A Relevant Definition for Existence: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » A Relevant Definition for Existence » A Relevant Definition for Existence

A Relevant Definition for Existence
A characteristic of existence that gives more meaning to the concept.

Page: 1 2 3 4

A Relevant Definition for Existence

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/16/09 - 09:00 AM: Subject: A Relevant Definition for Existence	#1
In discussions involving "existence", there is an unseen characteristic of existence that resolves many issues. That charateristic is that in order for something to exist, it must have the property of affect, or the ability to effect. This is to say that if something has effect, then it exists and if it has no effect, then it does not exist. "Effect" in this case refers to causing change of state which might be merely preventing or resisting a current change taking place. Existence == That which has effect. That which has the ability to affect. There are 4 reasons to accept this definition. 1) Rational relevance - If something has truly no effect on anything whatsoever, we really don't care if it exists anyway. We can propose trillions of things that might exist but don't have effect. What would be the point? It would be a waste of mind time. 2) Detectable Empiricism - We decide that something exists only when we detect that something is having effect. All of our senses function based on the effect that something else has upon them. We use equipment to increase our sensory ability, but still if nothing effects the equipment in any way, we declare that nothing was there. 3) Common Usage - In reality, people are already using the word "exist" to mean this definition. They often never think about it, but in every case of which I am aware, the person really means that something existing means that it has the potential to affect something even if not already affecting something. 4) Support from Science - Science concluded long ago that in reality all things have at least some minuscule affect on all other things. Often this is more of a chain effect than a direct effect.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/16/09 - 09:15 AM:	#2
By definition, something which is epiphenomenal has no effect. Does this mean that nothing that is epiphenomenal exists?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/16/09 - 09:37 AM:	#3
reincarnated wrote: By definition, something which is epiphenomenal has no effect. Does this mean that nothing that is epiphenomenal exists? I have to assume you are referring to the mental concern of epiphenomena. All mental phenomina have affect (or cause effect). That effect is the result of a long chain of minicule effects that stemmed from the thought (or mental aberation). The definition of the word "epiphenomena" refers to the peak or final outcome which has no "relevant effect". Every thought , dream, or emotion exists because it affects the mind in which it inhabits. But subjects of the dream might or might not exist outside of the dream.

Simple Occam
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 728

Posted 10/16/09 - 10:16 AM:	#4
JSSaint wrote: <span class="quoteby">reincarnated wrote:</span> By definition, something which is epiphenomenal has no effect. Does this mean that nothing that is epiphenomenal exists? I have to assume you are referring to the mental concern of epiphenomena. All mental phenomina have affect (or cause effect). That effect is the result of a long chain of minicule effects that stemmed from the thought (or mental aberation). The definition of the word "epiphenomena" refers to the peak or final outcome which has no "relevant effect". I had the same question right away as did reincarnated. You response seems contradictory. Epiphenomena are by caused by something else but do not cause anything else to happen. If you think that mental phenomena are the cause of things happening then you do not think they are epiphenomenal. Saying they have no 'relevant' effect doesn't help matters at all. There is nothing wrong with your definition except that it doesn't really explain anything to offer it. It doesn't explain how something causes something else or even what you mean by causation. Wouldn't it also imply that anything that exists is also caused by somehtng else? Having complained that it doesn't do enough, I hasten to say I"m glad to see someone thinking about ontology in an empirical way. Edited by Simple Occam on 10/16/09 - 10:46 AM

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/16/09 - 10:28 AM:	#5
Now wait. A definition does NOT attempt to fully explain everything associated with the word. The definition of an apple does not tell of how the apple grows from the tree. It merely explains to what relevance the word itself is referring. The word "existence" is referring to the relevant concern of having affect upon other existence. ALL mental activities have effect on the minds they inhabit. The only issue of epiphenomena is one of whether those mental effects have outside physical effects. This is an issue outside the concern of a definition of the word "existence". Science and rational thinking accepts that anything that exists anywhere in the entire universe actually has at least miniscule effect on everything within the entire universe. If something is thought to truly have no effect whatsoever on anything at all, why would anyone care if it "existed"? Thus a rational limit to place on the meaning of the word is that if something truly has no effect whatsoever, then let's not claim that it exists, else the word loses any useful meaning.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/17/09 - 04:32 AM:	#6
James S Saint wrote: I have to assume you are referring to the mental concern of epiphenomena. All mental phenomina have affect (or cause effect). That effect is the result of a long chain of minicule effects that stemmed from the thought (or mental aberation). The definition of the word "epiphenomena" refers to the peak or final outcome which has no "relevant effect". I am not referring to anything in particular - only to the property of epiphenomenalism. Your definition of existence would imply that nothing which exists could be epiphenomenal. James S Saint wrote: If something is thought to truly have no effect whatsoever on anything at all, why would anyone care if it "existed"? Why? Because there is a school of thought which says mental events are epiphenomenal (not that I subscribe to this school).
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

