FREE TAPATALK APP

bruto · 17th December 2012, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Hi pakeha, I presume your question is addressed to me.

What existence means to me is not a simple thing to explain, as I think about it in conceptual form rather than in language. Basically my position is that if something exists, it takes a form constituted of some kind of substance and is in someway present in respect of other existing things. This form distinguishes the thing or group of things from what its or their none existence (or absence) would constitute.

The detail might need teasing out a bit.

OK, I think I understand this, despite the odd wording. But what you seem to be saying is that you apply William James's famous criterion for existence, which is (loosely) that if a thing cannot be said to exist if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to the way the world works. So are you applying this rule to things divine, and if so, what effects can you demonstrate?

dafydd · 17th December 2012, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

In the acknowledgement that what exists may not conform to our notions about things, including logic or the laws of thermodynamics. I. Or if falling within those ideas as potentially independent of the known SPC, in which we experience our existence.

A fantasy, in other words. I'll drop the spell checking if you admit that you cannot find any examples of me posting gibberish here, as you said you would do more that a year ago. Deal?

bruto · 17th December 2012, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

A fantasy, in other words. I'll drop the spell checking if you admit that you cannot find any examples of me posting gibberish here, as you said you would do more that a year ago. Deal?

No no, you must take your punshhhment like a man.

dafydd · 17th December 2012, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

No no, you must take your punshhhment like a man.

Very good. Punshhhment. I like being tickled by feather dusters. (Did you spot my deliberate typo)?

punshhh · 17th December 2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

OK, I think I understand this, despite the odd wording. But what you seem to be saying is that you apply William James's famous criterion for existence, which is (loosely) that if a thing cannot be said to exist if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to the way the world works. So are you applying this rule to things divine, and if so, what effects can you demonstrate?

My wording sounds odd perhaps because I have got to this point independently of academic philosophy.

Yes that idea is similar to my position, although I would alter it slightly, "if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to that which exists". This presumes that something exists to begin with. As to what I would regard as a "difference", if something were constituted of a substance, that would be sufficient and it would not matter if it was independent of our SPC* including the laws of physics.

Regarding divinity, I don't recognize divinity as generally discussed on this forum here. Although I may be considering something approximating in some way to "divinity".

*SPC=spacetime continuum.

punshhh · 17th December 2012, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

A fantasy, in other words. I'll drop the spell checking if you admit that you cannot find any examples of me posting gibberish here, as you said you would do more that a year ago. Deal?

I am quite happy to let you point out typo's until you become bored of it.

Are you confining existence just to what humanity is aware of?

dafydd · 17th December 2012, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I am quite happy to let you point out typo's until you become bored of it.

Are you confining existence just to what humanity is aware of?

How do you know that there are things behind existence that we we are not aware of? Why does there have to be something? No apostrophe needed in the plural of typo, by the way. The apostrophe indicates possessiveness.

laca · 17th December 2012, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

My wording sounds odd perhaps because I have got to this point independently of academic philosophy.

No, it doesn't sound odd, it's unadulterated, unintelligible gibberish. And it's not because you "have got to this point independently of academic philosophy". It's because the Dunning-Kruger effect. In a nutshell, you don't know what you're talking about and you can't realize that sad fact.

dafydd · 17th December 2012, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by laca

No, it doesn't sound odd, it's unadulterated, unintelligible gibberish. And it's not because you "have got to this point independently of academic philosophy". It's because the Dunning-Kruger effect. In a nutshell, you don't know what you're talking about and you can't realize that sad fact.

And that post was written by the man who once accused me of posting gibberish!

conceptual [kənˈsɛptjʊəl]
adj
1. relating to or concerned with concepts; abstract
2. concerned with the definitions or relations of the concepts of some field of enquiry rather than with the facts.

Punshhh separated conceptual from language. Language is closely bound up with the conceptual.

Myriad · 17th December 2012, 04:58 PM

Here's where I look for common ground:

- The material universe is all there is.
- Our subjective experiences are all we have.

Most skeptics understand both those things as true, but they tend to underestimate the significance of the second. Most mystics understand both those things are true, but they tend to underestimate the significance of the first.

