Criteria of existence (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
The characters on the paper make up a formal system, that when interpreted in a certain way, give rise to images in our minds. So for that duration the existence of the character can be found in a certain group of neurons in our brains.
Mind you this interpretation we do is not uniform. The same description will produce different images in different minds, based on existing content in those minds.
Mind you this interpretation we do is not uniform. The same description will produce different images in different minds, based on existing content in those minds.
In that case, what about a character that exists in my mind but not yours? Does he exist or not?
What about a character that exists in my mind called Billy and a similar character in your mind call Jim and yet another character in Sadomin's mind called Billy Jim. Is this the same character? How do you establish this?
What about a character that exists in my mind called Billy and a similar character in your mind call Jim and yet another character in Sadomin's mind called Billy Jim. Is this the same character? How do you establish this?
Exactly.
Existance is subject to human thought and interpretation.
Each character exist to each owner, at that particular moment on space and time, along with the structures that go along with it i.e faith, hate, love.
I would have thought though, that your given criteria suggests that existance, as an entity, was not subject to human obsevation and thought.
Existance is subject to human thought and interpretation.
Each character exist to each owner, at that particular moment on space and time, along with the structures that go along with it i.e faith, hate, love.
I would have thought though, that your given criteria suggests that existance, as an entity, was not subject to human obsevation and thought.
Well, the thing is as much as we have our own inner lives, we sometimes want to agree on or discuss a common reality. This forum exists in your mind and it exists in my mind, and the two entities of existence are not identical, but yet it also has an objective existence, the facts of which we can unambiguously establish together. When I think about the forum I may not specifically remember that the background of the page is black, but when I'm on the forum I can ascertain this just like you can.
No, that's correct.
Well, it's a contentious point. If a fictitious character has some authoritative frame of reference, then whatever disputes we may have about how we see the character, there is always that book which will resolve our disputes.
Except when the dispute is over facts not contained in the book. This of course happens in religion all the time. "God wanted this, he didn't want that." "No, that's not how I understood it."
Every Sherlock Holmes is a different Sherlock Holmes in each person's mind. These characters do however have sufficiently strong associations to each other so as to be identified as the same. What gets even more interesting is when you tell me your image of Sherlock Holmes and I now have two different images of the same character in my mind.
Well, it's a contentious point. If a fictitious character has some authoritative frame of reference, then whatever disputes we may have about how we see the character, there is always that book which will resolve our disputes.
Except when the dispute is over facts not contained in the book. This of course happens in religion all the time. "God wanted this, he didn't want that." "No, that's not how I understood it."
Every Sherlock Holmes is a different Sherlock Holmes in each person's mind. These characters do however have sufficiently strong associations to each other so as to be identified as the same. What gets even more interesting is when you tell me your image of Sherlock Holmes and I now have two different images of the same character in my mind.
This definition strives to include everything that exists, except the whole of the universe itself. If you will, the universe is the box (or the chessboard 
) and things that exist are in the box. Existence is defined in terms of the box, so including the box itself in the definition seems to me a bit problematic, because if you say "the universe exists" someone could say "exists in what? exists where?". Well, there is no answer to that. And I consider those questions axiomatic to existence.
I think this covers everything we can ever consider to exist. What do you think?
) and things that exist are in the box. Existence is defined in terms of the box, so including the box itself in the definition seems to me a bit problematic, because if you say "the universe exists" someone could say "exists in what? exists where?". Well, there is no answer to that. And I consider those questions axiomatic to existence.I think this covers everything we can ever consider to exist. What do you think?
Yeah, that's a good point. Doyle conceived of Holmes in his mind. He then wrote it in books. After Doyle left, only the books are left. So the original character is lost, what remains is the incomplete portrayal in the books.
But which character is the real character, that's what many discussions about fiction are centered around. The original author dies, a different author takes up the mantle and the readers complain "the character would never have done that!". Whose character..
But which character is the real character, that's what many discussions about fiction are centered around. The original author dies, a different author takes up the mantle and the readers complain "the character would never have done that!". Whose character..