I could generally go along with that statement. But now the tricky part... how could one relate that to the concept of spirit?Experience is an awareness event.
Perception and cognisance are the complements of awareness.
In other words: what you know affects what you perceive. — Galuchat
Agreed. The dictionary definition is a mere starting point. That is why this thread was started.The dictionary doesn't define spirit substantially — whollyrolling
That (with regards to the subject of spirit) is what you have asserted numerous times, which you have not come close to explaining, let alone proving. Asserting again will not help much, and has lost its novelty and interest, IMHO. So please understand if I don’t reply further.because there is no way to define something that is unknown except by way of perception — whollyrolling
:up: Ha! Well said, thanks. Definitionistas... as passionate and unrelenting as fashionistas, only perhaps not as well dressed. :wink:What is it with you definitionists? These things can be considered - properly considered - without mandating a sequence of discovery. What something is, and whether it exists, are things worth looking into. That someone would deliberately oppose the process of discovery by mandating - "Definition first, then existence!" - the order in which things must be done is unjustifiable and unacceptable. If we can discover or learn something new, it doesn't bloody matter whether we identified it first, or demonstrated its existence. Both provide useful data with which to proceed. — Pattern-chaser
In order to ask or answer whether or not something exists, one must first know what that something is.
How do you expect anyone to answer such a poorly framed question? — DingoJones
I think you got the questions backwards. First ask, what is it, and then you can assess whether ot exists. — NKBJ
What are you trying to say here? If you know what something is then there is no need to ask yourself if it exists because it certainly does. — Daniel
But are different symbols, for example '7', '1111111', or 'VII', or different instantiations of the same symbol, the same existences? — Janus
there would seem to be no absolute existence of any particular number beyond its representations and instantiations. — Janus
'Existences'?? — Wayfarer
But the very fact that different symbols designate the same value is essential to mathematics and language. — Wayfarer
If in each system, each symbol had a different meaning, then they would be incommensurable. But surely they're not. Otherwise, you couldn't have an exchange rate, or you couldn't represent the same proposition in different symbolic form.
That is why 7 = 7, which is basically the law of identity, is true for all observers.
In respect of Platonic realms - I think there is such a thing as 'the domain of natural numbers', is there not? The fact that this domain doesn't exist in time in space is one of the points that Platonist philosophy makes.
I think you got the questions backwards. First ask, what is it, and then you can assess whether ot exists. — NKBJ
Your conclusion is not logically entailed, but we would need good reason to think that something which is just an idea could be more than our thinking it, believing it and/or knowing about it. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.