There is no reality deeper than reality. Reality is what it is. What there might be is a better model -- that is, an alteration of our understanding of (which is part of our subjective experience of) reality that conforms better to reality. (We can only tell that a model conforms better by observing that it predicts cause and effect better.) Or there might not be.

Some things that most people used to think were aspects of the external universe turned out to actually be aspects of subjective experience, and vice versa. At one time, searching for a particle of musical inspiration would have seemed no less (and no more) plausible than searching for a particle of disease. Now we have those two things more confidently sorted between the material and the subjective.

But things don't become less important when they're suspected of being, or revealed to be, aspects of subjective experience. When a lunatic massacres children, it's not a lack of understanding of how bullets work that we bemoan.

Respectfully,
Myriad

bruto · 17th December 2012, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

My wording sounds odd perhaps because I have got to this point independently of academic philosophy.

Yes that idea is similar to my position, although I would alter it slightly, "if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to that which exists". This presumes that something exists to begin with. As to what I would regard as a "difference", if something were constituted of a substance, that would be sufficient and it would not matter if it was independent of our SPC* including the laws of physics.

Regarding divinity, I don't recognize divinity as generally discussed on this forum here. Although I may be considering something approximating in some way to "divinity".

*SPC=spacetime continuum.

Well, you've lost me again in what looks like an inherent bit of contradiction. The test is of what a thing does, not of what it is.

punshhh · 17th December 2012, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

And that post was written by the man who once accused me of posting gibberish!

conceptual [kənˈsɛptjʊəl]
adj
1. relating to or concerned with concepts; abstract
2. concerned with the definitions or relations of the concepts of some field of enquiry rather than with the facts.

Punshhh separated conceptual from language. Language is closely bound up with the conceptual.

So when I look at a beautiful woman there are lots of words going round in my head are there?

punshhh · 17th December 2012, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

Well, you've lost me again in what looks like an inherent bit of contradiction. The test is of what a thing does, not of what it is.

Let me put that another way, "if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to the way the world works".

Where world refers not only to the world known to humanity, but also the aspects of the world not known by humanity.

And I am an is person, not a does person.

punshhh · 18th December 2012, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by Myriad

Here's where I look for common ground:

- The material universe is all there is.
- Our subjective experiences are all we have.

Most skeptics understand both those things as true, but they tend to underestimate the significance of the second. Most mystics understand both those things are true, but they tend to underestimate the significance of the first.

Hi Myriad, yes that rings true. For me though I do focus on the significance of material. I prefer the word substance, as the word material has connotations of physical matter as described by physics. By the use of the word substance I am also considering material other than what is described by physics.

Quote:

There is no reality deeper than reality. Reality is what it is. What there might be is a better model -- that is, an alteration of our understanding of (which is part of our subjective experience of) reality that conforms better to reality. (We can only tell that a model conforms better by observing that it predicts cause and effect better.) Or there might not be

.Quite, I am a collector of conceptual models.

Quote:

Some things that most people used to think were aspects of the external universe turned out to actually be aspects of subjective experience, and vice versa. At one time, searching for a particle of musical inspiration would have seemed no less (and no more) plausible than searching for a particle of disease. Now we have those two things more confidently sorted between the material and the subjective.

Yes, although there is still some confusion over where the line is drawn in the brain.

Quote:

But things don't become less important when they're suspected of being, or revealed to be, aspects of subjective experience. When a lunatic massacres children, it's not a lack of understanding of how bullets work that we bemoan.

I regard the content of the subjective a substance too.

bruto · 18th December 2012, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Let me put that another way, "if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to the way the world works".

Where world refers not only to the world known to humanity, but also the aspects of the world not known by humanity.

And I am an is person, not a does person.

So I figure, which is true of most people who insist on the existence of things whose existence is incommunicable and whose effect on the world we do know is nil. Internal consistency is a good rule for fiction, but it comes no closer than ever to proving the existence or nature of the spiritual world. I apologize for thinking briefly that you'd come up with something useful.

dafydd · 18th December 2012, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

So I figure, which is true of most people who insist on the existence of things whose existence is incommunicable and whose effect on the world we do know is nil. Internal consistency is a good rule for fiction, but it comes no closer than ever to proving the existence or nature of the spiritual world. I apologize for thinking briefly that you'd come up with something useful.

