I don't exist. According to some philosophers they don't exist and I don't exist... .

[keyfeatures]

Something to take the edge off

Where do we draw the line; -
At mountain, or river, or lake?
Intelligent Border Design: a misnomer we give to The Take.

Where does a ‘person’ begin; -
With atom, or boson, or quark?
Do edges commence at the skin – or with scent - if we’re lost in the dark?

I learn to divide and to name
Every bit with a badge of its own;
Carving worlds like they’re turkeys. Bred tame
Plucked then sliced. Who will win the wishbone?

Give me something to soften the pain
From this knife made to enter and pare.
Let me blur. Lose distinctions as rain
Falls to ocean. Consumed. Unaware.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Something that is inconceivable exists? You don't see a problem there? That means that one can make up any old crap.

Is realising what we don't know, made up crap?

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by tsig

Then how shall we find it out?

I don't know, anyone got any suggestions?

Perhaps we can understand by being told.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by levi

I am pretty sure that the person is saying that mereological nihilism denies that I exist and that emergence is not a good way to prove that I exist. Is there any merit to what he is saying? Here is the quote below

"Response: Keep in mind that mereological nihilism is a thesis concerned with identity, not properties. The mereological nihilist can still recognize the existence of complex interactions between atomic simples that give rise to emergent properties (as is often pointed out, individual water molecules are not wet, while large groups of water molecules are), even if those interactions do not give rise to composite identity.”

Also the fundamental particles must combine in a way to create a brain, specifically thought In other words consciousness. Does this mean that I exist because of how the fundamental particles must combine? Even if we are a bunch of fundamental particles let’s call them “atoms”. The atoms must combine in a way to create consciousness proving that I exist. Is this called emergence? This is not even assuming there is more than one fundamental particle. Is it possible for there to be one fundamental particle? Does this change the answer in anyway?

Is consciousness working and a house computer functioning different than a chair? Or are all of them the same if you look at the fundamental particles? If you look at a computer running and consciousness working it performs a task the fundamental particles must combine in a different way than just a chair? Maybe the wood in the chair is different but the actual shape of the wood is just arranged in a shape of an object making chairs not exist, but people and computers do exist. Is this correct?

If you had the ability to perceive fundamental particles could you say I don’t exist, or would I exist because of what was said above? This is taken into consideration that myriad post about processing power is not taken into account.

You can only say that "something exists" and that what it is is unknown. Or rather human intelligence thus far has not understood or described what exists.

Everything else is only discussions and descriptions of what appears to exist and after all said and done may only be an illusion. Our hands are tied on such issues. We are nothing more than the goldfish peering out from its bowl.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Yes its rather like using the blunt instrument "atheist" to describe the group of folk on this forum who don't think a God exists.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by keyfeatures

Something to take the edge off

Where do we draw the line; -
At mountain, or river, or lake?
Intelligent Border Design: a misnomer we give to The Take.

Where does a ‘person’ begin; -
With atom, or boson, or quark?
Do edges commence at the skin – or with scent - if we’re lost in the dark?

I learn to divide and to name
Every bit with a badge of its own;
Carving worlds like they’re turkeys. Bred tame
Plucked then sliced. Who will win the wishbone?

Give me something to soften the pain
From this knife made to enter and pare.
Let me blur. Lose distinctions as rain
Falls to ocean. Consumed. Unaware.

The nature of knowing the unknown, of being the unknown, of knowing the being, of being the nature

I wouldn't have it any other way.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by levi

I am pretty sure that the person is saying that mereological nihilism denies that I exist and that emergence is not a good way to prove that I exist. Is there any merit to what he is saying? Here is the quote below

It's still only about words. You are what you are. Nothing changes that. This guy is just wittering on about what the meaning of "is" is.

Quote:

If you had the ability to perceive fundamental particles could you say I don’t exist, or would I exist because of what was said above? This is taken into consideration that myriad post about processing power is not taken into account.

As I said, take a mereological nihilist and hit him with a baseball bat. Ask him if the bat exists. Case closed.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Is realising what we don't know, made up crap?

What don't you know?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by dafydd

What don't you know?

He doesn't know and he's proud of it.

[levi]

I think it is more than words.


Can someone please answer my questions from my previous post?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by levi

I think it is more than words.

You're wrong.

Quote:

Can someone please answer my questions from my previous post?

