Do concepts exist?

[meta]

--------------------------------------------

This thread of the forum is dedicated to continuing a discussion that started between JohnH. and myself in a topic by Wiltin  about possible answers to the hypothetic question of a believer: "What if you are wrong (about God)?" 

 

JohnH initialy supported Pepin's argument (by quoting him) against God:
 "I cannot be wrong about this, as God does not exist because God cannot exist".

 

This affirmation troubled me, not because i believe in god, but because it makes no sense to me. I then asked:
 "How could one prove that God cannot exist"?

 

John's answered with a claim that truly started the discussion:

"If someone proposes an entity with contradictory properties, we can say that the entity does not exist."

I then replied that entities with contradictory properties do exist, therefore his argument against God might prove that God is illogical,

but proving that God is illogical is different from proving it cannot exist.
My example was:

I propose to you an entity with contradictory properties that exists:

"Humans can be doers of unbelievable cruelty and incredible love and generosity"

(The entity Humanity is doing both at the same time)

JohnH. replied that:

"Humanity is incapable of doing anything–it's an abstraction."

He also added this video of Stefan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVi6PJO3rIk&feature=player_embedded

 

--------------------------------------------

 

I believe that John's last argument, added to the points of Stefan and similar opinions that were expressed in the chat,

kind of bring up the very focus point of our disagreement and take the discussion to another (fascinating) level:

 

Stefan says in the video at 3:18 that:

"Concepts do no exist in the reel world."

John is implying the same thing (correct me if I am wonrg) by saying that:

" an abstraction is incapable of doing anything (in the reel world)".
Similar arguments was presented to me in the chat yesterday:
"you cannot touch your  thoughts"  (ie. it doesn’t exist in the "reel world")

 

I am just trying to clarify our disagrement, I think that those three arguments sums up the first side of the debate.

I will now try to explain my side of it.

What Stefan and other people understand by “real world” is the key of the problem.

 I think that the “real world”, the physical world, based on the known elemental dimensions of space, time matter and energy is only an hypothesis.

A strong axiom on which every modern science is based on.
But I speculate that there might be more to reality than those dimensions. And that the dimensions axiom could be incomplete.
I am not talking here about metaphysical or some esoteric believe.
I am talking about Information as a independent dimension.
The traditional Information theory is today being shattered from a scientific point of view.  Scientists in biology,

genetics and quantum physics are also mentioning this theory that Information might be a separated dimension.

When the conversation started I had no idea this was a scientific theory.

(I would recommended anyone interested to search for “biology + information” , “science + information”, you will find great stuff.

I could link papers but most of them are in French, because I searched in French.)

But it is a theory, a very interesting one, coming from the most modern sciences (biology and quantum physics).

What I have been doing in this debate is presenting a case for that theory, not from a scientific point of view, but from a logical , philosophical point of view.

To me concepts exist.
Most of my opponents have made a distinction within “existence”. By saying that a concept might exist there (in your brain, your thoughts) but not here (in reality, physical  “real” world).
To me here and there are parts of the same reality (which is composed of the dimensions previously mentioned).

Saying that a concept exists somewhere (in thought processes) but is not “real” implies that something might exists outside of reality, it  sounds very illogical and impossible to me.

What I mean is that thoughts are reality, Information is reality.

I believe I made a strong case with my Humanity example. Humanity is humankind, it is not an abstraction, it is a biological entity called a specie. Its actions are real.
A specie is an entity. And is capable of doing things, that can be described: "Humankind developed tools"
Yet you (@JohnH.) claim that humankind is an abstraction incapable of doing anything.
The fact that "humankind" implies actions of individual doesn't mean in any way that "humankind" doesn't exist as a whole.
A body is more than the sum of individual piled up cells.

An ocean is more than individual drops of water.
A brain is more than a sum of neurons.

I would agree to say that an intelligence is needed to give life to the concept of ocean (for example) or to the concept of biological entities.
But at this point, intelligence is simply structuring, interpreting, analyzing something that is outside of our thoughts, that is Information outside of Intelligence.

So basically I believe concepts are real because information is real.

 

I have a lot to say about this but I will stop for now and let other people talk ^^
This topic being quite complex, I hope I am being clear.

-------------------------------------------------------

EDIT:

Resources: Here is an english article which mentiones the scientific theory I speak about, the first half of  the second page explicitly mentions information as a fifth category of nature. The (Steane 1998) reference in the article is a mention of "Quantum computing" By  Steane. http://www.normalesup.org/~adanchin/PDF_files/articles_09/biogerontology09.pdf

about this author who I have been reading since last night: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Danchin

[WWW]

meta,

 

Here is a video that I think you may find some value in: http://youtu.be/ALq8Rrr2mfg 

[Brentb]

The dimensions of a universe have to apply to the entire universe. 

 

Time and space exist throughout the entire universe. Information presupposes consciousness, and therefore cannot exist throughout the vast majority of the universe. Are you intending to make a case for a universal consciousness?

 

Can you directly measure or observe a concept?

[Kevin Beal]

I have the concept unicorn. Electrical activity in my brain exists forming my subjective thoughts around unicorns, but that unicorn that I conceive does not itself exist within my mind or out in space. Neuronal activity is not a unicorn, obviously.

 

Concepts describe the object of our conscious thinking experience. The thinking experience exists, not necessarily the object, such as in the case of illusions, imagination, fantasy, etc. If concepts existed, there would be no such things as illusions.

 

A concept does not exist. The thing that concept points to might exist, but not the concept itself.