Punshhh's ideas about ''substances unknown to physics'' is pure fiction. Substances unknown to physics and unknown unknowns cannot be created with a mere wave of the computer keyboard.

laca · 18th December 2012, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

And I am an is person, not a does person.

That's painfully clear, given your track record of not being able to shake off the mountain of crap you're spouting even after being given perfectly clear and concise explanations.

dafydd · 18th December 2012, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by laca

That's painfully clear, given your track record of not being able to shake off the mountain of crap you're spouting even after being given perfectly clear and concise explanations.

Mysticism doesn't do clear and concise. It just is mumbo-jumbo.

punshhh · 18th December 2012, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

So I figure, which is true of most people who insist on the existence of things whose existence is incommunicable and whose effect on the world we do know is nil. Internal consistency is a good rule for fiction, but it comes no closer than ever to proving the existence or nature of the spiritual world. I apologize for thinking briefly that you'd come up with something useful.

If your looking for proofs of a spirit world I cannot help you. Short of conducting a death experiment to see what happens next, it is untestable. There are other ways, but they are not scientific (in the classical sense).

Quote:

and whose effect on the world we do know is nil

Interesting phrase.

I wonder what does not have an effect on the world?

and in what sense we do know there are nil effects (from anything) on the world?

You see when one looks at the issue of existence, our rational thought processes begin to break down.

punshhh · 18th December 2012, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by laca

That's painfully clear, given your track record of not being able to shake off the mountain of crap you're spouting even after being given perfectly clear and concise explanations.

I am always glad to provide some amusement where I can. I find this whole language thing hilarious too.

punshhh · 18th December 2012, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Punshhh's ideas about ''substances unknown to physics'' is pure fiction. Substances unknown to physics and unknown unknowns cannot be created with a mere wave of the computer keyboard.

Prove they don't exist, or pipe down.

kerikiwi · 19th December 2012, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Prove they don't exist, or pipe down.

We'll prove they don't exist right after you prove that my invisible, pink, winged unicorn doesn't exist

zooterkin · 19th December 2012, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I wonder what does not have an effect on the world?

Things that don't exist, for a start.

dafydd · 19th December 2012, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

You see when one looks at the issue of existence, our rational thought processes begin to break down.

Speak for yourself please.

dafydd · 19th December 2012, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Prove they don't exist, or pipe down.

Prove that the invisible leprechauns who accompany me everywhere I go do not exist or pipe down. Your fellow mystic Limbo once claimed that he danced on the dark side of the Moon in his astral body and also walked inside a mountain with a goddess. Do you believe that?

punshhh · 19th December 2012, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

We'll prove they don't exist right after you prove that my invisible, pink, winged unicorn doesn't exist

I do know that unicorns are a fictional creature generated by sailors hundreds of years ago. Both pink ones and invisible things are fictional qualities generated by story tellers. All subjective products of the human mind.

On the other hand we don't know what aspects of the existence we find ourselves in are not known by us, or what effect such things have on that same existence.

We could of course bury our heads in the sand and deny that anything not currently described by science does or can exist. That would be like the ant walking in circles on my computer screen denying that anything other than sand and leaves exist.

punshhh · 19th December 2012, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Things that don't exist, for a start.

The "what" I refer to can only include the set of things a human mind can think of. Such things are only abstract (subjective) constructs of the world we find ourselves in.

It does not include the set of things the human mind cannot think of. Rather like the ant on my computer screen, we cannot pronounce on what in this set exists or not. Or what role or effect it has on the world we find ourselves in.

dafydd · 19th December 2012, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

It does not include the set of things the human mind cannot think of.

How do you know that this set exists and is not merely a figment of your imagination? Have you ever considered the possibility that it does not exist? Or why should it exist?

bruto · 19th December 2012, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

If your looking for proofs of a spirit world I cannot help you. Short of conducting a death experiment to see what happens next, it is untestable. There are other ways, but they are not scientific (in the classical sense).

Interesting phrase.

I wonder what does not have an effect on the world?

and in what sense we do know there are nil effects (from anything) on the world?

You see when one looks at the issue of existence, our rational thought processes begin to break down.

