What does it mean "to Exist"?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by JSS »

Obvious Leo wrote:In applied metaphysics that which exists is that which can be said to be in a state of Being. Note the tense of the verb "to be" in this statement.
"State of Being" tells you nothing more than you already knew with "to Exist".

To exist means to have affect. It's simple and obvious once thought about.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Dubious »

JSS wrote:Dubious, you are getting the cart before the horse
Not if the horse is physics pulling the cart.
JSS wrote:Knowing what isn't true tells you almost nothing of what IS true.
But it's certainly one of the paths to knowing what is. Filtering out falsehoods is a prime directive in science without any such equalizing pressures existing within the famed precincts of philosophy.

Being joined for the longest time under the rubric of natural philosophy, it's now one of the main distinctions between the two disciplines causing a near state of total separation. Philosophy mostly talks in terms of Truth as if it were some sacred reference to an object or thought while science strives within a probability range of something being true without denoting it as an actual Truth…again a world of difference.

Science, philosophy and within the latter, religion as well, have been joined at the hip far too long for philosophy to be any arbiter of how physics is supposed to think and behave. Philosophy may have had some input in providing the initial “launch pad” for science to lift off but that which provided part of the impetus is not part of the journey.
JSS wrote:There are very many issues that Science cannot deal with. One is the issue of consistent ontology or even fully understanding what an ontology is.
Can you explain of what use an ontology would be in reference to, let's say, black holes, the Standard Model, space and time or the recent discovery of Gravitational Waves, the last great prediction of GR that even Einstein thought could never be proven. In what way are physicists to employ an ontology in these matters? Since you made the statement, you should know.
JSS wrote:But the issue is that science is very narrowly confined to a specific thought pattern that is given by philosophical principles which they irreverently attempt to supersede without understanding.
Sorry! I can't make sense of this sentence!

Both you and Leo claim to have solved most or all of the problems in physics, each in his own way having identified those problems within the mental constructs of philosophy. These not being properly factored in or completely excluded by physicists, cause both of you to believe that physics is now nothing more than a pseudo-science in Nemo land.

I'm certain that each of you have solved most of the problems you mention to your satisfaction in restoring physics within the legal confines of philosophy...even though your use of terms is sometimes highly confusing. But the question remains, what problems have you ACTUALLY solved beyond creating theories meant to rectify the errors of physics as compared to all those you both insist on having solved to put physics and physicists back in their proper place? You both write a lot but has any inherent value or close probability of your views been demonstrated as required by physics to be granted consideration? Of course, it could also all be meant as a mind game which is what philosophy forums are for.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Obvious Leo »

JSS wrote:"State of Being" tells you nothing more than you already knew with "to Exist".
Not exactly, which is why the tense of the verb is important. There is a temporal context to this definition which mustn't be overlooked. It is not true to say that Leo exists yesterday or that Leo exists tomorrow because in fact Leo only exists right bloody NOW and even this is only approximately true. By the time I become aware of the fact that I am currently in a state of existence I am no longer in the the particular state of existence that I've become aware of. Existence is only definable in the language of change so a state of Being is actually a state of Becoming.

The pre-Socratics understood this notion of existence perfectly. That which is physically real is that which is continuously Becoming. Spacetime physics is utterly unable to model physical reality in this way, which is why it makes no sense.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by JSS »

Dubious wrote:
JSS wrote:Dubious, you are getting the cart before the horse
Not if the horse is physics pulling the cart.
That is the point. It isn't. You have merely been given that impression while science is being socially promoted as the supreme priesthood of Man.
Dubious wrote:
JSS wrote:Knowing what isn't true tells you almost nothing of what IS true.
But it's certainly one of the paths to knowing what is. Filtering out falsehoods is a prime directive in science without any such equalizing pressures existing within the famed precincts of philosophy.
I agree. The scientific method was very useful toward filtering out a great deal of nonsense. But it is limited and has passed beyond its limits such that now what is said in the name of science is pure nonsense, but no one can dispute it because it requires a laboratory and much guarded media time. The social promotion of scientists keeps the religiousity and dogmatic propaganda going.

REAL Science is THIS:
Nullius in Verba

But look at all of the science worshipers doing to exact opposite.
Dubious wrote: it's now one of the main distinctions between the two disciplines causing a near state of total separation.
Only by the fanatical extremists, just like all of the other religions, "WE are the source of ALL TRUTH, Goddamnit!!"
Dubious wrote:Philosophy mostly talks in terms of Truth as if it were some sacred reference to an object or thought while science strives within a probability range of something being true without denoting it as an actual Truth…again a world of difference.
Learn what logic is really all about and all of that gets straightened out.