IndivisiblePrinciple
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 8

Posted 10/17/09 - 06:58 AM:	#7
I almost don't mind your definition except that it is admittedly pivoting around a criteria of empiric verification. Since this is the case then I am afraid that the supposed accuracy and relevance of your definition falls very short and is very flawed. Without needing to get into all sorts of arguments over the positions of "esoteric" or metaphysical principles, we can keep the basis for my contention very grounded and practical. There are many examples in history of things which, due to lack of knowledge or technology, etc, etc, were not empirically perceived as the causes of the effects they produced. Does this mean that they ceased to "exist" before being empirically verified? Obviously not. Take the black plague for instance. The popular belief was that it was the effect of some kind of evil spirits or curse - but the fact is that it was simply a hygienic issue. But as long as the actual cause wasn't properly identified as germs, does that mean they didnt exist? Now I would like to say that I realize that since the germs were responsible for a perceivable effect, the fact that they existed as the cause of the plague (regardless of popular belief) is perfectly congruent with your initial definition. But the point which I am trying to bring to light is that our perception of effects and our ability ascertain their causes, and thus determine the status of an objects existence (and what to speak of all phases of existence on the whole) is hardly anything to brag about or base a campaign of purported definitive knowledge upon. Sorry, but that's just the position we are in if we want to be at all thorough and honest in our approach to ontology. Another example of the inherent fallibility of us relying on determining something's existence by its effects is seen in high frequency sound waves. Until there was sufficient research and technology to verify it, the fact that there are ranges of sounds which, say for instance, dogs can hear and humans can't was completely unknown. But do such sounds exist? According to your definition - yes. But did/does our ability to empirically verify them have any bearing on their existance? So although I feel I agree with your key principle, ie that that which exists has an effect, I can say that your estimation of the role we play, or can play, in determining a thing's existence by its effects is faulty and unacceptable. Edited by unenlightened on 10/17/09 - 02:45 PM. Reason: punctuation

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/17/09 - 08:15 AM:	#8
reincarnated wrote: I am not referring to anything in particular - only to the property of epiphenomenalism. Your definition of existence would imply that nothing which exists could be epiphenomenal. Why? Because there is a school of thought which says mental events are epiphenomenal (not that I subscribe to this school). I think the people involved in the concern of eriphenominalism are confused and thus presume conclusions that are unappropriate. It is difficult for most people to obtain an understanding of both the hardware and the software at their deepest roots and at the same time. The mind tends to accept one and not the other. After enough relational observation, the light finally comes on and it is seen what physical activities are actually involved in mental thought and how they play together. The "pure epiphenomenalist" would be wrong in thinking that thought does not have any physical consequence.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/17/09 - 08:33 AM:	#9
IndivisiblePrinciple wrote: I almost dont mind your definition except that it is admittedly pivoting around a criteria of empiric verification. Since this is the case then I am afraid that the supposed accuracy and relevance of your definition falls very short and is very flawed. The definition requires no empiricism at all. Empiricism is about ones knowledge, not about reality. The definition is about existence, not your ability to know of it. It implies that if something exists, then there "should" be a means to detect it. But the definition does not require that if you do not know how to detect something, then that something must not exist. In the debates concerning the existence of God, for example, the definition does not favor either side of the argument except in the case of the Deist who claims that God no longer has affect upon the universe. This would mean that to the Deist, God no longer exists although he could claim that God is merely sitting on the side lines watching (effectively not existing). But I find it interesting that you predicate what to believe based on where you think the belief might lead. You will accept that 2+2=4 only if it makes your bank account positive. The proposed definition is really only putting the truth into words. As stated in the OP, people already believe what the definition says. They just don't realize it.

IndivisiblePrinciple
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 8

Posted 10/17/09 - 04:53 PM:	#10
I do agree with the proposed principle that "that which exist has effect", but regarding the four reasons given to accept this definition, I think the first two are counter productive. As far as "rational relevance" goes, on the basis of what I said earlier, I think we put are self at a disadvantage by saying: "If something has truly no effect on anything whatsoever, we really don't care if it exists anyway." The reason being that the very scope of our ability to tentatively asses whether "something truly has no effect on anything whatsoever" is so limited, vulnerable, and volatile that it basically disqualifies us from ever being able to authentically arrive at this "conclusion" or make this assertion. Of course through methods of reasoning we may to able to tenably eliminate certain notions, concepts, or hypothesis on the basis of accepted or verified truths, but even this may be fallible. And regarding your second reason to accept this definition, in your previous response to me you said, "the definition is about existence, not your ability to know of it", but while advocating it with the notion of "detectable empiricism" you said, "we decide that something exists only when we detect that something is having effect. All of our senses function based on the effect that something else has upon them". So in actuality, it seems to me that you stance on defining "existence" is largely connected, and thus compromised, by the criteria of our ability know of it. I believe that the ontological validity of your essential point i.e that that which exists has effect, should be accepted. But that we should be candid and careful in our estimation of what we can actually conclude or disprove on its basis. Edited by IndivisiblePrinciple on 10/17/09 - 05:09 PM

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.