No. Nowhere have I said that internal dialogue wasn't linguistic. — fresco

So an internal dialogue of shapes, colors, etc. is a language in your view?

You've just named them, so you've answered your own question !

I regret, I cannot philosophically commune with the idea of an 'observer independent world' even though we obviously operate, moment to moment, on that basis as though there were.
What it momentarily suits us to call seperate 'observer and observed' or 'organism and evironment' are in essence coextensive and codefining unities, in which state transitions in the one are isomorphic to state transitions in the other.

As for your assertion of your version of 'the obvious', an entirely contrary holistic view is held by anyone who calls themselves 'a meditator'.

It's like a fractal - however we magnify our cognition, the same pattern keeps appearing. That is where propositional logic has its merits, it explains the pattern. — Merkwurdichliebe

You mean in the sense that it makes the invariant patterns of experience explicit?

Let's think on that. If existence is had by all things, then there can be no difference between things that exist and things that don't...

And hence, that such-and-such exists adds nothing to it that's not already implicit in the such-and-such. — Banno

What you're missing here is the analysis of the different kinds of existence we can conceive of.

I find that talking in terms of something's existence is just talking about the thing.

Existential dependency doesn't require talking in terms of something's 'existence'. It's more about a common sense method of approach. It requires talking in terms of something's elemental constituency. If something consists of something else, it is existentially dependent upon that something else. If something exists prior to something else, it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else. — creativesoul

Yes, but you are talking about the existence of things both dependent and depending; that is the point. You can say that something depends on something else, but that is not the same as saying that the existence of the thing depends on something else, or the existence of something else. To talk of existential dependency is already to talk of existence. Try formulating your distinction between existential dependency and other kinds of mere dependency without talking in terms of "existential" "exist" and "existence". The idea of existence or being is just the broadest most general concept we can apply to all objects of thought and experience.

What you're missing here is the analysis of the different kinds of existence we can conceive of. — Janus

Different kinds of existence. How so?

Physical existence, fictional existence, conceptual existence, possible existence, desired existence.

Oh, is that all.

Yes that is all; though more than is imagined in Banno's sadly circumscribed world apparently! :cry:

And we are off to insults. Meh.

So, there is no implied insult in your "Oh, is that all."? It's certainly seems to be an attempted dismissal or belittlement instead of a charitably motivated argument that engages in good faith. C'mon man... own your shit... for once... :roll:

My apologies; It;s just that there is no obvious connection between what my comment on existence and your reply. If you care to fill in the blanks...

OK, thanks, no problem, perhaps I misunderstood...

What you're missing here is the analysis of the different kinds of existence we can conceive of. — Janus


Different kinds of existence. How so? — Banno

So, you asked the above question regarding my statement about the different kinds of existence we can imagine. And I answered with:

Physical existence, fictional existence, conceptual existence, possible existence, desired existence. — Janus

So, I am puzzled that you would say that you cannot see the obvious connection between my comment on the different kinds of existence we can imagine and my reply which listed some of those different kinds.

You've just named them, so you've answered your own question ! — fresco

So on your view you can't visualize a shape as shape, you necessarily have the word "shape" in mind?

But that's not what you said — Banno

Oh Banno, you goof you. Do you really not understand what I'm saying? Or are you just altering my words so you have something to argue about?

It's quite basic.

Let's review.

Are you now saying that the need of a tree for water is not inherent in the tree itself...

Honestly, I am having difficulty thinking in such a confused fashion. — Banno

I'm saying the tree is dependent upon water which it does not provide for itself. — Merkwurdichliebe

You seriously don't understand? Let me explain again, in one stroke, instead of scattered posts.

Really...it's really not that difficult.


Inherent to the existing tree is its dependency on water. In other words, the tree needs water for its existence, yet because the water it needs exists independent to it, certain conditions are required that provide direct access to existing water. In other words the very water it depends on is not intrinsic to the tree, thus it depends upon proper conditions, or a set of relations, to obtain this water. The tree depends upon many relations beyond itself that provide what is necessary for its existence.

This, at minimum, shows that a tree's existence is relative.

That's just not true, since existence is the one attribute all things, however diverse, share.
— Janus

Let's think on that. If existence is had by all things, then there can be no difference between things that exist and things that don't...

And hence, that such-and-such exists adds nothing to it that's not already implicit in the such-and-such. — Banno

So existence is the one attribute all things share, and there are different kinds of existence.

Ok, so I am presuming that there must be something that each of these kinds has in common, such that they are all the one attribute.