In ignorance, what is there to do but worship in faith that others have worked it out.
You either learn, or worship in ignorance (preferably learn of logic).
Dubious wrote:
JSS wrote:There are very many issues that Science cannot deal with. One is the issue of consistent ontology or even fully understanding what an ontology is.
Can you explain of what use an ontology would be in reference to, let's say, black holes, the Standard Model, space and time or the recent discovery of Gravitational Waves, the last great prediction of GR that even Einstein thought could never be proven. In what way are physicists to employ an ontology in these matters? Since you made the statement, you should know.
As you should know by now, I know of Affectance Ontology wherein ALL of the issues in physics are completely, and simply in most cases, resolved, including Young's Double-Slit and the Mach-Zehner phenomenon.

And gravitational waves prove very little of anything. Why Einstein would think that couldn't exist, I don't know. I know of their make, so to me, it is no big issue at all. The fun question is one of how fast and how strong can you make them. How far can you get them to propagate at what strength?
Dubious wrote:Both you and Leo claim to have solved most or all of the problems in physics, each in his own way having identified those problems within the mental constructs of philosophy. These not being properly factored in or completely excluded by physicists, cause both of you to believe that physics is now nothing more than a pseudo-science in Nemo land.
That is what science has BECOME. Today, science, as you know it, is no more than the latest dogmatic religion. It wasn't supposed to be that, but now it is.
Dubious wrote:I'm certain that each of you have solved most of the problems you mention to your satisfaction in restoring physics within the legal confines of philosophy...even though your use of terms is sometimes highly confusing. But the question remains, what problems have you ACTUALLY solved beyond creating theories meant to rectify the errors of physics as compared to all those you both insist on having solved to put physics and physicists back in their proper place? You both write a lot but has any inherent value or close probability of your views been demonstrated as required by physics to be granted consideration? Of course, it could also all be meant as a mind game which is what philosophy forums are for.
I don't know about Leo, but I have developed the very thing that science proposes to be in search of, a "Unified Field Theory" and "Grand Unified Theory". As to why they want it, that is another issue. I can, an have, explained everything in physics (more than science currently explains) using only one field.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Dalek Prime »

JSS wrote:
Existence (from Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

2a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds>
I did say consciousness is a subset of existence, so it is clearly independent of, but precedes, consciousness. Aside from that, a dictionary definition can and should change as views change, and should not be used to corral thinking, and limit it. Although I note it says "especially independent of", not exclusively.

All must exist first to be conscious. And consciousness becomes fragmented with periods of unconciousness, thought we persist as existants during these fugues, such as sleep.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by JSS »

Dalek Prime wrote:Aside from that, a dictionary definition can and should change as views change, and should not be used to corral thinking, and limit it.
NO!!
Dictionaries should NEVER change the meaning of already defined words (although perhaps greately improve how they describe that meaning), but rather come up with new words for better concepts. It is by skewing and massaging the meanings of words that society is manipulated and "corralled" into predesigned and ordained thinking. Massaging the meaning of words is the intentional manipulation of people, not toward clarity, but toward mindless, unconscious servitude.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Dalek Prime »

JSS wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:Aside from that, a dictionary definition can and should change as views change, and should not be used to corral thinking, and limit it.
NO!!
Dictionaries should NEVER change the meaning of already defined words, but rather come up with new words for better concepts. It is by skewing and massaging the meanings of words that society is manipulated and "corralled" into predesigned and ordained thinking. Massaging the meaning of words is the intentional manipulation of people, not toward clarity, but toward mindless, unconscious servitude.
They have and should change with updates in knowledge. Clearly existence isn't exclusive of consciousness, but you were trying to massage it your way with this definition, and then defending it vehemently. Definition must not become dogma.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by JSS »

Dalek Prime wrote: They have and should change with updates in knowledge.
Hellaciously unethical and nihilistic, destroying knowledge.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Dalek Prime »

JSS wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote: They have and should change with updates in knowledge.
Hellaciously unethical and nihilistic, destroying knowledge.
Did you just yell blasphemy at me!? Really!? Lol! Okay, your holiness. :roll:

Reviewing definition is not skewing or destructive. Rather, it is instructive for the reviewer, and constructive to furtherance of knowledge, say what you will, Oh Grand Inquisitor.

All dictionaries get reviewed and updated. That's why they have editions, aside from publishing more of them.

Anyways, let's go back to your Merriam Webster definition you hold so holy, and answer a question: JSS, are you consious AND existant? Clearly you are, so I feel okay in refusing that pigeon hole definition, as should you.
Last edited by Dalek Prime on Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:36 am, edited 3 times in total.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by JSS »

Dalek Prime wrote:
JSS wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote: They have and should change with updates in knowledge.
Hellaciously unethical and nihilistic, destroying knowledge.
Did you just yell blasphemy at me!? Really!? Lol! Okay, your holiness. :roll:

Reviewing definition is not skewing or destructive. Rather, it is instructive for the reviewer, and constructive to furtherance if knowledge, say what you will, Oh Grand Inquisitor.