[Wiltin]

ex·ist   [ig-zist]

verb (used without object)

1.

to have actual being; be:

 

con·cept   [kon-sept] Show IPA

noun

1.

a general notion or idea;

 

no·tion   [noh-shuhn] Show IPA

noun

1.

a general understanding; vague or imperfect conception or idea of something:

 

i·de·a  [ahy-dee-uh, ahy-deeuh] Show IPA

noun

1.

any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.

 

Purely based on definitions I would say concepts exist in the mind. What more explanation is needed? You could waste a lifetime caught up on these kinds of questions.

[Brentb]

 

Purely based on definitions I would say concepts exist in the mind. What more explanation is needed? You could waste a lifetime caught up on these kinds of questions.

 

 

This begs the question. Does the mind exist in reality?

[dsayers]

The definition of "idea" offered is flawed. To exist in the real world is to have matter and energy. While the brain certainly has that, the mind that it contains does not. Therefore the phrase "exists in the mind" is internally inconsistent. Is this logically sound?

[Kevin Beal]

Purely based on definitions I would say concepts exist in the mind. What more explanation is needed? You could waste a lifetime caught up on these kinds of questions.

A forest is a concept. It doesn't exist in your mind. There is no forest in your mind.

 

The "mind" in this context is a subjective phenomena produced by the brain. It occupies no space and contains within it nothing at all, physically speaking. The contents of conscious experience are things like perceptions, desires, beliefs, etc. These things do not exist, but are in reference to things that can exist. Concept, belief, desire, etc describe subjective experiences produced by the brain.

 

"Exists in the mind" is a convenient shorthand, but philosophically speaking it's absolutely untrue. This confusion arises out of the human ability to "create" institutional "reality" where they represent things as existing. The lines on a map aren't actually representative of big black lines carved in the earth. This is very useful most of the time for division of labor, contract, common law, and things like this. But sometimes it's used to exploit people such as in the case of "countries". They exploit the ambiguous nature of the word "exist" in ascribing characteristics to collectives independent of the individuals who make up those collectives.

 

The distinction is actually very important and it stands up logically time and time again. It's not like the scholastics who asked if Adam had a belly button, or asking what's beyond the universe. It has actual implications in our lives.

[jpahmad]

I think concepts are like colors. Color is a subjective experience. The color red doesn't exist objectively, it only exists as an effect I experience after my eyes process photons of light.I can sum it up like this: Photons exist. Eyes exist. Color doesn't exist.

I have the concept unicorn. Electrical activity in my brain exists forming my subjective thoughts around unicorns, but that unicorn that I conceive does not itself exist within my mind or out in space. Neuronal activity is not a unicorn, obviously.

Couldn't we substitute "color" for "unicorns?"Anything that requires being perceived by a conscious mind in order to exist, cannot exist in objective reality, and therefore, does not exist.Wait, but then I would have to say that pain doesn't exist either. That's weird.

[Kevin Beal]

Couldn't we substitute "color" for "unicorns?"

Yes. And for the reasons you mentioned.

 

That is not to say though that subjective experience is arbitrary or is not causal in any way. Things like learned paralysis and phantom limbs are an example of this. And maybe even more fundamentally, you can think that you saw a lion, but it was actually coincidental lighting on some dirt mound can cause you to run away.

 

And just because your dreams don't actually exist, it doesn't make them arbitrary or anything like that. They serve an important function.

 

Philosopher John Searle makes a distinction between ontologically subjective vs ontologically objective. Ontology refers to claims about existence. The ontologically objective being things we can touch, rocks, trees etc. Ontologically subjective referring to things that "exist" subjectively within human minds. You might be surprised how much falls into the second category (deontic powers, functions of objects, semantics, etc).

 

If we accept his distinction we can save concepts from non-existence, but with the important qualifier that it exists subjectively. I was conflating "existing" with "ontologically objective". And I think the distinction he presents is much more useful and accurate.

 

So, totally contradict myself, I'm going to flip flop and say that concepts exist in an ontologically subjective way, since I accept his conclusions based on the arguments he presents in his books and this video:

 

[jpahmad]

So, totally contradict myself, I'm going to flip flop and say that concepts exist in an ontologically subjective way, since I accept his conclusions based on the arguments he presents in his books and this video:

Great, so if we go with Searle's idea, then we can just conclude that concepts "exist" subjectively. This makes everyone happy. More importantly though, it renders listening to someone's subjective concept of "god" pointless and of little consequence to any rational person. So that should take care of the OP's question.

[Kevin Beal]

Great, so if we go with Searle's idea, then we can just conclude that concepts "exist" subjectively. This makes everyone happy. More importantly though, it renders listening to someone's subjective concept of "god" pointless and of little consequence to any rational person. So that should take care of the OP's question.

Unless we were talking about a god that exists insofar as he is represented as existing in a collective sense. (Money is an example of this.)

 

But in that event it would make no sense to say that he exists independent of human minds the way trees and rocks do.

[Wiltin]

The definition of "idea" offered is flawed. To exist in the real world is to have matter and energy. While the brain certainly has that, the mind that it contains does not. Therefore the phrase "exists in the mind" is internally inconsistent. Is this logically sound?

 

I agree with your position that concepts don't exist in the real world. The fact that you had to add "in the real world", rather than just saying "To exist is to have matter and energy", means that the definition of the word "exist", as it is commonly used, isn't always confined to the real world. The word "exist" isn't precise enough on it's own.

[dsayers]

Color is a subjective experience. The color red doesn't exist objectively

 

This reads to me like dogs don't exist. There's a beast and the label dog is subjective, even though the beast's existence is objective. Colors have specific wavelengths and even the color blind could measure this independent of their own experience of it. I think it was Searle who explained that while a chair exists objectively, we still experience it subjectively. I wonder if this is where my confusion stems from.

