all it takes for something to exist is...

angelica · April 2007

lucylespian wrote:

Math has reproducibility and it's reality can be tested against external refernece points
The Ten Commandments certainly exist too, as real words on real paper. Whether that means they were divine instructions from a god is an entirely different argument.

My point is that Cosmo referred to things of the physical reality that we can see. Math is about symbols that are theoretical. The math itself is not the phsycial reality it represents.

So, in terms of Cosmo's definition of what is real, it also includes symbols that represent concepts.

lucylespian · April 2007

angelica wrote:

My point is that Cosmo referred to things of the physical reality that we can see. Math is about symbols that are theoretical. The math itself is not the phsycial reality it represents.

So, in terms of Cosmo's definition of what is real, it also includes symbols that represent concepts.

So, this definition of reality is a slippery littel sucker, but that thing about symbols helps, because that is an externalization of something which one person experiences. If an idea can't be externalised, then it is less likely to be real. Staying with the example, both math and the Ten Commandments are externalised representations of thought, which have tangible meaning to other people, so can both be considered real and to exist.
By contrast, a visual hallucination or a fantasy like my house burning one, can not be externalised, and are thereofre not real, nor do they "exist".

angelica · April 2007

lucylespian wrote:

So, this definition of reality is a slippery littel sucker, but that thing about symbols helps, because that is an externalization of something which one person experiences. If an idea can't be externalised, then it is less likely to be real.

"Real" by your definition of the word. The way we individually filter information dictates how we perceive our surroundings. For example, a certain percentage tends to perceive things more literally, while another group is leans towards perceiving more abstractly. It's about how these two groups are wired that they see what they see, rather than based on what is out there. The former group leans towards math/science or other impersonal areas of interest; the latter group towards the arts, languages, creative endeavors and humanitarian systems of interest. Each leaning carries it's own strengths and weaknesses.

whispering hands · April 2007

well guys the definition of truthn in short.. is reality.. and thinking something does not make it a reality.. BUT when one concentrates hard enough on culturing Truth you can manipulate reality to certain degrees so I would have to say I agree AND disagree. but interesting question

wolfbear · April 2007

catefrances wrote:

all it takes for something to exist is...for someone to believe it does. agree/disagree?

From yahoo dictionary:

ex·ist audio (g-zst) KEY

intr.v.
ex·ist·ed , ex·ist·ing , ex·ists

1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).

I was just going to agree, but after reading the definition of reality and thinking about it some more I wasn't so sure. Looking at these definitions, I would say yes under #5 and maybe #4.

norm · April 2007

do i exist...............?

lucylespian · April 2007

cutback wrote:

do i exist...............?

Oh Jesus, here we go again............the existential question, do I really exist, or am I just a figment of imagination ???

I'm gonna apologise for being a prick for the next few days, but I have had a bad day and I have a putrid headache, but here we go !!

NO, you don't exist, you are just an organised mess of prorons, neutrons, elctrons, quarks, squarks and squibs. There is no real substance to your substance. I could fire a spray of neutrinos through your so called substance and not hit a single damn sub-atomic thing, thus proving you are just moving walking talking hot nothing, not even air.
Hell, I can't even decide if you are a particle or a wave.
Or, you could put your hand in your pants, and fiddle around for a while, and decide for yourself if you exist or not.
Either you and I exist, or the appearance of this rant on the scrennin front of you is just a random occurrence.
Maybe I am Moloch the Computer Demon !!

norm · April 2007

lucylespian wrote:

Oh Jesus, here we go again............the existential question, do I really exist, or am I just a figment of imagination ???

I'm gonna apologise for being a prick for the next few days, but I have had a bad day and I have a putrid headache, but here we go !!

NO, you don't exist, you are just an organised mess of prorons, neutrons, elctrons, quarks, squarks and squibs. There is no real substance to your substance. I could fire a spray of neutrinos through your so called substance and not hit a single damn sub-atomic thing, thus proving you are just moving walking talking hot nothing, not even air.
Hell, I can't even decide if you are a particle or a wave.
Or, you could put your hand in your pants, and fiddle around for a while, and decide for yourself if you exist or not.
Either you and I exist, or the appearance of this rant on the scrennin front of you is just a random occurrence.
Maybe I am Moloch the Computer Demon !!

lucylespian · April 2007

angelica wrote:

"Real" by your definition of the word. The way we individually filter information dictates how we perceive our surroundings. For example, a certain percentage tends to perceive things more literally, while another group is leans towards perceiving more abstractly. It's about how these two groups are wired that they see what they see, rather than based on what is out there. The former group leans towards math/science or other impersonal areas of interest; the latter group towards the arts, languages, creative endeavors and humanitarian systems of interest. Each leaning carries it's own strengths and weaknesses.

Woah girl, I am still trying to work on the definition of real. It's far from decided.