See above.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

The nature of knowing the unknown, of being the unknown, of knowing the being, of being the nature

You added a grin, so you know that was gibberish. Good.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by dafydd

What don't you know?

Thats an infinitely* long list. Or can't your mind stretch that far?

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by dafydd

You added a grin, so you know that was gibberish. Good.

Its poetry, the meaning is in the interpretation experienced in the mind of the viewer. What's gibberish to you may well be beautiful to someone else.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Its poetry, the meaning is in the interpretation experienced in the mind of the viewer. What's gibberish to you may well be beautiful to someone else.

Take it to the poetry thread.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Thats an infinitely* long list. Or can't your mind stretch that far?

How do you know that the list is infinite?

[dafydd]

I'll have a go at this poetry lark.

The nature of being is unknown
And the being of unknown is nature
Being the knowing is knowing
And the unknown unknowns of being
Are forever being in being....etc

Easy peasy!

[levi]

I know everybody is going to say who cares or something along the lines of my question is just silly word games but can someone answer this new question?

What is mereological universalism? I am pretty sure it is a way to refute mereological nihilism. Can someone point out the flaws in mereological universalism?

Here is a link http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

A quick way to find it on a pc is to push control f and type it and search mereological universalism when you are on the article, but I sure most people know that. I am not sure how this works on macs, cellphones etc.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by levi

I know everybody is going to say who cares or something along the lines of my question is just silly word games but can someone answer this new question?

What is mereological universalism? I am pretty sure it is a way to refute mereological nihilism.

Then you're wrong. There's no way to "refute" mereological nihilism, because you can't refute a silly word game. You can only refute factual claims and logical arguments.

[Kid Eager]

The boy stood on the burning deck
His pockets full of mereological universalism
A spider saw his uncovered neck
and thought "nah, that can't be real".

This proves that mereological universalism is a crock - you can't even do limericks with it.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by levi

What is mereological universalism? .

It's the opposite of unmereological universalism.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Is realising what we don't know, made up crap?

No. Making up stuff we don't know and answering it with nonsense in the same breath to effect some sort of pretentious "Wise Old Man On the Mountain" act is made up crap, especially when it becomes a de-facto way to deny things that we do know.

Accepting the reality that our understanding of the universe is incomplete is not a blank check to "What if" everything to death and back.

Stop worshiping at the foot of some idol to the unknowns and learn a little more about the knowns. I'll take the real joy of what I do know over the pretentious joy of wallowing in what I don't any day, and that's even with ignoring the practical applications.

Originally Posted by punshhh

The nature of knowing the unknown, of being the unknown, of knowing the being, of being the nature

So we're back beyond the event horizon of the formless again are we?

Seriously the fact that you so proudly peddle word salad stuff like that as some sort of grand Eureka moment of mental clarity "gotcha" that all of us common people are supposed to stand slack jawed in awe of is just sad. I don't how how insightful all this fortune cookie meets Magnetic Poetry meets Ad Libs crap you spout sounds in your head, but it really isn't.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Seriously the fact that you so proudly peddle word salad stuff like that as some sort of grand Eureka moment of mental clarity "gotcha" that all of us common people are supposed to stand slack jawed in awe of is just sad. I don't how how insightful all this fortune cookie meets Magnetic Poetry meets Ad Libs crap you spout sounds in your head, but it really isn't.

How dare you criticize his meaningless ''poetry''? I'm off to read some Pablo Neruda, a real poet.

[dafydd]

Some unknowns that were unknown unknowns
Are not to be found in a known zone
They're not really there
And we don't even care
And the mystic's cover is blown.

[scratchy]

I do not know of any existing philosopher that seriously argues that they really do not exist. I conclude therefore that they dont exist, wich means they are right in the assumption that they do not exist.

[dafydd]

Why does this thread remind of this gem?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

No. Making up stuff we don't know and answering it with nonsense in the same breath to effect some sort of pretentious "Wise Old Man On the Mountain" act is made up crap, especially when it becomes a de-facto way to deny things that we do know.

Accepting the reality that our understanding of the universe is incomplete is not a blank check to "What if" everything to death and back.

Stop worshiping at the foot of some idol to the unknowns and learn a little more about the knowns. I'll take the real joy of what I do know over the pretentious joy of wallowing in what I don't any day, and that's even with ignoring the practical applications.



So we're back beyond the event horizon of the formless again are we?