 

I agree with your position that concepts don't exist in the real world. The fact that you had to add "in the real world", rather than just saying "To exist is to have matter and energy", means that the definition of the word "exist", as it is commonly used, isn't always confined to the real world. The word "exist" isn't precise enough on it's own.

 

I understand what you're saying, but it was more of a belaboring the context. A lot of people have lost sight of the fact that exist means has matter or energy. For example, say you're packing a suitcase and you ask somebody in the room, "Will this fit?" If you had asked them, "Will this fit in my suitcase?" you haven't actually asked a different question. You've just labored the context for precision's sake.

[Wiltin]

I understand what you're saying, but it was more of a belaboring the context. A lot of people have lost sight of the fact that exist means has matter or energy. For example, say you're packing a suitcase and you ask somebody in the room, "Will this fit?" If you had asked them, "Will this fit in my suitcase?" you haven't actually asked a different question. You've just labored the context for precision's sake.

Maybe I'm being pedantic but if "exist" is always limited to things consisting of matter and energy, what word should replace exist in the statement "concepts exist in the mind"? If the dictionary.com definition of "idea" is truly flawed as you say, they should be informed.

[Pepin]

I agree with your position that concepts don't exist in the real world. The fact that you had to add "in the real world", rather than just saying "To exist is to have matter and energy", means that the definition of the word "exist", as it is commonly used, isn't always confined to the real world. The word "exist" isn't precise enough on it's own.

 

In a book I am writing, I distinguish between the two in the following way.

 

To say something exists, is to say that it has in effect on reality.

 

To say something exists in reality, is to say it has an effect on reality, and that it is a physical phenomenon. Physical phenomenon essentially refers to the science of physics, but can be sensibly be extended to include other sciences. The easiest way to imagine what it means to say "exist in reality" is to think of a time in the universe where there is no life.

 

With these definitions, it is possible to say that sensations, perceptions, concepts, and dreams exist, but do not exist in reality.

 

As a good example, the concept of a deity does not exist in reality, but the concept of a deity has a large impact on people's behavior in reality. Another good example is that someone might perceive the form of a bear in the dark distant woods, when in reality there was no bear. Though this bear does not exist, the perception of the bear does exist, and has a great affect on the person.

 

The use the term tends to be contextual, which I think is fine for most conversations, though not for philosophical texts though. For instance, if we have a debate on the existence of god, it is implied that we are talking about the existence of god in reality, not conceptually or perceptually. If we are on the other hand talking about the existence of concepts, it likely isn't implied that concepts do not exist in reality as this sort of understanding isn't very common, and we will distinguish between existing in reality and existing perceptually or conceptually.

[meta]

The dimensions of a universe have to apply to the entire universe. 

 

Time and space exist throughout the entire universe. Information presupposes consciousness, and therefore cannot exist throughout the vast majority of the universe. Are you intending to make a case for a universal consciousness?

 

Can you directly measure or observe a concept?

I am specificaly implying that Information might exist outside of consciousness. I don't agree with your statement.Also you have no possible way , even in theory, to prove or measure the uniformity of Time and Space through the entire universe.And yes, I can directly measure or observe concepts and their evolution through time, like the concept of communication or language.

I have the concept unicorn. Electrical activity in my brain exists forming my subjective thoughts around unicorns, but that unicorn that I conceive does not itself exist within my mind or out in space. Neuronal activity is not a unicorn, obviously.

 

Concepts describe the object of our conscious thinking experience. The thinking experience exists, not necessarily the object, such as in the case of illusions, imagination, fantasy, etc. If concepts existed, there would be no such things as illusions.

 

A concept does not exist. The thing that concept points to might exist, but not the concept itself.

 

Either you have misread or I was not clear enough.When I say that concept exist, I am not saying that every imagineable concept is alive.

I ll try to put it another way:

We project sense to our "thinking experiences", to make concept.Either concepts exist uniquely in our brain as electrical and chemical stimulies. (what you seem to believe)Or Information outside of our brain is stimulating and creating this "thinking experience".

And therefore concepts are more  an  external imposition than a internal creation.

 

Which come, I guess , to a matter of which comes fisrt. 

 

Purely based on definitions I would say concepts exist in the mind. What more explanation is needed? You could waste a lifetime caught up on these kinds of questions.

 

I agree, It is very theoretical.Stefan mentionned it in a video (linked above), saying it was important . I agree with that.

But I don't agree with him, I guess taking a stab at it and getting your opinions can help.

But it is definitly so theoretical it becomes a bit weird, love it tho.

[Pepin]

I am specificaly implying that Information might exist outside of consciousness. I don't agree with your statement.Also you have no possible way , even in theory, to prove or measure the uniformity of Time and Space through the entire universe.And yes, I can directly measure or observe concepts and their evolution through time, like the concept of communication or language.

To be more accurate, you are arguing that consciousness is not an effect of the known physical forces, but is an effect of another force which is unrelated. Essentially, it is a continuation of the Aristotle vs. Plato debate in regards to concepts and knowledge.

 

I will not rebut any argument tonight due to needing to sleep, but I will suggest that you ought not to describe this other dimension as independent. If concepts do not interact with any of the three spacial dimensions, then that would also mean that concepts cannot affect the three spacial dimensions. If the conceptual realm is incapable of interacting through any of the physical forces due to being at a metaphorical "right angle", then concepts would be nonexistent in our reality, as they would have no capability in manifesting itself into our physical actions.

