Existence exists?

[tjohnson]

Way back on the first page Baal and I had this exchange;

It all comes down to this: Is there anything besides you? If so, something exists independent of your perceptions or even your being. I take "existence exists" to mean there is something besides myself and I am not imagining the entire world.

If so, then why not say "something exists"? To me, that makes more sense than "existence exists". Something may exist but there can't be any knowledge (verbal or non-verbal) of it without an observer.

People are construing that because I say knowledge and existence are inter-related that something doesn't exist independent of us. This is not the case.I admit that something exists independent of us BUT the objects we sense are actually abstractions from that something. My point in starting this thread was that the premise "existence exists" makes no sense as an axiom. I can accept "something exists" but I don't see much value in it as an axiom. Is anyone saying nothing exists?

[sbeaulieu]

So after an hour or so of reading this and trying to absorb the responses, I have come to a conclusion...

Does "Existance exist?"

It seems like a play on words. But existance = everything (known and unknown) exists. The Neptune reference was a good example. Outside our knowledge of its existance, it was there and has been for years (understatement). The discovery through our senses, and all the tools to expand and enhance them, allows us to integrate the existance of Neptune into our "fact" category (indisputable as A is A).

Michael put it best by stating...

"Existence is the concept. Existence exists is a proposition. To be more exact, existence is an axiomatic concept.; existence exists is a proposition using the axiomatic concept (an "axiomatic proposition" so to speak).

I'm a firm believer in outlining the context of wording carefully when throwing out a question so that it's not misinterpreted from the outset.

Always define wording that might beg the question "What did you mean by that?" The number of tangents on this thread (although related) speak to that. When I think back, I'm not sure where abstracts mesh with answering this question.

~ Shane

[BaalChatzaf]

I can accept "something exists" but I don't see much value in it as an axiom. Is anyone saying nothing exists?

Of course not. Anyone saying nothing exists is something that exists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You have stated several times that you consider abstractions to be a separate realm, a separate existence from the physical one.

Well, that seems to make the most sense to me too. The history of science shows us that there are always deeper truths and new conceptual discoveries and models awaiting to be discovered. If we don't know about them, do they exist? I'd say yes, just like the rock we haven't seen yet.

Bob,

So, in your conception, the task of the human mind is to somehow try to access this abstract universe in addition to muddling through normal reality (and human relations) as best it can?

How do you propose that we access those abstractions? And how do you know if you have truly accessed them?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I admit that something exists independent of us BUT the objects we sense are actually abstractions from that something.

GS,

This is a huge improvement over former statements where you declared things like "entities do not exist."

That phrase "from that something" makes all the difference in the world. "That something" is the referent of a concept (or abstraction). "That something" is what a concept stands for.

This is actually the basis of Objectivist epistemology.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I am saying that reality is bigger than us and it is where we come from. So "A is A" is a statement that depends on a human brain to understand it and the law of identity is how knowledge has worked so far. If there are parts of this single existence as yet unknown where the law of identity becomes obscured or delimited by the size of human sense organs or the integrating capacity of the human brain, then new reasoning methods will have to evolve to deal with them. Just like conceptual thinking (including math) evolved from a more primitive manner of awareness.

"New reasoning methods" is mighty vague. The question is: is logic universal or not? You seem to claim that it is not (the law of identity can be delimited). That leaves only mystical insight however, as you cannot use logic in your reasoning to deny the universal validity of logic. In Rand's terms that would be an example of a stolen concept.

This is speculation, of course, not fact. I presume this by looking at the evolutionary pattern of what has developed so far. I see evidence of a growing capacity of intelligence over the history of life and no reason to believe the growth pattern has halted for some unstated reason.

Your manner of thinking (from what I gather in your posts) eliminates this possibility for all time in all places in the universe.

Again a very vague term, "growing capacity of intelligence". I don't deny the possibility that our capacity of intelligence may grow in time. What I do deny however, is the possibility that our logic, based on the law of identity, will no longer be universally valid for that enhanced intelligence.

I'm sure that in this regard Rand would agree with me, the non-Objectivist, and strongly disagree with you, the Objectivist...

[Dragonfly]

Why does the rock exist when we don't know about it, but the undiscovered Grand Unification Theory does not? We don't say it doesn't exist. We just say we haven't found it yet, just like the rock. It seems to me that these mathematical/conceptual/abstract truths exist in a non-physical, but nonetheless legitimate and invariant way.

To me, if this abstract realm does not exist independent of us, then neither does the rock.

