What is existence?

[yrreg]

I am most keen to get folks here for us all to come to concurrence on what is existence.

See if you anyone can understand this concept of existence from me:

"Existence is the object of man's conscious experience."

But before you start objecting to my concept of existence, please first present what is your concept of existence, and please do not bring in dictionaries, just from your stock knowledge and from thinking about existence - so that you are not grounding yourselves on authorities, but from your very own thinking.

[Butter!]

Existence is an emergent property of a functioning neurological system, as experienced by said system.


ETA - Maybe I defined "consciousness" instead, but I honestly think they're more or less the same thing in this context.

[Myriad]

Hmm. Did the mass of gravitationally bound particles we call the sun exist a billion years ago, when there were no humans or functioning neurological systems to be aware of it?

If so, did it only exist back then because we are aware of it now?

If a given definition of existence requires the answer "no" to the first question or "yes" to the second, it's going to be an uphill climb to convince me that definition of existence is sufficiently inclusive.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Butter!

Existence is an emergent property of a functioning neurological system, as experienced by said system.


ETA - Maybe I defined "consciousness" instead, but I honestly think they're more or less the same thing in this context.

Your concept of existence makes existence more difficult to understand than mine: "Existence is the object of man's conscious experience."

You say, "Existence is an emergent property of a functioning neurological system, as experienced by said system."

Suppose I ask you, please use simple quick to understand and few words in your definition of what is existence?

My definition of existence takes only eight (8) words, but yours takes fifteen (15).


Your definition brings up more questions than make the word existence understandable, i.e. that folks can point to things in the objective world outside of words and concepts that are examples of what are things that do have existence, i.e. that are objects of man's conscious experience.

[ynot]

Existence is the reality of the presence of stuff/things.

Existence isn’t a property of “conscious experiences” or “functioning neurological systems“. That would merely be a property of human self-importance ego.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Your concept of existence makes existence more difficult to understand than mine: "Existence is the object of man's conscious experience."

You think so? I can imagine the sun existing. I can imagine the sun existing a hundred million years ago. It's shining on some dinosaurs. I find that easy.

Your version has the sun popping into existence when there's someone there to think about it. I find that borderline insane.

Takes all kinds, i guess.

[yrreg]

Dear everyone here, please take notice of my request in the OP:

"But before you start objecting to my concept of existence, please first present what is your concept of existence, and please do not bring in dictionaries, just from your stock knowledge and from thinking about existence - so that you are not grounding yourselves on authorities, but from your very own thinking."

That goes also for anyone taking to criticize another one's definition, but without first presenting his own.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

You think so? I can imagine the sun existing. I can imagine the sun existing a hundred million years ago. It's shining on some dinosaurs. I find that easy.

Your version has the sun popping into existence when there's someone there to think about it. I find that borderline insane.

Takes all kinds, i guess.

I agree, but great comedy fodder . . .
https://youtu.be/ey2JdXbIDfg

[Butter!]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Your concept of existence makes existence more difficult to understand than mine: "Existence is the object of man's conscious experience."

You say, "Existence is an emergent property of a functioning neurological system, as experienced by said system."

Suppose I ask you, please use simple quick to understand and few words in your definition of what is existence?

My definition of existence takes only eight (8) words, but yours takes fifteen (15).


Your definition brings up more questions than make the word existence understandable, i.e. that folks can point to things in the objective world outside of words and concepts that are examples of what are things that do have existence, i.e. that are objects of man's conscious experience.

Everything I say takes like 15 words, sorry. That's the best I can do.

I don't know that there is an objective world, is my point. No one does. That's why my definition is what it is (confusing and useless).

[ynot]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Dear everyone here, please take notice of my request in the OP:

"But before you start objecting to my concept of existence, please first present what is your concept of existence, and please do not bring in dictionaries, just from your stock knowledge and from thinking about existence - so that you are not grounding yourselves on authorities, but from your very own thinking."

That goes also for anyone taking to criticize another one's definition, but without first presenting his own.

Yep, I took notice and complied with your "rules" . . .

First - My independent definition . . .

Originally Posted by ynot

Existence is the reality of the presence of stuff/things.

Second - My objection to your and another's definitions . . .

Originally Posted by ynot

Existence isn’t a property of “conscious experiences” or “functioning neurological systems“. That would merely be a property of human self-importance ego.

Your welcome . . .

ETA – I could abridge my definition and better your silly definition by your equally silly “Occam’s razor rule” (only three words!)

Existence is reality.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Butter!

Everything I say takes like 15 words, sorry. That's the best I can do.

I don't know that there is an objective world, is my point. No one does. That's why my definition is what it is (confusing and useless).

Yet you live exactly as if there is, so effectively there is.

[Butter!]