 

What would make more sense with your argument is to not say that the conceptual realm is independent, but rather that matter has some dependency on this realm, especially in context to humans beings whose understanding of the world is almost entirely in the form of concepts.

[meta]

I think concepts are like colors. Color is a subjective experience. The color red doesn't exist objectively, it only exists as an effect I experience after my eyes process photons of light.I can sum it up like this: Photons exist. Eyes exist. Color doesn't exist.Couldn't we substitute "color" for "unicorns?"Anything that requires being perceived by a conscious mind in order to exist, cannot exist in objective reality, and therefore, does not exist.Wait, but then I would have to say that pain doesn't exist either. That's weird.

Pain is a wonderfull example.I ll try to clarify again what i meant.Is pain stimulating intelligence to create the concept of pain (to understand it)?Because if it is, i think that makes my case.Pain (information) as to exist objectivly, and is only a stimuli that provoke the work of inteligence to create concept (to communicate pain).So the "concept" is actually a necessity of language, but rests on objective information.That might clarify the fact that information exists, i dont know about concept though.

To be more accurate, you are arguing that consciousness is not an effect of the known physical forces, but is an effect of another force which is unrelated. Essentially, it is a continuation of the Aristotle vs. Plato debate in regards to concepts and knowledge.

 

I will not rebut any argument tonight due to needing to sleep, but I will suggest that you ought not to describe this other dimension as independent. If concepts do not interact with any of the three spacial dimensions, then that would also mean that concepts cannot affect the three spacial dimensions. If the conceptual realm is incapable of interacting through any of the physical forces due to being at a metaphorical "right angle", then concepts would be nonexistent in our reality, as they would have no capability in manifesting itself into our physical actions.

 

What would make more sense with your argument is to not say that the conceptual realm is independent, but rather that matter has some dependency on this realm, especially in context to humans beings whose understanding of the world is almost entirely in the form of concepts.

As I said, I consider Information to be a separated dimension (category of nature) that lies on top of the 4 (not 3) previous one : Time, Space, Matter and Energy.

Those 5 categories are interconnected and interdependent. Reality is the result of those interdependeces.So I would say they can definitly affect each other, they are interdependent yet they mix.

We can see them as the the basic ingredients of the recipe of Reality. They mix yet they are different.But Information is indeed the realm of intelligence, where we thrive. I would rather call it the realm of Information rather than the "conceptual realm".sweet dreams!

Maybe I'm being pedantic but if "exist" is always limited to things consisting of matter and energy, what word should replace exist in the statement "concepts exist in the mind"? If the dictionary.com definition of "idea" is truly flawed as you say, they should be informed.

 

 

This reads to me like dogs don't exist. There's a beast and the label dog is subjective, even though the beast's existence is objective. Colors have specific wavelengths and even the color blind could measure this independent of their own experience of it. I think it was Searle who explained that while a chair exists objectively, we still experience it subjectively. I wonder if this is where my confusion stems from.

 

 

I understand what you're saying, but it was more of a belaboring the context. A lot of people have lost sight of the fact that exist means has matter or energy. For example, say you're packing a suitcase and you ask somebody in the room, "Will this fit?" If you had asked them, "Will this fit in my suitcase?" you haven't actually asked a different question. You've just labored the context for precision's sake.

 

This is the knot.The word "exist", means "have an existence in reality".But.Reality is today supposed to be compose of time, space , matter and energy.If we feel more accurate to say that something "exists in the mind" but "not in real"This means that there is something outside of known reality (matter space energy time) that is better fit to describe existence within the mind.To me that something is Information, which is a newly acknowkledged component of reality.From a logical point of view, this 5th dimension is a necessity because if we don't consider it, we are considering that something (concept) exist (in the mind) but doesnt exist ( in real). Which makes no sense to me what so ever because there is only one reality.I totaly agree with dsayers dogs example.

[Kevin Beal]

The word "exist", means "have an existence in reality".

But.Reality is today supposed to be compose of time, space , matter and energy.If we feel more accurate to say that something "exists in the mind" but "not in real"This means that there is something outside of known reality (matter space energy time) that is better fit to describe existence within the mind.To me that something is Information, which is a newly acknowkledged component of reality.

This is easily solved by changing the word "exist" to describe things which act causally upon reality rather than things with a physical, material existence. My perception that a tiger is on the other side of that brush has caused me to sweat. That perception exists in an ontologically subjective sense (see my previous post).

 

There is absolutely no need to invent any other "components of reality". It's just semantics, not quantum mechanics or magic or whatever.

[meta]

This is easily solved by changing the word "exist" to describe things which act causally upon reality rather than things with a physical, material existence. My perception that a tiger is on the other side of that brush has caused me to sweat. That perception exists in an ontologically subjective sense (see my previous post).

 

There is absolutely no need to invent any other "components of reality". It's just semantics, not quantum mechanics or magic or whatever.

New "components of reality" have been created as concepts in the human mind. Time, Matter, Energy, Space (usually referred as "dimensions" or "categories of nature" as I read)...But Time and Matter existed before we made the concept.That is my point. The information is there, regardless of us understanding it or not.

 

Also on the contrary I think the present definition of exist is enough.

To me they exist in reality, even if we can't touch them, like dreams or money, previously mentioned.

 

I don't see it as semantic only. Definitely not magic.Once Time is in our head, as a concept, our manners communicating about the concept is semantics.But its scientific existence is something else.

Any conscious intelligent organism that observes the universe will come to an understanding of Time close to ours.That's what i find fascinating. To me there has to be something before our minds, from a logical point of view.

