns is that though it may not be seen, it still exists, like a mother leaving the room...Why children do not think, if they do not think, that there are multitudes of identical mothers beyond their doors I do not know... Sooner or later they just know that the disappeared along with the unappearent may both exist, and for that reason children more easily buy into magic and often take council of their fears...

Philosophy Forum

you can't see it, it does not exist.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know