I seem to have misplaced a post where I fully recognized the reality of ideas and abstract thought, using teh examoples of wealth, poverty and customs. I am still thinking that teh abilitiy to exteranlize an idea and share it with other people through speeech, written symbol or other means gives it a reality as part of our collective extelligence.
An inability to do this, where a perception or thought is entirely within one person, and unable to be shared or externalized would seem much less real to me, and therefore be said not to exist, other than as a perception of that person.

Cosmo · April 2007

angelica wrote:

My point is that Cosmo referred to things of the physical reality that we can see. Math is about symbols that are theoretical. The math itself is not the phsycial reality it represents.

So, in terms of Cosmo's definition of what is real, it also includes symbols that represent concepts.

...
Actually... Math translates into and represents the real and physical environment in which we exist. Whereas, One Apple plus One Apple equals Two Apples. There is not denial, no arguement that can dispute that statement. We can discuss whether the apples exist or don't exist... or whether you and everyone else in this entire Universe exists only in the conscienous of my mind... the fact remains... one plus one equals two. This is a Universal truth.
God, being this intangible entity that only exists as a concept, cannot be proven... nor can He be dis-proven. God is an relative, or subjective, truth. We choose whether or not to believe. My beliefs do not apply Universally... just as everyone else's beliefs. People may hold their belief in God and 'The Truth'... and to them, it IS the truth. But, it is not the truth to everyone. Their idea of God, does not apply to me.
...
Me? I believe in God... but, not the petty human-like being as described in the Bible and other religious texts. My God accepts me... even if I question His very existance. My God does not sit in judgement of my faith or lack thereof... rather, the character of my being. This is why I am God-Loving, rather than God-fearing.
I don't know what happens when we die. All I know as a fact is that I am going to die. I cannot change that fact, no matter what I believe. So, all I know is that death is a passage... either to another level of conscienousness or existance... or into an eternal void. Other than that.. I basically know that I don't know.
Yeah... I can 'Hope' for things... but, the bottom line... I don't know. and I know that no one else knows. Leastwise, no one I hve met or read about or heard about. It's all conjecture based upon belief.

norm · April 2007

Cosmo wrote:

...
Actually... Math translates into and represents the real and physical environment in which we exist. Whereas, One Apple plus One Apple equals Two Apples. There is not denial, no arguement that can dispute that statement. We can discuss whether the apples exist or don't exist... or whether you and everyone else in this entire Universe exists only in the conscienous of my mind... the fact remains... one plus one equals two. This is a Universal truth.
God, being this intangible entity that only exists as a concept, cannot be proven... nor can He be dis-proven. God is an relative, or subjective, truth. We choose whether or not to believe. My beliefs do not apply Universally... just as everyone else's beliefs. People may hold their belief in God and 'The Truth'... and to them, it IS the truth. But, it is not the truth to everyone. Their idea of God, does not apply to me.
...
Me? I believe in God... but, not the petty human-like being as described in the Bible and other religious texts. My God accepts me... even if I question His very existance. My God does not sit in judgement of my faith or lack thereof... rather, the character of my being. This is why I am God-Loving, rather than God-fearing.
I don't know what happens when we die. All I know as a fact is that I am going to die. I cannot change that fact, no matter what I believe. So, all I know is that death is a passage... either to another level of conscienousness or existance... or into an eternal void. Other than that.. I basically know that I don't know.
Yeah... I can 'Hope' for things... but, the bottom line... I don't know. and I know that no one else knows. Leastwise, no one I hve met or read about or heard about. It's all conjecture based upon belief.

wow...i mean.....wow....extremely well put......i want that on a t-shirt.....:)

lucylespian · April 2007

wolfbear wrote:

From yahoo dictionary:

ex·ist audio (g-zst) KEY

intr.v.
ex·ist·ed , ex·ist·ing , ex·ists

1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).

I was just going to agree, but after reading the definition of reality and thinking about it some more I wasn't so sure. Looking at these definitions, I would say yes under #5 and maybe #4.

I am going to return to my theme of externalization here. Weath, poverty and customs are ideas that can be communicated to another person, via speech or written symbol. They exist as part of our communal extelligence, so they have a reality as a concept rather than a physical thing.
This still contrasts with a perception which is entirely internal and only appreciated by one person.

angelica · April 2007

lucylespian wrote:

...An inability to do this, where a perception or thought is entirely within one person, and unable to be shared or externalized would seem much less real to me, and therefore be said not to exist, other than as a perception of that person.

Again, the operative words seem to be "much less real to me", which is dependent on your perceptions and your ideas of what "real" entails, etc. This is not necessarily tied into what truly exists.

Kann · April 2007

I would tend to agree.
Remember the death of say, Morrison. He died of a heart attack, there is a certificate of death, a tomb and a desperate widow who let herself die. Imagine he really didn't die, just wanted to leave the spotlights and his surroundings. He isn't dead, but since everyone believes he is he really is dead. See what I mean? It works with any past event, if we believe it happened so it becomes our reality even if it really isn't.
Plus I tend to agree with descartes, and if I can doubt everything that surrounds me I have to believe my surrounding exists. But that's a moot point.