 

 

 

If you allow me, this is another quote from you:"The "mind" in this context is a subjective phenomena produced by the brain. It occupies no space and contains within it nothing at all, physically speaking."If I suppressed your head, I would suppress your mind. There is definitely a link between physical space and the mind.

I don't believe in the soul, to me suppressing the space of the brain is suppressing the mind, therefore the mind is in the brain.

 

Limiting existence to "physically speaking" is limiting existence to "what we can touch". Which is logically unsound to me.The English language exists, Time exists, your dreams exist:If you wake up sweaty from a nightmare, the nightmare provoked a reaction.

Saying that the nightmare doesn't exist because it doesn't physically exists (can't touch it) is defying the basic principle of causality.A "not real" cause having "real effect" makes no sense whatsoever to me.You can't touch Money, but it does exist.(I haven't watched your video link yet, planning on doing it soon) 

[Kevin Beal]

To me they exist in reality, even if we can't touch them, like dreams or money, previously mentioned.

But they don't. They really really don't. Pieces of paper with certain inks exist in reality. "Money" is an institutional abstraction that only "exists" insofar as thinking minds represent it as existing. That's why pieces of paper and bytes on a computer are the same thing regarding their status as "money".

 

This is covered in the video.

[meta]

But they don't. They really really don't. Pieces of paper with certain inks exist in reality.

So you are saying that paper an ink exist because we can touch them physically, but dreams don't exist cause we can't?

How do you address this previous point:

"If you wake up sweaty from a nightmare, the nightmare provoked a reaction.

Saying that the nightmare doesn't exist because it doesn't physically exists (can't touch it) is defying the basic principle of causality:

A "not real" cause having "real effect" makes no sense whatsoever to me."

[Kevin Beal]

So you are saying that paper an ink exist because we can touch them physically, but dreams don't exist cause we can't?

How do you address this previous point:

"If you wake up sweaty from a nightmare, the nightmare provoked a reaction.

Saying that the nightmare doesn't exist because it doesn't physically exists (can't touch it) is defying the basic principle of causality:

A "not real" cause having "real effect" makes no sense whatsoever to me."

That's not what I said. I am saying that dreams and money exist subjectively in a manner completely different than rocks and trees. The "exist" is implying causality, not material substance / physical reality / ontological objectivity / whatever you want to call it.

 

The answer in one phrase: human subjectivity.

 

My perception of a tiger in the tall grass, while not actually representing reality (it was just a trick of the eyes), causes me to run away. The ontologically objective parts of this phenomenon are electrical / chemical signals in the brain, sweating, running away, things like this. That doesn't really explain a whole lot about the event. An account that takes into account subjective events is necessary.

 

The turning of the earth causes me the subjective experience, a perception that the sun is setting behind the horizon. That's objectively existing events causing subjectively existing events. My false belief that the sun is circling around the earth causes me to talk to other people in terms of the sun circling the earth. That's subjective events causing objective events.

 

Your challenge assumes that "exist" is the same as "objective ontology". And maybe this is true, but then you have to account for consciousness, dreams, money, etc in a way that makes them ontologically objective and causal in the respect that they have an objective ontology.

 

The consequence of saying that me running away from from the tiger is only causal in the ontologically objective sense is that you cannot say that it was a subjective perception or belief or desire that caused me to run away. It was electrical signals in my brain that caused it. Once you do that, you have a ton of logical problems that need sorting out.

 

I guess that's where this new "component of reality": information comes from. But this doesn't actually solve the problem because "information" is ontologically subjective in the exact same sense that money and dreams are.

 

The 1's and 0's in a computer (for example) do not exist. Electrical currents over tiny metal strips connected to a CPU exist. The information that is supposed to represent is only information to human minds. Without human minds to subjectively experience it, money, "information", dreams, beliefs, pains, perceptions, etc all do not exist.

 

"Information" is especially problematic because it means literally anything you want it to mean. You can represent functionally the grains of sand on a beach as an algorithm. That's why simulations of things are possible. But simulations are not the things they simulate. Likewise, subjectively experienced meaning is not the thing the meaning is derived from. Money is not fibers and inks, colors are not wavelengths, a story is not a collection of pages. These things are represented as existing functionally by human minds.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Kevin Beal

[meta]

_{I ll watch your link today, i promise ^^}

_{Kevin Beal, on 04 Jun 2014 - 7:45 PM, said:}

 

_{My perception of a tiger in the tall grass, while not actually representing reality (it was just a trick of the eyes), causes me to run away. The ontologically objective parts of this phenomenon are electrical / chemical signals in the brain, sweating, running away, things like this. That doesn't really explain a whole lot about the event. An account that takes into account subjective events is necessary.}

_{I guess that's where this new "component of reality": information comes from. But this doesn't actually solve the problem because "information" is ontologically subjective in the exact same sense that money and dreams are.}

_{"Information" is especially problematic because it means literally anything you want it to mean.}

_{I have big trouble with that tiger example.}

 

 _{To me the tiger exists. Regardless of your senses being pointed at it.}

_{When you say that it is only a trick of the eye, you are implying that your subjective existence (an intelligence starring at the tiger, its senses in particular) is necessary for the tiger to have an objective existence (the ontologicall objective phenomenon you speak about).
The cat exists, it will crap pee and kill, whether you witness at it or not doing it.}

_----

_{Information is not subjective. The information in your DNA is not a creation of an intelligence it is Inforamtion intrinsically embedded in matter.}

_{The existence of that information does not depend on any subjective theory about how it works (human genetics sciences) or what it is, it will work and regardless.}

_{----
I might have not been precise enough you are right.
I went back to the wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information#As_an_influence_which_leads_to_a_transformation}

_{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information#As_a_property_in_physics}

_{I guess I have been looking at Information from a very scientific point of view.
Where your view seems more focused on linguistics and philosophy (ontology).}

_-----

_{thanks for you great input btw, i feel like moving forward with this debate! cheers}

[Kevin Beal]

Where your view seems more focused on linguistics and philosophy (ontology).