Well, you'll never get it, obviously, but things that do not exist do not have an effect on the provable world. Of course belief in things that do not exist can have an effect, and poor understanding of the world can seem to have real effects, but that is true of beliefs that almost certainly contradict yours, such as the actions of primitive witch doctors, or the Aztec practice of butchering people with obsidian knives to keep the sun rising on schedule, or the presumption of right wing Christian apologists that the devastation of hurricane Katrina was a statement from God about homosexuality. People can base their behavior on rubbish but that does not make the basis real.

You can't have this both ways. If the spiritual world is so remote from the physical that no interaction can be seen or tested, then all assumption of interaction is a guess. Whether it chances to be right or wrong, it's still a guess, and no more credible than any other guess.

kerikiwi · 19th December 2012, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I do know that unicorns are a fictional creature generated by sailors hundreds of years ago. Both pink ones and invisible things are fictional qualities generated by story tellers. All subjective products of the human mind.

You know nothing of my unicorn.

dafydd · 19th December 2012, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

You know nothing of my unicorn.

Stable your unicorn behind the event horizon of the formless.

bruto · 19th December 2012, 11:16 AM

Stable your own unicorn if you must. Mine is free ranging in its world, meeting lady unicorns and making little unicolts. Its efficacy at this is proof that it is real.

dafydd · 19th December 2012, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

Stable your own unicorn if you must. Mine is free ranging in its world, meeting lady unicorns and making little unicolts. Its efficacy at this is proof that it is real.

I just thought that if you stabled it there then mystics would have a chance of coming across it. Unifillies too, surely?

bruto · 19th December 2012, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I just thought that if you stabled it there then mystics would have a chance of coming across it. Unifillies too, surely?

What, a sexist as well as a flaming atheist? What company we find ourselves in!

punshhh · 19th December 2012, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

You know nothing of my unicorn.

I know its stabled in your brain.

punshhh · 19th December 2012, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

Well, you'll never get it, obviously, but things that do not exist do not have an effect on the provable world.

I do get this, but this is not what I was saying. For example I know that (physical) pink unicorns don't effect the provable world.

Quote:

Of course belief in things that do not exist can have an effect, and poor understanding of the world can seem to have real effects, but that is true of beliefs that almost certainly contradict yours, such as the actions of primitive witch doctors, or the Aztec practice of butchering people with obsidian knives to keep the sun rising on schedule, or the presumption of right wing Christian apologists that the devastation of hurricane Katrina was a statement from God about homosexuality. People can base their behavior on rubbish but that does not make the basis real.

This is an issue about human psychology not about what exists.

Quote:

You can't have this both ways. If the spiritual world is so remote from the physical that no interaction can be seen or tested, then all assumption of interaction is a guess. Whether it chances to be right or wrong, it's still a guess, and no more credible than any other guess.

Yes of course and I have not made that assumption. As to whether it is more "credible" than any other guess, that is another question.

I return to my previous point, human guesses are not likely to be accurate reflections of what exists and is not as yet understood by humanity.

pakeha · 19th December 2012, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I would not presume to confine existence in terms of voluntary or not, I leave it open.

In the acknowledgement that what exists may not conform to our notions about things, including logic or the laws of thermodynamics. I deal with it outside (independent of) any notion of time or space or causality as is familiar in theories of a spacetime continuum (SPC). Or if falling within those ideas as potentially independent of the known SPC, in which we experience our existence.

Hi, punshhh, thanks for the reply!
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by 'to take form', then.

Quote:

...What existence means to me is not a simple thing to explain, as I think about it in conceptual form rather than in language. Basically my position is that if something exists, it takes a form constituted of some kind of substance and is in someway present in respect of other existing things. This form distinguishes the thing or group of things from what its or their none existence (or absence) would constitute.

Could explain what you mean by that, please?

punshhh · 20th December 2012, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by pakeha

Hi, punshhh, thanks for the reply!
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by 'to take form', then.

Perhaps it might sound better if I put it this way, a hypothetical observer would encounter a form.
Are you thinking of the temporal issue here?

Quote:

Could explain what you mean by that, please?

Can you be more specific?

Is "I think about it in conceptual form rather than in language" ok?