Right, what is sauce for the goose... We infer the existence of a reality that is independent of our consciousness from the consistency in what we observe and what other people say that they observe. We see invariants and regularities (in contrast to what we observe in dreams or hallucinations) that we can express in physical laws, from the simple and rough intuitive folk-physics that enable us to avoid walking into walls, to sophisticated and accurate quantitative physical theories with its highly successful offshoot technology. That is in fact the basis of our concept "existence" in the physical sense. But the logic that we use in our reasoning about the real world is itself even more consistent, 2 + 2 is always equal to 4, nobody will be able to get a different value as long as he doesn't make a logical error. Therefore it does make sense to say that the results of pure logic and mathematics also exist independently of our consciousness. This is not existence in the physical sense, but in an abstract sense. If you claim that mathematics does not exist independent of human consciousness while we use our consciousness to build mathematical theories and derive the mathematical theorems, than you should also claim that there is no physical reality independent of human consciousness, as everything we know about that 'reality' is derived by using our consciousness. So either you'll have to accept the existence of a physical world and an abstract mathematical world, independent of your consciousness, or you'll have to fall back on a full-fledged solipsism (which can be a fully consistent position, but which is only workable by adopting theories that are in fact isomorph with the theories that assume an independent world, it would be solipsistic in name only).

[sbeaulieu]

If abstract is the opposite of "actual, concrete, factual, material, objective, physical, and real" then how can it exist as its own realm?

Seems pretty cut and dry.

~ Shane

[tjohnson]

If abstract is the opposite of "actual, concrete, factual, material, objective, physical, and real" then how can it exist as its own realm?

What if abstract isn't the opposite of "actual, concrete, factual, material, objective, physical, and real"?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

I see you still have no idea what I am talking about from the way you mischaracterize it and establish a false dichotomy. (And speaking of "mighty vague," I find a Platonic abstract realm "mighty vague" despite your claim that it is universal.)

I believe this is because you have a prejudice that I am a mystic (or something like that) blinding your objectivity in examining my words.

I seriously can't tell if you are interested in discussing this or if you are just trying to sling names and engage in verbal dueling. If you are interested in trying to correctly get what I mean before bashing it, I will continue. If not, I will not waste my time or yours. You are better than that and I have fond memories of some of our previous discussions. I prefer to preserve that image in my memory.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If abstract is the opposite of "actual, concrete, factual, material, objective, physical, and real" then how can it exist as its own realm?

What if abstract isn't the opposite of "actual, concrete, factual, material, objective, physical, and real"?

It isn't.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

I seriously can't tell if you are interested in discussing this or if you are just trying to sling names and engage in verbal dueling. If you are interested in trying to correctly get what I mean before bashing it, I will continue.

Now you're suggesting that I don't act in good faith, which I resent. I'd therefore like to ask the other readers if they think that I'm misrepresenting what you're saying.

[BaalChatzaf]

Now you're suggesting that I don't act in good faith, which I resent. I'd therefore like to ask the other readers if they think that I'm misrepresenting what you're saying.

Per usual, you are making good sense to me. I have one caveat. Abstract existence is the existence of a pattern of neural states in the brain. Abstractions are real insofar as their cause (neural activity) is real. But you know my presumption: I am on the side of Demokritus and Lukippus. Everything that exists is physical and everything that is physical exists.

I think it is bad manners and worse thinking to rebuff the question and the motives of the questioner. Either answer the question or get a clarification.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now you're suggesting that I don't act in good faith, which I resent. I'd therefore like to ask the other readers if they think that I'm misrepresenting what you're saying.

Dragonfly,

I find it odd that you still didn't ask what I meant. That would be a true indication of interest in the idea. So I can only presume you are happy with your mischaracterization and interested in "winning" whatever people are supposed to win in verbal dueling.

You are even asking readers for the equivalent of a vote.

These kinds of things make me strongly suspect that, in this case, you are operating with a prejudice looking for reasons instead of a conclusion drawn from analyzing facts.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Sigh.

[Rich Engle]

Michael's a mystic, I've seen him do it, I have, I have!!!!

He has this little Elvis altar, and everything. And, he reads coffee grounds.

[BaalChatzaf]

These kinds of things make me strongly suspect that, in this case, you are operating with a prejudice looking for reasons instead of a conclusion drawn from analyzing facts.

Michael

We all start out from one premise or another. In that sense we all operate with a prejudice. The issue is, do we change or abondon our prejudices in the face of adverse facts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I don't understand why Michael has a problem with "existence exists." I don't understand how a different way of processing knowledge is ever going to invalidate logic and reason as such. If humans were generally much smarter they might come to understand things we now cannot, but that's not the same thing.

Dragonfly's Platonic realm for abstractions is inappropriately mixing up epistemology and metaphysics by positing this parking or storage place for abstractions and is an unnecessary conjecture that explains something already explained. Abstractions are valid or invalid mental constructs. They exist in our heads as attributes of consciousness.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

Per usual, you are making good sense to me. I have one caveat. Abstract existence is the existence of a pattern of neural states in the brain.

No, there's a serious problem with this. Two completely different physical states could represent the same thing in the abstract. There's clearly a reality above this. A computer program stored on optical or magnetic media or punch cards for that matter are physically completely different, but abstractly identical. An idea/concept is not a "neural state", it's above that.