OutOfBreath · April 2007

The "Thomas theorem":
What is perceived as real, become real in it's consequences.

I'll use Cosmo's points from earlier on to elaborate (Not that I'm singling you out, they were just handy):

Cosmo wrote:

Example 1: We believed there were WMDs in Iraq. This belief failed to materialize.
If the belief is based on a lie... the only thing that exists is the lie.
But, if the person telling the lie truely believed there WERE WMDs in Iraq... the lie does not exist, yet, the WMDs still fail to materialize.
Example 2: I believe someone loves me. That does not mean love exists.
Example 3: Someone truely believes in God and/or that Jesus was the Messiah...

1: You believed there were WMDs in Iraq, the consequence was as if they had them, ie war. The perception made it real in consequence.
2: You believe someone loves you, and you react accordingly depending on your attitude to such a possibility. Regardless of whether the other person loves you or not in reality, your reaction remains the same, and has further implications as if love had been present from the start.
3: If they believe that, they take the consequences of it. They follow religious rules and conduct in accordance to the Messiah and his teachings. Whether he ever existed at all isn't important. They act the consequence.

Our social world is very flexible and fluid. Perceptions can be as potent as realities, actually perceptions is all we have to go on. There is a lot of power to form the world for us there. And perhaps it goes further than that. But that's speculative.

Peace
Dan

angelica · April 2007

Cosmo wrote:

...
Actually... Math translates into and represents the real and physical environment in which we exist. Whereas, One Apple plus One Apple equals Two Apples. There is not denial, no arguement that can dispute that statement.

1+1 may equal two, based on the abstractions called numbers that we've come up with. How about imaginary numbers? Are they real and absolute in your belief system? Are they real objectively, meaning can we attach them to something that exists physically? Are they symbols that represent a concept?

God, being this intangible entity that only exists as a concept, cannot be proven... nor can He be dis-proven. God is an relative, or subjective, truth. We choose whether or not to believe. My beliefs do not apply Universally... just as everyone else's beliefs. People may hold their belief in God and 'The Truth'... and to them, it IS the truth. But, it is not the truth to everyone. Their idea of God, does not apply to me.

Because something can or cannot be proven, again, is about us subjectively and our perceptions, and not about whether it actually exists independent of us.

Ultimately, people's perceptions may cause them to view reality differently, and yet there are universals. For example, we all realize we come from a source and are sustained by a source. How we subjectively define that source is about us, and yet there exists the fundamental concept.

hodge · April 2007

surprised no one mentioned the placebo effect
there's a good example of thoughts materalizing as healing manifests through your own thoughts/belief

angelica · April 2007

Very nice points, hodge and OutOfBreath. If by one person believing in something, it actually changes that person and therefore changes what exists in terms of what is observable in the objective world, then what can we say about that cause? Does it not exist?

"The "Thomas theorem":
What is perceived as real, become real in it's consequences. " Very interesting. lucylespian says about math, that it's reality can be tested by external references.

As is represented by any dictionary, the word "empirical" which is recognized by science refers to one's experience, so one's experience is considered empirically valid.

lucylespian · April 2007

hodge wrote:

surprised no one mentioned the placebo effect
there's a good example of thoughts materalizing as healing manifests through your own thoughts/belief

Well, that's your assumption. The "placebo" effect is really naatural history, ie, that which would happen anyway. IN blinded trial, you dno't see placebo effect, in a non-blinded trial, what you are seeing is observer and reporting bias, but that is a differnet duscussion.
Anjelica, I come back to one of my original lines, the definition of "reality" is pretty slippery, and I don't think we have niled it down yet. My recurring theme of perceptions beign real when they are shred by maoe than one person still stands. Again though, don't think that I am arguing for or against anything here, more throwing ideas around. Please don't box me in, I'm not a box kind of guy...............

unless we are refering to

VAGINA

in which case I'm a box man. But until then, it's all open to me. Well except for the existence of God thing. He exists in peoples minds, and that has effects on people, but not on bugger all else. Which raises an other point. Various people persist in asserting that the human mind is powerful enough to affect the physical world. It ain't, it's just able to influence other humans.

catefrances · April 2007

angelica wrote:

Very nice points, hodge and OutOfBreath. If by one person believing in something, it actually changes that person and therefore changes what exists in terms of what is observable in the objective world, then what can we say about that cause? Does it not exist?

"The "Thomas theorem":
What is perceived as real, become real in it's consequences. " Very interesting. Lucy Lespian says about math, that it's reality can be tested by external references.

As is represented by any dictionary, the word "empirical" which is recognized by science refers to one's experience, so one's experience is considered empirically valid.

though one would imagine that knowledge gained empirically would be assumed to include outside influence. society having an impact upon the indivdual rather than what he/she experiences solely from within.

all it takes for something to exist is...

Comments

Categories