I will rephrase the other bit. What exists is in some kind of form or substance. This includes a presence in respect of what else exists. Its lack of existence would be different (I presuppose here that something does exist).

laca · 20th December 2012, 01:27 AM

punshhh - relentless gibberish generator for the JREF forum. Since 2010.

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE GIBBERISH GENERATOR, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW. PUNSHHH PROVIDES THE GIBBERISH GENERATOR "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE GIBBERISH GENERATOR
IS WITH YOU.

dafydd · 20th December 2012, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I will rephrase the other bit. What exists is in some kind of form or substance. This includes a presence in respect of what else exists. Its lack of existence would be different (I presuppose here that something does exist).

And to think that you once accused me of posting gibberish!

17th December 2012, 07:23 AM	#681
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,257	Originally Posted by punshhh Hi pakeha, I presume your question is addressed to me. What existence means to me is not a simple thing to explain, as I think about it in conceptual form rather than in language. Basically my position is that if something exists, it takes a form constituted of some kind of substance and is in someway present in respect of other existing things. This form distinguishes the thing or group of things from what its or their none existence (or absence) would constitute. The detail might need teasing out a bit. OK, I think I understand this, despite the odd wording. But what you seem to be saying is that you apply William James's famous criterion for existence, which is (loosely) that if a thing cannot be said to exist if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to the way the world works. So are you applying this rule to things divine, and if so, what effects can you demonstrate?
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

17th December 2012, 09:15 AM	#682
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by punshhh In the acknowledgement that what exists may not conform to our notions about things, including logic or the laws of thermodynamics. I. Or if falling within those ideas as potentially independent of the known SPC, in which we experience our existence. A fantasy, in other words. I'll drop the spell checking if you admit that you cannot find any examples of me posting gibberish here, as you said you would do more that a year ago. Deal?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 17th December 2012 at 09:19 AM.

17th December 2012, 11:55 AM	#683
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,257	Originally Posted by dafydd A fantasy, in other words. I'll drop the spell checking if you admit that you cannot find any examples of me posting gibberish here, as you said you would do more that a year ago. Deal? No no, you must take your punshhhment like a man.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

17th December 2012, 12:05 PM	#684
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by bruto No no, you must take your punshhhment like a man. Very good. Punshhhment. I like being tickled by feather dusters. (Did you spot my deliberate typo)?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 17th December 2012 at 12:09 PM.

17th December 2012, 02:36 PM	#685
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,181	Originally Posted by bruto OK, I think I understand this, despite the odd wording. But what you seem to be saying is that you apply William James's famous criterion for existence, which is (loosely) that if a thing cannot be said to exist if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to the way the world works. So are you applying this rule to things divine, and if so, what effects can you demonstrate? My wording sounds odd perhaps because I have got to this point independently of academic philosophy. Yes that idea is similar to my position, although I would alter it slightly, "if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to that which exists". This presumes that something exists to begin with. As to what I would regard as a "difference", if something were constituted of a substance, that would be sufficient and it would not matter if it was independent of our SPC* including the laws of physics. Regarding divinity, I don't recognize divinity as generally discussed on this forum here. Although I may be considering something approximating in some way to "divinity". *SPC=spacetime continuum.
	Last edited by punshhh; 17th December 2012 at 02:38 PM.

17th December 2012, 02:43 PM	#686
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,181	Originally Posted by dafydd A fantasy, in other words. I'll drop the spell checking if you admit that you cannot find any examples of me posting gibberish here, as you said you would do more that a year ago. Deal? I am quite happy to let you point out typo's until you become bored of it. Are you confining existence just to what humanity is aware of?

17th December 2012, 03:11 PM	#687
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by punshhh I am quite happy to let you point out typo's until you become bored of it. Are you confining existence just to what humanity is aware of? How do you know that there are things behind existence that we we are not aware of? Why does there have to be something? No apostrophe needed in the plural of typo, by the way. The apostrophe indicates possessiveness.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 17th December 2012 at 03:26 PM.