You'd need a lot more than just that to have me take any more interest in your line of thought.

You'd need a lot more than just that to have me take any more interest in your line of thought. — Banno

You have no argument against my line of thought. Every point you have made, I have shown to be confused and mistaken. So it is to be expected that you would prefer to take no interest.

Ok, so I am presuming that there must be something that each of these kinds has in common, such that they are all the one attribute. — Banno

One thing they all have in common, is that any confirmation of any type of existing thing is dependent upon an observer.

One thing they all have in common, is that any confirmation of any type of existing thing is dependent upon an observer. — Merkwurdichliebe

Nuh. There are things that no one has seen.

Nuh. There are things that no one has seen. — Banno

Like gravity, right? We only infer its existence indirectly through the observation of other things that are affected by it. Nevertheless, it still requires an observer to confirm it.

Like gravity, right? — Merkwurdichliebe

Nuh. Simpler stuff, like one of the grains of barley in the chook food.

it still requires an observer to confirm it. — Merkwurdichliebe

Sure - to confirm that it exists.

But it still exists.

That works too.

...

I cannot philosophically commune with the idea of an 'observer independent world' even though we obviously operate, moment to moment, on that basis as though there were. — fresco

If I'm following, you move about the world and interact with it on the basis that there is an 'observer independent world'. You just don't philosophically commune with it?

Actually, now that I think about this, I'm sort of in agreement. I also do not philosophically commune with the idea of an 'observer independent world'. I simply accept that this is by far the only rational explanation for the way things are.

Now is there a 'mind-independent and language independent world'? No one knows — EricH

I think it couldn't be more obvious that there is, and I see the view that it's a problematic question as pretty juvenile if not infantile (if I'm being honest rather than trying to be PC and not hurt anyone's feelings). — Terrapin Station

I could have been clearer there. When I said 'no one knows', I meant that - at least to my knowledge - it cannot be proven philosophically/logically (or any other way) with absolute certainty.

That said, I have not seen any other explanation that makes any sense. In particular I do not philosophically commune with these notions that existence is some sort of language construct.

As far as I can tell we are on the same side - at least for this discussion.

I find that talking in terms of something's existence is just talking about the thing.

Existential dependency doesn't require talking in terms of something's 'existence'. It's more about a common sense method of approach. It requires talking in terms of something's elemental constituency. If something consists of something else, it is existentially dependent upon that something else. If something exists prior to something else, it cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else.
— creativesoul

Yes, but you are talking about the existence of things both dependent and depending; that is the point. — Janus

That's not true, because I'm not talking in such terms. I'm talking about the thing being existentially dependent upon something else. That talk is grounded upon knowledge of what the thing(s) in question consist(s) in/of.

That is not the same as saying that the thing's existence is existentially dependent upon something else.

You can say that something depends on something else, but that is not the same as saying that the existence of the thing depends on something else, or the existence of something else.

Right. It's not the same kind of linguistic practice. So, why did you say otherwise above? You're contradicting yourself. Don't get all para-consistent on me here.

:wink:

The idea of existence or being is just the broadest most general concept we can apply to all objects of thought and experience.

Here's what I've figured out. When people start using the term "existence" as a proxy, as a noun, as a name for something else, it is as vacuous a notion as they come.

The term "existence" has no referent.

That's not true, because I'm not talking in such terms. — creativesoul

You are talking in such terms, though. The term 'existential' is an adjective pertaining to the noun 'existence'. So when you talk of existential dependence you are saying that something depends, not for some mere function or other, but for it's very existence, on something else. So, the notion of existence cannot be an empty one if you cannot formulate your distinction between existential dependence and other forms of dependence without using it.

The term "existence" has no referent. — creativesoul

So, why are you using it? Try formulating your usual arguments without using it, and see how far you get.

You can say that something depends on something else, but that is not the same as saying that the existence of the thing depends on something else, or the existence of something else.


Right. It's not the same kind of linguistic practice. So, why did you say otherwise above? You're contradicting yourself. — creativesoul

I haven't contradicted myself as far as i can see. If you want to show me that I have, then show me where I "said otherwise"?

You are talking in such terms, though. The term 'existential' is an adjective pertaining to the noun 'existence'. — Janus

In some uses.

I use "existentially dependent" and "existential dependency". So here, the term "existential" demarcates a kind of dependency not a kind of existence.

It is very useful and reliable. I'm sold.

I haven't contradicted myself as far as i can see. If you want to show me that I have, then show me where I "said otherwise"? — Janus

Nah. I'm not worried if you're ok with it.