It is. That is by design. "What is existence?" is not a physics question, it's a philosophical one.

 

I'm not really sure how to respond to what you said about the tiger. I couldn't glean any argument counter to my own, just an assertion that the tiger I (wrongly) perceive does, in fact, exist. And I assume that you mean it exists in the same objective manner that rocks exist. And as I've already said, no it doesn't.

 

I looked up the references that you put forward for your definition of information, and you are in fact incorrect for the reasons I've already stated. "Information" in the context they provide refers to patterns. This is actually an important distinction, since "information" and the pattern are the flipside of the other here. The pattern exists in the ontologically objective sense insofar as the pattern can be measured, observed, etc. The "information" is actually the functional description, in that the pattern means X, or serve the end Y.

 

Meanings and functions do not exist in the way rocks and trees exist.

 

For me to say that the job of the heart is to pump blood throughout my body, I'm already presupposing some values like the fact that blood circulation fits my definition of "healthy". If I held that dying from poor circulation was healthy, I would portray my heart as being dysfunctional. To say that the information means something rather than being something random or static already assumes values in the same respect (that W pattern means Z).

 

My heart exists like a tree exists, and blood pumping is a phenomena that exists like a rock, but the "job" that I assign the heart is a "status function" whose existence is entirely subjective.

 

My body exists objectively, my job as a front end developer exists subjectively. DNA the pattern exists objectively. The "information" it "carries" is subjective. The function it performs is subjective. Ontologically speaking, it just does what it does, and that's as far as we can penetrate without going into the realm of ontological subjectivity.

 

We can have epistemically objective claims about ontologically subjective phenomena. Blood pumping throughout my body is healthy in an epistemically objective sense. (Epistemology referring to claims about knowledge rather than existence).

[meta]

It is. That is by design. "What is existence?" is not a physics question, it's a philosophical one.

 

I'm not really sure how to respond to what you said about the tiger. I couldn't glean any argument counter to my own, just an assertion that the tiger I (wrongly) perceive does, in fact, exist. And I assume that you mean it exists in the same objective manner that rocks exist. And as I've already said, no it doesn't.

 

I looked up the references that you put forward for your definition of information, and you are in fact incorrect for the reasons I've already stated. "Information" in the context they provide refers to patterns. This is actually an important distinction, since "information" and the pattern are the flipside of the other here. The pattern exists in the ontologically objective sense insofar as the pattern can be measured, observed, etc. The "information" is actually the functional description, in that the pattern means X, or serve the end Y.

 

Meanings and functions do not exist in the way rocks and trees exist.

I think you should respect my scientific approach as I respect your philosophical approach.

"is not a physics question, it's a philosophical one." This is a claim, not an argument. If you are unable to argument how I am wrong, please don't claim that I am wrong in using another approach. You can claim a hundred time that "dreams really really don't exist", it is not an argument, just a claim.

 

My argument against yours is very clear. You claim the tiger is "a trick of you eyes"

You say that the perception you have of the tiger doesn't reflect reality :

"_{My perception of a tiger in the tall grass, while not actually representing reality (it was just a trick of the eyes),} "

This is so illogical to me.

The tiger exists in reality, because it would eat the gazelle regardless of your perception. It is not a trick of your eyes, nor the gazelle's eyes. The cat lives, it is real.

 

All you say is that the tiger doesn't exists as the rock does...because it doesnt ("no it doesn't").

No analogy, no example, no argument there, a simple empty claim.

 

 

 The first reference first lines say:

"Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns.^[6][7] In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern.^{[citation needed]} Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind."

It says right there that no conscious mind is needed for information (pattern there, yes) to exist, this is what i have been saying, and is the opposite of your opinion. (Funny how they even take the same example that I used, DNA)

 

Your heart example is wrong.

The very nature of the heart is to pump, it's job made its shape evolve.

The fact that you separate the heart's natural function (pumping) and the "job" that you perceive is highly illogical.

You perceiving the pumping and seeing it as a "job" is you watching the heart doing what it exist for doing.

the heart is real, the pumping is real, and the activity of pumping is real, because the evolution of this muscle to do nothing but it's job (pump) is real. And doesn't depend on you watching it. Its "job" made it what it is.

 

Also saying that the Dna's function is subjective is ridiculous, sorry.

DNA existed before subjective consciousness, saying that it's function is subjective is scientifically very wrong.

All we do there is witness information, its existence is not subjective, but our perception of the phenomenon is.

[Kevin Beal]

You said it was bad to just make claims and not arguments, but your response is full of claims and only a couple of arguments that are just repeats of arguments you already made.

 

My aim is to provide a framework, a series of definitions and distinctions to most consistently and accurately describe what it means to exist. I have done that with reference to many examples of where and how that distinction works. It's not exactly like arguing for something where we already agree on the terms. I have to frame the discussion a bit so that we are definitely talking about the same thing.

 

The tiger bit specifically where I said "no it doesn't" is actually an appropriate response. A claim made with no evidence can be rejected with no evidence. You provided no evidence (as I already pointed out) that the tiger I wrongly perceive exists. You simply claimed it. And I don't have anything against assertions, I just don't like them posing as arguments.