All dictionaries get reviewed and updated. That's why they have editions, aside from publishing more of them.
Exactly the opposite, just as modern day society is currently expressing, especially in physics and politics, "manipulate the definitions until it seems that we were right all along .. they're idiots. They'll never know."
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Dalek Prime »

The powerful define, and it is our duty to ensure the definition is reviewed. I'm well aware of newspeak, and call them on it. But we can't allow fear of possible language abuse from keeping us moving in a positive, constructive direction.

So, what would you like to call conscious existence then? Any suggestions? Because "consistence" is already taken.

As an aside: It is funny. As an antinatalist, I speak often about existence and nonexistence, and was considering opening a thread on it. Why I bring this up is, confusion of definition often derails the topic, as in other areas of discourse. So, to keep the terms separate, I think I would give them distinct algebraic naming constants, so they couldn't be confused by sharing the same core word, with 'non' being the only distinguishing feature. I think in such circumstances, it would add clarity to discussion, without the pitfalls.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by JSS »

Dalek Prime wrote:The powerful define, and it is our duty to ensure the definition is reviewed. I'm well aware of newspeak, and call them on it. But we can't allow fear of possible language abuse from keeping us moving in a positive, constructive direction.
One does that by remembering, documenting, where you were so as to know that you are not merely circling the drain.
Dalek Prime wrote:So, what would you like to call conscious existence then? Any suggestions? Because "consistence" is already taken.
Consciousness ≡ remote recognition.
And that means that "conscious existence" merely means the present, affectatious, ability to remotely recognize one's surroundings.
Dalek Prime wrote:As an aside: It is funny. As an antinatalist, I speak often about existence and nonexistence, and was considering opening a thread on it. Why I bring this up is, confusion of definition often derails the topic, as in other areas of discourse. So, to keep the terms separate, I think I would give them distinct algebraic naming constants, so they couldn't be confused by sharing the same core word, with 'non' being the only distinguishing feature. I think in such circumstances, it would add clarity to discussion, without the pitfalls.
Anything that is consistent and documented helps progress, even if it was completely wrong.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Dalek Prime »

Let's go back a bit, JSS. Are you saying that consciousness has nothing to do with existence, even though existence is the prerequisite for it? If not, what was the purpose of you posting that one definition? Let's not get sidetracked by knowledge fluidity issues we don't agree on.
JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by JSS »

Dalek Prime wrote:Are you saying that consciousness has nothing to do with existence, even though existence is the prerequisite for it? If not, what was the purpose of you posting that one definition?
Which "one definition"? The one of "Consciousness"?

Consciousness is one of the many by products of physical existence (the universe). Consciousness is not at all required for existence to be, but rather arises as an aberrant consequence. And even that is not to say that consciousness has not always existed. Everything that exists today has always existed somewhere in the universe, usually in an uncountable number of places.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: What does it mean "to Exist"?

Post by Dalek Prime »

JSS wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:Are you saying that consciousness has nothing to do with existence, even though existence is the prerequisite for it? If not, what was the purpose of you posting that one definition?
Which "one definition"? The one of "Consciousness"?

Consciousness is one of the many by products of physical existence (the universe). Consciousness is not at all required for existence to be, but rather arises as an aberrant consequence. And even that is not to say that consciousness has not always existed. Everything that exists today has always existed somewhere in the universe, usually in an uncountable number of places.
Clearly you do not read my posts. You posted one on existence from Merriam Webster, part 2a, and I wanted to know your purpose in doing so. I've already stated that consciousness is a subset of existence, so I don't need that clarified.

Oh, and I can guarantee you consciousness has not always existed, as it requires a semblance of a brain, and that did not exist in the earliest times of this universe, as the elements hadn't been formed past the first 25, and required much more time to form. Unless you're going to tell me I'm wrong, without telling me why I'd be wrong in saying this?

Anyways, I'll ask again. Are you a consciousness, and an existent? That's all I'm trying to get across, but you're being deliberately slippery and argumentative for god knows what reason, contending with your dictionary definition of existence that the two have nada to do with each other, when consciousness is the only thing that matters. And I can say it's the only thing that matters, with confidence, because concern is only relevant to a consciousness, and not an existing but unconcious entity. The whole unliving universe has no concerns or matters that it can recognize.

Seriously, how thick are you, exactly? I don't want to be rude to you, but holy fuck...

Let me ask Leo a question, if he's following this. Leo, is this the conscious observer issue you run across on the physics forums, that they deny as important? Because if it is, JSS, we have absolutely nothing to talk about. Consciousness is all important to me as philosophical starting point, as consciousness gives meaning and gravity (in the colloquial sense) to everything else. The universe is unaware of itself, and doesn't care. Only us poor little conscious turds do, no matter how unimportant in the universal unfolding we are. Contrary to popular opinion, we're not insignificant specs in a grand universe, but conscious beings whose observations give ANY meaning or substance to the goings on of the universe. Again, because the universe has no opinion on the matter.

And you and every other physicist who ever EXISTED, can discuss it, solely because of your consciousness. So you and your physicist ilk best learn to prioritize. Because the universe may as well be nonexistent without conscious observation.
Post Reply