Originally Posted by ynot

Yet you live exactly as if there is, so effectively there is.

That's not objective, though. I can't know that anything is objective because I can only perceive my own experiences. I function as though the world I perceive is objective, of course, because for all intents and purposes in my life it is. But on a philosophical level, I can't "know" anything. And I thought we were discussing philosophy.

I don't come to this section much. I thought people were just tossing out possible definitions. I didn't know it would be a debate, sorry. Not really prepared for that, lol (as should be obvious). (I know everything on this forum is a debate, of course, but I mean that I thought it would just be ideas at the start of the conversation. Like, a lighter tone. No "wrong" answers.)

I'm not a nutter, I promise. I'm like 99.999999% sure that reality is real. I just acknowledge that I could be wrong, because I can't ever really understand what objective existence is. It's just my experience. It will almost certainly end (for me) when I die. That sort of thing.

[yrreg]

Dear Ynot, you say: Existence is reality.

Now, you have to define what is reality.

[yrreg]

The most important thing in a definition of a word is that: it enables the person reading your definition to himself point out anything in the objective world, that is independent and outside of words and concepts, the anything that is referred to by the word/concept you have defined.

For example, definition or concept of man: man is a rational animal.

Another example, definition of existence: existence is the object of man's conscious experience.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Dear everyone here, please take notice of my request in the OP:

"But before you start objecting to my concept of existence, please first present what is your concept of existence, and please do not bring in dictionaries, just from your stock knowledge and from thinking about existence - so that you are not grounding yourselves on authorities, but from your very own thinking."

That goes also for anyone taking to criticize another one's definition, but without first presenting his own.

You barely write two paragraphs on the foundations on ontology then do a whole lot of posturing. I can see how that can work for you.

I enjoy reading Hubert Dreyfus’s Heidegger so might be receptive to what you may have to say but you have to put a lot more work into it. Most people don’t give a **** about metaphysics with good reason.

[Myriad]

Existence is inclusion in a narrative.

You'll note that because there's more than one kind of narrative, this implies more than one kind of existence. Also, because we don't know whether there is one true narrative, it implies we can't know whether any form of existence is absolute. However, we can designate a primary narrative for any given purpose, which posits what exists and what does not within that framework. All these implications are intentional.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by Butter!

Quote:

Originally Posted by yrreg
Your concept of existence makes existence more difficult to understand than mine: "Existence is the object of man's conscious experience."

You say, "Existence is an emergent property of a functioning neurological system, as experienced by said system."

Suppose I ask you, please use simple quick to understand and few words in your definition of what is existence?

My definition of existence takes only eight (8) words, but yours takes fifteen (15).


Your definition brings up more questions than make the word existence understandable, i.e. that folks can point to things in the objective world outside of words and concepts that are examples of what are things that do have existence, i.e. that are objects of man's conscious experience.

Existence is an emergent property of a functioning neurological system, as experienced by said system.


ETA - Maybe I defined "consciousness" instead, but I honestly think they're more or less the same thing in this context.

Dear Butter!, you have contributed your definition of what is existence, that is very commendable from your part.

My purpose in this thread is that all who have ideas on what is existence, we all work together to arrive at a communally agreed on concept of what is existence.

What is the advantage of having a communally agreed on concept of what is existence?

Simple, it is like having a common idea of what is gold, otherwise we could be getting the gold that is not up to our idea of what is gold, and that is very frustrating.

Good for mankind, we have now a communally agreed on concept of gold, so everyone who cares to ascertain that he is getting genuine gold, he had better see to it that the gold he is going to spend his hard earned money for corresponds fully to the concept of gold - that is communally agreed upon by everone.

Here is my definition of existence:
"Existence is the object of man's conscious experience."

And here is your definition of existence:
"Existence is an emergent property of a functioning neurological system, as experienced by said system."

What do you say, don't we have already one item we are agreed on, namely, that existence is something that is consciously experienced by man?


Where is man in your definition of existence?

I see it in these words in your definition:
"a functioning neurological system, as experienced by said system."

Wouldn't it be more easy and quick to just put those words into these words:

"man's conscious experience," from my definition, scil., (words in bold and italic) existence is the object of man's conscious experience.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by yrreg

Your concept of existence makes existence more difficult to understand than mine: "Existence is the object of man's conscious experience."

You say, "Existence is an emergent property of a functioning neurological system, as experienced by said system."

Suppose I ask you, please use simple quick to understand and few words in your definition of what is existence?

My definition of existence takes only eight (8) words, but yours takes fifteen (15).


Your definition brings up more questions than make the word existence understandable, i.e. that folks can point to things in the objective world outside of words and concepts that are examples of what are things that do have existence, i.e. that are objects of man's conscious experience.

"To be". Smoked ya.

*funky end zone dancing*