Exist vs. Real

[Edwardo Piet]

Prove that! Lol.

EvF

[fr0d0]

It's up to you Evie to prove a positive

(assuming you were talking to me! Ahem )

[Edwardo Piet]

No I was talking to Ledo. That's why the "lol". Hehe. And why it was straight after his post and without a quote.

But, to expand on what you said: I'm not claiming a positive. I'm saying "Why make an exception?" I'm not claiming a positive exception to the rest of the universe. And it is merely by process of elimination, that if I'm not claiming and believing in the exception - then I am believing in the only possible alternative!

If I don't believe I should make an exception for thought to believe that it is non-physical then by process of elimination that means I believe it is physical! Because...I can't believe neither they are mutually exclusive and the only two options. Because I believe thought exists and they're either physical or not.

I'm not claiming an exception. So I'm not the one making the new claim. I have to believe thoughts are either physical or they're not, and I see no reason to make them an exception and believe they are non-physical unlike everything else in the known universe - so that's why I believe the only positive alternative, that they're physical, by the process of elimination!

That is all.

EvF

[LEDO]

ex·ist (g-zst)
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists
1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exist
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/REAL

re·al 1 (rl, rl)
adj.
1.
a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.
b. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life.
c. Of or founded on practical matters and concerns: a recent graduate experiencing the real world for the first time.
2. Genuine and authentic; not artificial or spurious: real mink; real humility.
3. Being no less than what is stated; worthy of the name: a real friend.
4. Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation: tourists hoping for a real experience on the guided tour.
5. Not to be taken lightly; serious: in real trouble.
6. Philosophy Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.
7. Relating to, being, or having value reckoned by actual purchasing power: real income; real growth.
8. Physics Of, relating to, or being an image formed by light rays that converge in space.
9. Mathematics Of, relating to, or being a real number.
10. Law Of or relating to stationary or fixed property, such as buildings or land.
adv. Informal
Very: I'm real sorry about that.
n.
1. A thing or whole having actual existence. Often used with the: theories beyond the realm of the real.
2. Mathematics A real number.
Idiom:
for real Slang
Truly so in fact or actuality: "Is this place for real? A wolf in a ... leisure suit and a cow in a print dress wait patiently on the couch in the lobby" (Teresa Carson).

Will you dumbasses please stop debating the difference?

[fr0d0]

Well I had no way of telling that you had noticed LEDO's post did I?

You're claiming a positive: that thought exists as a physical entity that can be measured potentially.

I assert that thought most probably doesn't exist physically.

Whatever spin you put on it, this is the fact. Like with Atheism.. it is not beholdant upon you to prove a negative.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Thought is an exception though, unless you apply some serious diversionary tactics.

No they aren't because thought activity can be measured by their electro-chemical characteristics and research (admittedly in the early stages) has shown that thought can be read back and displayed on computer screens. IOW it is reasonable to assume that the only things we cant understand about thought are due to technological limitations and time will presumably resolve that.

Kyu

[Demonaura]

I agree that thought is real, for the same reasons you stated. The fMRI is a very cool machine.

I also do agree with that definition of real, if it is a part of our testable, reliable world then real seems the perfect word for it.


Btw, I don't think I have seen the abbreviation 'IOW' before, what does it stand for?

[Ryft]

Dictionary definitions serve as a starting point ...

I agree with Michael Shermer on this subject (How We Believe, 1999), that dictionaries only give us how a word is used (in particular contexts; e.g., there are several uses for the word 'real') and some dictionaries will touch upon how it entered the language (e.g., etymology), but no dictionary provides us with how a word is defined. For example, in cases like this, we look to the dictionary to see how the word "real" is used in our present context, but we look to philosophy to see how the word is defined (which the dictionary will have taken into account). Given this take on the issue, I agree with Demonaura that the dictionary provides us with a place to start the conversation (contrary to Ledo's notion that it gives us a place to end the conversation).

Btw, I don't think I have seen the abbreviation 'IOW' before, what does it stand for?

IOW = In Other Words.

Are we still debating this stupid idea? The guy who started the whole thing isn't even posting anymore. He is just sitting back laughing and watching you dumbasses debating the difference between two words which define each other.

The guy who started this whole thing is not laughing at the participants, nor does he characterize them as dumbasses. I asked for the thoughts that other members might have on this issue, and they are providing it. And it is highly appreciated. The fact that some people are actively engaging each other on it is simply an added bonus; as Demonaura has demonstrated (Msg. #3) and my original post implied (e.g., "and I've not yet reached a conclusive position"), by interacting on this issue the views of one person can influence the views of another, sometimes by simply posing a question.

You think this issue is a "stupid idea." Thanks for your sharing your view. Others feel differently, and I am appreciative of their views.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I agree that thought is real, for the same reasons you stated. The fMRI is a very cool machine. I also do agree with that definition of real, if it is a part of our testable, reliable world then real seems the perfect word for it.

Cool, I think we're in agreement ... could you try and explain it to Frodo now?

Btw, I don't think I have seen the abbreviation 'IOW' before, what does it stand for?

As Arcanus says, in other words.

Kyu

---

I agree with Michael Shermer on this subject (How We Believe, 1999), that dictionaries only give us how a word is used (in particular contexts; e.g., there are several uses for the word 'real') and some dictionaries will touch upon how it entered the language (e.g., etymology), but no dictionary provides us with how a word is defined. For example, in cases like this, we look to the dictionary to see how the word "real" is used in our present context, but we look to philosophy to see how the word is defined (which the dictionary will have taken into account). Given this take on the issue, I agree with Demonaura that the dictionary provides us with a place to start the conversation (contrary to Ledo's notion that it gives us a place to end the conversation).

I agree ... you read Shermer? Sh** ... I could actually start liking you ... shame you're a theist (although the thing I have most issue with is that you're a religionist).

Kyu

[LEDO]

---

Dictionary definitions serve as a starting point ...

I agree with Michael Shermer on this subject (How We Believe, 1999), that dictionaries only give us how a word is used (in particular contexts; e.g., there are several uses for the word 'real') and some dictionaries will touch upon how it entered the language (e.g., etymology), but no dictionary provides us with how a word is defined. For example, in cases like this, we look to the dictionary to see how the word "real" is used in our present context, but we look to philosophy to see how the word is defined (which the dictionary will have taken into account). Given this take on the issue, I agree with Demonaura that the dictionary provides us with a place to start the conversation (contrary to Ledo's notion that it gives us a place to end the conversation).

Btw, I don't think I have seen the abbreviation 'IOW' before, what does it stand for?

IOW = In Other Words.

Are we still debating this stupid idea? The guy who started the whole thing isn't even posting anymore. He is just sitting back laughing and watching you dumbasses debating the difference between two words which define each other.

The guy who started this whole thing is not laughing at the participants, nor does he characterize them as dumbasses. I asked for the thoughts that other members might have on this issue, and they are providing it. And it is highly appreciated. The fact that some people are actively engaging each other on it is simply an added bonus; as Demonaura has demonstrated (Msg. #3) and my original post implied (e.g., "and I've not yet reached a conclusive position"), by interacting on this issue the views of one person can influence the views of another, sometimes by simply posing a question.

You think this issue is a "stupid idea." Thanks for your sharing your view. Others feel differently, and I am appreciative of their views.

---

Had I started this thread with you avatar, I would sitting back laughing my ass off at all the nonsense put out debating existl vs. real. Since you wrote it, perhaps you can tell us which definition you are using of the words, i.e. explain the difference of your terms. (I need a laugh.)