17th December 2012, 03:57 PM	#688
laca Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by punshhh My wording sounds odd perhaps because I have got to this point independently of academic philosophy. No, it doesn't sound odd, it's unadulterated, unintelligible gibberish. And it's not because you "have got to this point independently of academic philosophy". It's because the Dunning-Kruger effect. In a nutshell, you don't know what you're talking about and you can't realize that sad fact.
laca Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,176

17th December 2012, 04:05 PM	#689
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by laca No, it doesn't sound odd, it's unadulterated, unintelligible gibberish. And it's not because you "have got to this point independently of academic philosophy". It's because the Dunning-Kruger effect. In a nutshell, you don't know what you're talking about and you can't realize that sad fact. And that post was written by the man who once accused me of posting gibberish! conceptual [kənˈsɛptjʊəl] adj 1. relating to or concerned with concepts; abstract 2. concerned with the definitions or relations of the concepts of some field of enquiry rather than with the facts. Punshhh separated conceptual from language. Language is closely bound up with the conceptual.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 17th December 2012 at 04:11 PM.

17th December 2012, 04:58 PM	#690
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,218	Here's where I look for common ground: - The material universe is all there is. - Our subjective experiences are all we have. Most skeptics understand both those things as true, but they tend to underestimate the significance of the second. Most mystics understand both those things are true, but they tend to underestimate the significance of the first. There is no reality deeper than reality. Reality is what it is. What there might be is a better model -- that is, an alteration of our understanding of (which is part of our subjective experience of) reality that conforms better to reality. (We can only tell that a model conforms better by observing that it predicts cause and effect better.) Or there might not be. Some things that most people used to think were aspects of the external universe turned out to actually be aspects of subjective experience, and vice versa. At one time, searching for a particle of musical inspiration would have seemed no less (and no more) plausible than searching for a particle of disease. Now we have those two things more confidently sorted between the material and the subjective. But things don't become less important when they're suspected of being, or revealed to be, aspects of subjective experience. When a lunatic massacres children, it's not a lack of understanding of how bullets work that we bemoan. Respectfully, Myriad
	__________________ The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.

17th December 2012, 07:31 PM	#691
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,257	Originally Posted by punshhh My wording sounds odd perhaps because I have got to this point independently of academic philosophy. Yes that idea is similar to my position, although I would alter it slightly, "if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to that which exists". This presumes that something exists to begin with. As to what I would regard as a "difference", if something were constituted of a substance, that would be sufficient and it would not matter if it was independent of our SPC* including the laws of physics. Regarding divinity, I don't recognize divinity as generally discussed on this forum here. Although I may be considering something approximating in some way to "divinity". *SPC=spacetime continuum. Well, you've lost me again in what looks like an inherent bit of contradiction. The test is of what a thing does, not of what it is.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

17th December 2012, 11:00 PM	#692
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,181	Originally Posted by dafydd And that post was written by the man who once accused me of posting gibberish! conceptual [kənˈsɛptjʊəl] adj 1. relating to or concerned with concepts; abstract 2. concerned with the definitions or relations of the concepts of some field of enquiry rather than with the facts. Punshhh separated conceptual from language. Language is closely bound up with the conceptual. So when I look at a beautiful woman there are lots of words going round in my head are there?

17th December 2012, 11:05 PM	#693
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,181	Originally Posted by bruto Well, you've lost me again in what looks like an inherent bit of contradiction. The test is of what a thing does, not of what it is. Let me put that another way, "if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to the way the world works". Where world refers not only to the world known to humanity, but also the aspects of the world not known by humanity. And I am an is person, not a does person.

18th December 2012, 12:01 AM	#694
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,181	Originally Posted by Myriad Here's where I look for common ground: - The material universe is all there is. - Our subjective experiences are all we have. Most skeptics understand both those things as true, but they tend to underestimate the significance of the second. Most mystics understand both those things are true, but they tend to underestimate the significance of the first. Hi Myriad, yes that rings true. For me though I do focus on the significance of material. I prefer the word substance, as the word material has connotations of physical matter as described by physics. By the use of the word substance I am also considering material other than what is described by physics. Quote: There is no reality deeper than reality. Reality is what it is. What there might be is a better model -- that is, an alteration of our understanding of (which is part of our subjective experience of) reality that conforms better to reality. (We can only tell that a model conforms better by observing that it predicts cause and effect better.) Or there might not be .Quite, I am a collector of conceptual models. Quote: Some things that most people used to think were aspects of the external universe turned out to actually be aspects of subjective experience, and vice versa. At one time, searching for a particle of musical inspiration would have seemed no less (and no more) plausible than searching for a particle of disease. Now we have those two things more confidently sorted between the material and the subjective. Yes, although there is still some confusion over where the line is drawn in the brain. Quote: But things don't become less important when they're suspected of being, or revealed to be, aspects of subjective experience. When a lunatic massacres children, it's not a lack of understanding of how bullets work that we bemoan. I regard the content of the subjective a substance too.