[cynicist]

The definition of "idea" offered is flawed. To exist in the real world is to have matter and energy. While the brain certainly has that, the mind that it contains does not. Therefore the phrase "exists in the mind" is internally inconsistent. Is this logically sound?

 

The mind doesn't exist independently of the brain.

[meta]

You said it was bad to just make claims and not arguments, but your response is full of claims and only a couple of arguments that are just repeats of arguments you already made.

 

My aim is to provide a framework, a series of definitions and distinctions to most consistently and accurately describe what it means to exist. I have done that with reference to many examples of where and how that distinction works. It's not exactly like arguing for something where we already agree on the terms. I have to frame the discussion a bit so that we are definitely talking about the same thing.

 

The tiger bit specifically where I said "no it doesn't" is actually an appropriate response. A claim made with no evidence can be rejected with no evidence. You provided no evidence (as I already pointed out) that the tiger I wrongly perceive exists. You simply claimed it. And I don't have anything against assertions, I just don't like them posing as arguments.

In my previous answer:

In blue I underlined how you claim that this all has to be a philosophical approach and not a scientific one, I don't agree because I think there are different approaches possible, and that we should respect each other's perspective rather than claiming that another approach is wrong. I think it is better to give arguments to whivh approach is best rather than saying ""is not a physics question, it's a philosophical one." ". No claim there.

In purple I respond to your "trick of the eye" about the tiger. I illustrate how the tiger existes outside of your consciousness with the gazelle example. No claim there.

In red i quote wiki, where there is a DNA example close to mine that shows the possibility of the existence of information outside consiousness. You said I was incorretct using the reference because it refers to patterns. It also specificaly refers to consciousness and information. No claim there.

In black i show that the "job" of pumping exists outside of the observer's consiousness. I don't make any claim. I give arguments on how the function of an entity is independant of an observer to name the function. It was the pumping function that made the heart what it is, you naming the function doesnt mean that the function only exists in your mind. No claim there.

 

can you point to the "claims" that my response is supposed to be full of?

 

---------------------

I am watching Searl's vid, at last.

I don't understand one thing.

Can you explain the difference between ontological objectivity and epistemologicobjectivity?

The example he gives at the begining are:

-epistemologic objectivity " Rembrant is born in 1606"

-ontological objectivity " Mountains , mollecules, and tectonics"

 

-epistemologic subjectivity :" Rembrandt is better painter than Vermer"

-ontological subjectivity: "tickles, pains"

 

I think we should make a new thread on this because we are going to go very deep.

 

His definition of ontological subjectivty is @2mn40s :

What can only be perceived by humans (by intelligence or consiousness i guess, not very clear).

 

I really don't understand.

Epistemology is the study of knowldege,and ontology is the study of existence within philosophy.

So I guess that an element that need to be acknowledged by an intelligence would link to knowledge and therefore would be in the epistemologic domain.

And an element that doens't need acknowledgment of intelligence would fit in the ontological domain.

Would you agree on those domain categorization?

 

Because I don't see the difference between a mountain, a mollecule and Rembradnt concerning existence. They all fit in the same category to me.

But he doesn' fit them in the same.

And it is those categories you use for your tiger example:

The stimuly inside your brains you say are ontologically objective.

So you fit cerebral stimulies in Searle's category of the mountain and the mollecule.

But you also say:

"And I assume that you mean it exists in the same objective manner that rocks exist. And as I've already said, no it doesn't."

 

Can you explain to me how you fit the cerebral stimulies in "ontological objective" (mountains, mollecules), but also say that a tiger doen't exists as a rock does.

 

I am sorry, but I really don't get it, it seems so illogical:

The Mountian is an emerging entity of tectonic activity.

The Tiger is an emerging entity of Life.

The brain stimuly is an emerging entity (phenomenon) of a nervous system.

(those are not claims or assumptions, but scientific facts)

 

How could they possibly not be in the same categories as you claim?

 

 

[Kevin Beal]

In blue I underlined how you claim that this all has to be a philosophical approach and not a scientific one, I don't agree because I think there are different approaches possible, and that we should respect each other's perspective rather than claiming that another approach is wrong

You are telling me that I am wrong about how I did that. You are not respecting me according to your own definition of respect. And you make a claim in exactly the respect that you say is bad (how is it disrespectful?). You cannot ask me to do what you won't do.

 

And it is respectful to correct other people. I don't think that it's a philosophical question rather than a physics one, I know it is.

 

Physics is fine to bring up, but physics already assumes a very particular definition of existence that it borrows from philosophy (previously "natural philosophy"). The subject of physics is limited to the ontological objectivity of atoms and physical forces. The objectively epistemic claims it makes all have to do with ontological objectivity. It completely ignores ontological subjectivity (as it should) and thus is not fit for an inclusive basis for what is meant by the word "exists", for the reasons I've already stated.

 

Ontological objectivity: those things we can touch / measure (rocks, trees, etc).

Ontological subjectivity: things like perceptions, consciousness itself, dreams, status functions we project onto objects which only serve that function insofar as we agree that it does, things like that (money, job titles, countries, governments, etc).

Epistemic Objectivity: truth claims which conform to reality (I am 26 years old)

Epistemic Subjectivity: personal preferences (vanilla is worse than chocolate)

 

And tigers do absolutely exist in the same way as rocks and trees. The tiger I wrongly perceive because I mistook a stripe pattern in nature for a tiger does not exist. Otherwise illusions are not illusions. My perception of the tiger exists subjectively, that tiger itself doesn't exist in any sense at all. I think you may have completely misunderstood the point I was making about the tiger. I was simply talking about perceptions, not actual tigers.