Seriously the fact that you so proudly peddle word salad stuff like that as some sort of grand Eureka moment of mental clarity "gotcha" that all of us common people are supposed to stand slack jawed in awe of is just sad. I don't how how insightful all this fortune cookie meets Magnetic Poetry meets Ad Libs crap you spout sounds in your head, but it really isn't.

How do you think punshhh is going to react to this?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Twiler

How do you think punshhh is going to react to this?

Ignore it.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

It's still only about words. You are what you are. Nothing changes that. This guy is just wittering on about what the meaning of "is" is.


As I said, take a mereological nihilist and hit him with a baseball bat. Ask him if the bat exists. Case closed.

Strictly speaking, isn't the nihilist's point not 'I don't exist', but rather 'Language implies I don't exist'?

As such, hitting him the bat doesn't refute the point, it just indicates that if he is correct, our language isn't describing reality correctly.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by Twiler

How do you think punshhh is going to react to this?

Ignore it and/or word salad.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by Twiler

Strictly speaking, isn't the nihilist's point not 'I don't exist', but rather 'Language implies I don't exist'?

As such, hitting him the bat doesn't refute the point, it just indicates that if he is correct, our language isn't describing reality correctly.

Isn't that pretty much admitting that it's silly word games?

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Isn't that pretty much admitting that it's silly word games?

No.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Twiler

How do you think punshhh is going to react to this?

With more gibberish.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Twiler

Strictly speaking, isn't the nihilist's point not 'I don't exist', but rather 'Language implies I don't exist'?

If you can use language, then you exist.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by dafydd

If you can use language, then you exist.

Right. Which means that if the language implies you don't exist, there's something wrong with the language.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Twiler

Right. Which means that if the language implies you don't exist, there's something wrong with the language.

Off course. Language is malleable, reality isn't, no matter what the mystics say.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by levi

I know everybody is going to say who cares or something along the lines of my question is just silly word games but can someone answer this new question?

What is mereological universalism? I am pretty sure it is a way to refute mereological nihilism. Can someone point out the flaws in mereological universalism?

Here is a link http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

I wouldn't say mereological universalism refutes mereological nihilism. It merely contradicts it. Does a triangle refute a square? The article you linked to explores different postulate systems for talking about parts and collections of parts. One set of postulates, described as nihilism, asserts (basically) that no collection of parts constitutes a whole -- and by whole, we mean a valid thing that can actually be asserted. A different set of postulates, described as universalism, asserts (basically) that any collection of parts constitutes a valid thing that can actually be asserted.

The weakness of that kind of universalism is that it allows for the assertion of things that might not actually be valid to assert, and at the very least do not appear to be at all useful to assert. For instance, there must be a "thing" that consists of the pen on my desk, your nose, all of the carbon atoms that were once parts of Millard Fillmore's left leg, and the Andromeda galaxy. But can we say anything sensible about that thing? Does our assertion or appreciation of that thing have any meaning?

Essentially, the article is talking about different systems for describing things. A system for describing things is a property of the entity doing the describing, not of the thing being described. It's like having different ways of programming a computer to organize categories of data records. Just as with the question of whether or not gliders exist in the Life model universe, different methods of computing (that is, equivalently, different ways of perceiving) the phenomena will yield different answers, without affecting the real phenomena being observed at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Isn't that pretty much admitting that it's silly word games?

Originally Posted by Twiler

No.

Errr if you say so. I guess I'm not sure what else to call "I know we exist, but I'm gonna make some big show out of nitpicking the language to no end and for no purpose because it makes me feel smart and allows me to shutdown discussions."

If the nature of reality isn't really what's up for debate, I see even less purpose to these constant appeals to solipsistic nonsense.

Originally Posted by Twiler

Right. Which means that if the language implies you don't exist, there's something wrong with the language.

"I feel the need to nitpick the language for no reason" doesn't mean there is something wrong with it. Through some amazing method it seems good enough for most of us.

Yes all languages, and English does tend to be bad about this, are blunt instruments where it can be hard to convey certain esoteric or nuanced concepts.

But deliberately wording things in the most confusing ways and then crowning yourself Mr. Miyagi because no one knows what the hell you are trying to say is pretentious and useless.

[marplots]

What will we sacrifice to obtain clarity?

[JoeBentley]

"Semantics" and "intentional obtuseness" not quests for clarity.