18th December 2012, 06:48 AM	#695
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,257	Originally Posted by punshhh Let me put that another way, "if its existence or non-existence makes no difference to the way the world works". Where world refers not only to the world known to humanity, but also the aspects of the world not known by humanity. And I am an is person, not a does person. So I figure, which is true of most people who insist on the existence of things whose existence is incommunicable and whose effect on the world we do know is nil. Internal consistency is a good rule for fiction, but it comes no closer than ever to proving the existence or nature of the spiritual world. I apologize for thinking briefly that you'd come up with something useful.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

18th December 2012, 12:27 PM	#696
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by bruto So I figure, which is true of most people who insist on the existence of things whose existence is incommunicable and whose effect on the world we do know is nil. Internal consistency is a good rule for fiction, but it comes no closer than ever to proving the existence or nature of the spiritual world. I apologize for thinking briefly that you'd come up with something useful. Punshhh's ideas about ''substances unknown to physics'' is pure fiction. Substances unknown to physics and unknown unknowns cannot be created with a mere wave of the computer keyboard.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 18th December 2012 at 12:41 PM.

18th December 2012, 12:50 PM	#697
laca Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,176	Originally Posted by punshhh And I am an is person, not a does person. That's painfully clear, given your track record of not being able to shake off the mountain of crap you're spouting even after being given perfectly clear and concise explanations.
laca Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,176

18th December 2012, 02:12 PM	#698
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by laca That's painfully clear, given your track record of not being able to shake off the mountain of crap you're spouting even after being given perfectly clear and concise explanations. Mysticism doesn't do clear and concise. It just is mumbo-jumbo.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 18th December 2012 at 02:33 PM.

18th December 2012, 11:29 PM	#699
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,181	Originally Posted by bruto So I figure, which is true of most people who insist on the existence of things whose existence is incommunicable and whose effect on the world we do know is nil. Internal consistency is a good rule for fiction, but it comes no closer than ever to proving the existence or nature of the spiritual world. I apologize for thinking briefly that you'd come up with something useful. If your looking for proofs of a spirit world I cannot help you. Short of conducting a death experiment to see what happens next, it is untestable. There are other ways, but they are not scientific (in the classical sense). Quote: and whose effect on the world we do know is nil Interesting phrase. I wonder what does not have an effect on the world? and in what sense we do know there are nil effects (from anything) on the world? You see when one looks at the issue of existence, our rational thought processes begin to break down.

18th December 2012, 11:32 PM	#700
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,181	Originally Posted by laca That's painfully clear, given your track record of not being able to shake off the mountain of crap you're spouting even after being given perfectly clear and concise explanations. I am always glad to provide some amusement where I can. I find this whole language thing hilarious too.

18th December 2012, 11:33 PM	#701
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,181	Originally Posted by dafydd Punshhh's ideas about ''substances unknown to physics'' is pure fiction. Substances unknown to physics and unknown unknowns cannot be created with a mere wave of the computer keyboard. Prove they don't exist, or pipe down.

19th December 2012, 12:10 AM	#702
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,864	Originally Posted by punshhh Prove they don't exist, or pipe down. We'll prove they don't exist right after you prove that my invisible, pink, winged unicorn doesn't exist

19th December 2012, 01:32 AM	#703
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,021	Originally Posted by punshhh I wonder what does not have an effect on the world? Things that don't exist, for a start.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

19th December 2012, 01:47 AM	#704
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by punshhh You see when one looks at the issue of existence, our rational thought processes begin to break down. Speak for yourself please.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

