Author
|
Topic: The first _good_ argument for god (Read 11092 times)
|
Valaggar Redux
Guest
|
Hm... I'd say that something exists if it could be witnessed with a theoretical, boundless measuring tool. With this general definition, everything I imagine exists in some form, because one could witness it in my brain.
Besides the impracticality of your definition, what constitutes a "theoretical, boundless measuring tool"? A tool which can tell you what exists and what doesn't with 100% accuracy?
(Also, you should use "if and only if" and not just "if" because a definition needs to be both necessary and sufficient)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 06:09:55 pm by Valaggar Redux »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
 Offline
Posts: 2847
|
So how do you know that your measuring tool exists?
I don't... It's just an abstract definition for an abstract concept.
And some fun cases: Does the number "2" exist? Does "fear" exist? Does "blue"? How about "a hole"?
Define "thought".
Define "realize".
I knew you'd say that... Will this ever end? 
thought - err... high-level data processing? Let's just require an intelligent being to be able to ask questions. My computer asks me questions all the time. "Where do you want to install this program?"
Are you sure you want to include my computer in your definition? It's not running Windows, but still.
realize - be certain that something is true. Define "be certain". It involves some kind of thought process, so I suspect you still need to define "thought".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
|
|
|
Resh Aleph
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 319
Rottem Tomatoes
|
Ok... so your definition needs someone to be able witness it. So if no intelligent being (whatever that is) exists (whatever that is), nothing else would exist either, by your definition.
I disagree. That's only needed in order to actually find out what exists and what doesn't, not in order to define the word "exists".
And some fun cases: Does the number "2" exist? Does "fear" exist? Does "blue"? How about "a hole"?
I would say these things exist whenever a person fears something, something reflects the m/colou?r/ blue, or there is a hole somewhere. Our omni-sensor would detect all these things.
Of course, it's also a matter of how you specifically define them. "Blue" could be based on how the human eye perceives light, a hole could be defined with certain geometrical criteria, etc.
If you think of 2 as a quantity of objects, then it might indeed not "exist" (though that specific quantity is easy to find). I suppose this would mean that quantities with an imaginary part do not exist. And perhaps most "real" quantities too, unless there are no fundamental particles or something. I'm not good at m/maths?/. 
Nope, this is philosophy.
But don't any of these definitions bring you closer to seeing my point?
My computer asks me questions all the time. "Where do you want to install this program?"
Are you sure you want to include my computer in your definition? It's not running Windows, but still.
How about...
Devises questions out of curiosity?
Able to learn through m/analy[zs]ing/ patterns of any kind?
(And at least Windows does not require its users to go through this. )
Define "be certain". It involves some kind of thought process, so I suspect you still need to define "thought".
I wouldn't say it requires thought when you're already certain of something. Definition: unconditionally believe in something. I suppose now you'll want me to define "belief"...
I really don't see the point in all this. I didn't say anything shocking, only that if you are wondering whether you exist or not, then you are indeed wondering whether you exist or not.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 11:42:02 am by alephresh »
|
Logged
|
Marines on Maulers and limpets on Earthlings / Bright Podship plasma and warm Kohr-Ah death rings /
Shofixti Scouts doing gravity whips / These are a few of my favorite ships! © meep-eep
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Intelligence isn't that hard to define.
If it processes information, it's either intelligent, or the product of intelligence. So intelligence is defined by the ability to process information.
SO how do we define information?
Wiki:"Information is the result of processing, gathering, manipulating and organizing data in a way that adds to the knowledge of the receiver. In other words, it is the context in which data is taken."
ANd we define data is anything in our known universe that can be detected, energy,matter, time space by a biological entity.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
If it processes information, it's either intelligent, or the product of intelligence. So intelligence is defined by the ability to process information. That definitiion is intrinsically false, because it makes an assumption about what's at the core of this debate: The existence of a higher intelligence. If anything that processes information is intelligent or the product of it, then by this definition it must have either been created by something intelligent, or simply exists as an intelligent being with no explanation (AKA: God, and let's not mince words over the definition of existence right now). Your definition starts with an assumption on which side of this discussion is "correct," and is thus biased and unusable.
No, no.. It's a scientific observation. Whenever we witness the processing of information it's cause is always, without exception, intelligence or intelligence derived. There are no known material, natural forces in our universe that process information or produce somthing that can process information. At least not that we are aware of. That doesn't mean there are not theories to the contrary, I'm just sticking with scientific observation of cause and effect. What we know tommorow.. Well we'll just have to wait and see. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