[BaalChatzaf]

Per usual, you are making good sense to me. I have one caveat. Abstract existence is the existence of a pattern of neural states in the brain.

No, there's a serious problem with this. Two completely different physical states could represent the same thing in the abstract.

Nope. All thought and abstraction is neurons buzzing. There is nothing outside the physical realm. Two completely physical states may be placed in correspondence, perhaps, as part of an equivalence relation, but this too, is neurons buzzing. All abstraction is chemical processing.

Demokritos and Lukippus got it right, albeit crudely.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ian]

Way back on the first page Baal and I had this exchange;

It all comes down to this: Is there anything besides you? If so, something exists independent of your perceptions or even your being. I take "existence exists" to mean there is something besides myself and I am not imagining the entire world.

If so, then why not say "something exists"? To me, that makes more sense than "existence exists". Something may exist but there can't be any knowledge (verbal or non-verbal) of it without an observer.

People are construing that because I say knowledge and existence are inter-related that something doesn't exist independent of us. This is not the case.I admit that something exists independent of us BUT the objects we sense are actually abstractions from that something. My point in starting this thread was that the premise "existence exists" makes no sense as an axiom. I can accept "something exists" but I don't see much value in it as an axiom. Is anyone saying nothing exists?

I was construing exactly that. And wondering whether general semanticists were people who could simultaneously assert: the map is not the territory, and the map is the territory; which would make their system non-Aristotelian for sure. Your clarification, "the objects we sense are actually abstractions from that something" is something I agree with. And, in reference to your reply to me, I wasn't restricting my use of the word "knowledge" to refer only to verbal knowledge. I think perception, even in other animals, is an active process in the brain (or nervous system) of that animal. They make maps, too; just not with words. ;) And our maps include more than words, or at least mine does.

Existence exists. Existence is a concept that is implicit in anything you, I, or anyone, does or says. To say "existence exists" is to make that implication explicit. That's my take on it, anyway.

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly's Platonic realm for abstractions is inappropriately mixing up epistemology and metaphysics by positing this parking or storage place for abstractions and is an unnecessary conjecture that explains something already explained.

It is not really a new conjecture, it's only saying in other words that the content of mathematical theories (simple examples: the value of pi, the fact that 2+2=4) is independent of human consciousness, even if such a consciousness is necessary to realize its expression in the physical world. There is no consciousness that can come up with a different result (without making an error). So I think we can be justified in saying that such theories (and not just arbitrary abstractions) do exist in a sense, even if that is not existence in the physical sense. When we say that Pythagoras' theorem exists, this has a deeper meaning than merely saying that it is represented in millions of brains and in books etc. (like the notion of God for example), it means that it is an universal truth (supposing it is embedded in a proper axiomatic system), and not just an arbitrary abstraction. Herein "truth" does not refer to any physical fact, but to an abstract logical evaluation. That we need physical elements, like our brain, to make that evaluation is not relevant, the theorem is in itself not physical, even if it is represented in a physical substrate (or can be applied to situations in reality). It is important make a distinction between the abstract thing itself and its representation. If the human race becomes extinct and in millions of year another intelligent animal evolves that is clever enough to invent mathematics they will find the same results, they will also discover Pythagoras' theorem (and give it a different name), which has not disappeared with the extinction of the human race, it has merely become invisible as it was no longer represented in the physical world during that intelligenceless interval. Its invariance and eternal validity is sufficient reason to assign existence to it, even if it is not an existence in the physical world.

[tjohnson]

I was construing exactly that. And wondering whether general semanticists were people who could simultaneously assert: the map is not the territory, and the map is the territory; which would make their system non-Aristotelian for sure. Your clarification, "the objects we sense are actually abstractions from that something" is something I agree with. And, in reference to your reply to me, I wasn't restricting my use of the word "knowledge" to refer only to verbal knowledge. I think perception, even in other animals, is an active process in the brain (or nervous system) of that animal. They make maps, too; just not with words. ;) And our maps include more than words, or at least mine does.

According to gemeral semantics, objects can be considered first order abstractions and words are 2nd order abstractions and words about words are 3rd order etc. Animals are restricted to first order abstractions. When we "see an object" this is a misnomer because it is lightwaves bouncing off atoms and then hitting our retina that eventually produces the object (concept, abstraction etc.) in our visual cortex. So the existence of the object depends on the observer but not the existence of the lightwaves. This was not known before science was advanced enough to figure it out but many of us still believe and act as if this wasn't so.

[BaalChatzaf]

Its invariance and eternal validity is sufficient reason to assign existence to it, even if it is not an existence in the physical world.

Are you a Closet Platonist? (If you do mathematics, you almost have to be).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

With respect to the sub-argument about the existence of mathematical abstractions - I think this can be solved by accepting that relations exist. Mathematics is the study of all possible relations, for example the relation between the circumference and the diameter of a circle. As dragonfly points out this relation exists with or without mankind. There are also actual physical relations that we discover in science and these too exist no matter what symbol system is used to represent them.