 

And please don't tell me how I need to respond to you. That is really irritating.

[meta]

You are telling me that I am wrong about how I did that. You are not respecting me according to your own definition of respect. And you make a claim in exactly the respect that you say is bad (how is it disrespectful?). You cannot ask me to do what you won't do.

 

And it is respectful to correct other people. I don't think that it's a philosophical question rather than a physics one, I know it is.

 

Physics is fine to bring up, but physics already assumes a very particular definition of existence that it borrows from philosophy (previously "natural philosophy"). The subject of physics is limited to the ontological objectivity of atoms and physical forces. The objectively epistemic claims it makes all have to do with ontological objectivity. It completely ignores ontological subjectivity (as it should) and thus is not fit for an inclusive basis for what is meant by the word "exists", for the reasons I've already stated.

 

Ontological objectivity: those things we can touch / measure (rocks, trees, etc).

Ontological subjectivity: things like perceptions, consciousness itself, dreams, status functions we project onto objects which only serve that function insofar as we agree that it does, things like that (money, job titles, countries, governments, etc).

Epistemic Objectivity: truth claims which conform to reality (I am 26 years old)

Epistemic Subjectivity: personal preferences (vanilla is worse than chocolate)

 

And tigers do absolutely exist in the same way as rocks and trees. The tiger I wrongly perceive because I mistook a stripe pattern in nature for a tiger does not exist. Otherwise illusions are not illusions. My perception of the tiger exists subjectively, that tiger itself doesn't exist in any sense at all. I think you may have completely misunderstood the point I was making about the tiger. I was simply talking about perceptions, not actual tigers.

 

And please don't tell me how I need to respond to you. That is really irritating.

I never said you have to respect me.

I said you have to respect my perspective, my point of view for us to have an intelligible dialogue.

Your view on existence is philosophic and linguistic. (mentioning of Stearl, ontological and epistemology differences...)

My view on existence has been scientific from the beginning with many biology, and physics references (Dimensions, species, dna...)

 

I totaly respect your perspective, and I am trying to understand it by asking more details about those epistemologic and ontological differences, and also by analysing your analogies.

 

From this, i think the debate developped  into legitimating our framework (scientific vs. linguistic, both philosophical in a way) though arguments.

 

You know your framework is the right one.

I also know that my framework is the right one.

 

So back at it:

Ontological objectivity: those things we can touch / measure (rocks, trees, etc).

Ontological subjectivity: things like perceptions, consciousness itself, dreams, status functions we project onto objects which only serve that function insofar as we agree that it does, things like that (money, job titles, countries, governments, etc).

Epistemic Objectivity: truth claims which conform to reality (I am 26 years old)

Epistemic Subjectivity: personal preferences (vanilla is worse than chocolate)

 

And tigers do absolutely exist in the same way as rocks and trees. The tiger I wrongly perceive because I mistook a stripe pattern in nature for a tiger does not exist. Otherwise illusions are not illusions. My perception of the tiger exists subjectively, that tiger itself doesn't exist in any sense at all. I think you may have completely misunderstood the point I was making about the tiger. I was simply talking about perceptions, not actual tigers.

I still don't see the difference between epistemic and ontological objectivity.

Can you explain where the difference between a "claim which conforms to reality" and "those things we can touch / measure"?

Because your example are: a tree and a 26 years old human, so what is the difference between those two entities?

How does the fact that you are 26 is not ontological objective? You are an entity that can be touched, your age can be measured.

How does the fact that you named this entity "tree" is not Ontological subjectivity (Language,biological classification, collective intention like Searle says)?

 

You resume very well Searle's categories, I would ask him the same questions. Doesn't make much sense (yet) to me.

 

About your tiger, i have to admit I totally misunderstood. I thought there was a tiger, and that you consider your perception was a trick of the eye.

My bad, now that you talk about strip patterns for a tiger that does not exists, it makes a bit more sense (huge facepalm ) .

I am sorry. I was a bit mislead by the use of "perception" in your original analogy, there actually was no perception if there was no tiger. Anyway, sorry really.

 

Where did I say you need to respond to me? I just asked, you are free to answer.

 

 

[Kevin Beal]

I never said you have to respect me.I said you have to respect my perspective, my point of view for us to have an intelligible dialogue.

Okay. Just change what I said from "me" to "my perspective" then. It's the same point.

 

I don't think this can be productive unless we take things one thing at a time.

[meta]

Okay. Just change what I said from "me" to "my perspective" then. It's the same point.

 

I don't think this can be productive unless we take things one thing at a time.

I am respecting your perspective( from which angle you attack this subject), i am just taking a different one.I acknowledge your view (the linguistic and philosophical framework you establish), I don't agree with it, because i think it makes no sense, this is the point i am trying to make by analysing the terms you use.You decided to adopt Searle's view, i respect that. And I will attack this position with arguments (like the tree/you analogy to counter the epistemic and ontological objectivity difference).I made the thread, I just assumed (wrongly apparently) that you would de-constructed  the scientific framework i mentioned (scientific)before invoking a new one (Searl's) that you know is true.

Addressing each other framework is pretty much taking things from the beginning for me. 

 

[Kevin Beal]

P1. You told me I'm wrong about how I am addressing your challenge.

P2. You told me that telling people that they are wrong is disrespectful to their perspective.

C1. You are not respecting my own perspective about how to address your challenge.

C2. You put forward a rule that I must follow, but you don't have to.

 

If we can't hammer out something as simple as this, I can't imagine we could make any progress in a discussion about advanced metaphysics.