19th December 2012, 01:50 AM	#705
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by punshhh Prove they don't exist, or pipe down. Prove that the invisible leprechauns who accompany me everywhere I go do not exist or pipe down. Your fellow mystic Limbo once claimed that he danced on the dark side of the Moon in his astral body and also walked inside a mountain with a goddess. Do you believe that?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

19th December 2012, 02:51 AM	#706
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,181	Originally Posted by kerikiwi We'll prove they don't exist right after you prove that my invisible, pink, winged unicorn doesn't exist I do know that unicorns are a fictional creature generated by sailors hundreds of years ago. Both pink ones and invisible things are fictional qualities generated by story tellers. All subjective products of the human mind. On the other hand we don't know what aspects of the existence we find ourselves in are not known by us, or what effect such things have on that same existence. We could of course bury our heads in the sand and deny that anything not currently described by science does or can exist. That would be like the ant walking in circles on my computer screen denying that anything other than sand and leaves exist.

19th December 2012, 02:59 AM	#707
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,181	Originally Posted by zooterkin Things that don't exist, for a start. The "what" I refer to can only include the set of things a human mind can think of. Such things are only abstract (subjective) constructs of the world we find ourselves in. It does not include the set of things the human mind cannot think of. Rather like the ant on my computer screen, we cannot pronounce on what in this set exists or not. Or what role or effect it has on the world we find ourselves in.
	Last edited by punshhh; 19th December 2012 at 03:00 AM.

19th December 2012, 03:58 AM	#708
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by punshhh It does not include the set of things the human mind cannot think of. How do you know that this set exists and is not merely a figment of your imagination? Have you ever considered the possibility that it does not exist? Or why should it exist?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 19th December 2012 at 03:59 AM.

19th December 2012, 06:22 AM	#709
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,257	Originally Posted by punshhh If your looking for proofs of a spirit world I cannot help you. Short of conducting a death experiment to see what happens next, it is untestable. There are other ways, but they are not scientific (in the classical sense). Interesting phrase. I wonder what does not have an effect on the world? and in what sense we do know there are nil effects (from anything) on the world? You see when one looks at the issue of existence, our rational thought processes begin to break down. Well, you'll never get it, obviously, but things that do not exist do not have an effect on the provable world. Of course belief in things that do not exist can have an effect, and poor understanding of the world can seem to have real effects, but that is true of beliefs that almost certainly contradict yours, such as the actions of primitive witch doctors, or the Aztec practice of butchering people with obsidian knives to keep the sun rising on schedule, or the presumption of right wing Christian apologists that the devastation of hurricane Katrina was a statement from God about homosexuality. People can base their behavior on rubbish but that does not make the basis real. You can't have this both ways. If the spiritual world is so remote from the physical that no interaction can be seen or tested, then all assumption of interaction is a guess. Whether it chances to be right or wrong, it's still a guess, and no more credible than any other guess.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

19th December 2012, 09:51 AM	#710
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,864	Originally Posted by punshhh I do know that unicorns are a fictional creature generated by sailors hundreds of years ago. Both pink ones and invisible things are fictional qualities generated by story tellers. All subjective products of the human mind. You know nothing of my unicorn.

19th December 2012, 10:41 AM	#711
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by kerikiwi You know nothing of my unicorn. Stable your unicorn behind the event horizon of the formless.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

19th December 2012, 11:16 AM	#712
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,257	Stable your own unicorn if you must. Mine is free ranging in its world, meeting lady unicorns and making little unicolts. Its efficacy at this is proof that it is real.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

19th December 2012, 11:45 AM	#713
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by bruto Stable your own unicorn if you must. Mine is free ranging in its world, meeting lady unicorns and making little unicolts. Its efficacy at this is proof that it is real. I just thought that if you stabled it there then mystics would have a chance of coming across it. Unifillies too, surely?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 19th December 2012 at 11:48 AM.

19th December 2012, 03:49 PM	#714
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,257	Originally Posted by dafydd I just thought that if you stabled it there then mystics would have a chance of coming across it. Unifillies too, surely? What, a sexist as well as a flaming atheist? What company we find ourselves in! irony tag available at extra cost
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

19th December 2012, 11:37 PM	#715
punshhh Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Rural England Posts: 4,181	Originally Posted by kerikiwi You know nothing of my unicorn. I know its stabled in your brain.