NineOneFour wrote:

Nocterro wrote:

generalsemanticist wrote:

Nocterro wrote:
I do think they exist. But I do not think that based on anything scientific. That's the point.

I think maybe you are obsessed with "existence". What does the word even mean?

The existence of X is a state of affairs in which X obtains.

Obtains what?

Consciousness?
Existence?
Fluffiness?

NineOneFour wrote:

generalsemanticist wrote:

Nocterro wrote:

generalsemanticist wrote:

Nocterro wrote:
I do think they exist. But I do not think that based on anything scientific. That's the point.

I think maybe you are obsessed with "existence". What does the word even mean?

The existence of X is a state of affairs in which X obtains.

Do you know what will happen if I keep asking you what you mean? You will eventually define in circles - this is an inescapable semantic fact. What this means is that our communication, in any given context, is built upon undefined terms. I propose we accept 'existence' as undefined and go from there.

I think he means "fluffiness".

Nocterro wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Nocterro wrote:

generalsemanticist wrote:

Nocterro wrote:
I do think they exist. But I do not think that based on anything scientific. That's the point.

I think maybe you are obsessed with "existence". What does the word even mean?

The existence of X is a state of affairs in which X obtains.

Obtains what?

Consciousness?
Existence?
Fluffiness?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/

Nocterro wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

generalsemanticist wrote:

Nocterro wrote:

generalsemanticist wrote:
I think maybe you are obsessed with "existence". What does the word even mean?

The existence of X is a state of affairs in which X obtains.

Do you know what will happen if I keep asking you what you mean? You will eventually define in circles - this is an inescapable semantic fact. What this means is that our communication, in any given context, is built upon undefined terms. I propose we accept 'existence' as undefined and go from there.

I think he means "fluffiness".

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. You got me. I'm making all this up.

NineOneFour wrote:
No, I'm sorry, I'm not accepting any sort of silliness like this. The topic is science, not some sort of quasi-philosophical claptrap.

Nocterro wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:
No, I'm sorry, I'm not accepting any sort of silliness like this. The topic is science, not some sort of quasi-philosophical claptrap.

Russell and Wittgenstein is claptrap?

EDIT: I've noticed that many people here have a bad habit of not reading relevant linked material before responding. Odd.

It is important to realize that this semantic attitude signalizes a new epoch in the
development of science. In scientific literature of the old days, we had a habit of
demanding, ‘define your terms’. The new 1933 standards of science really should
be, ‘state your undefined terms’. In other words, ‘lay on the table your metaphysics,
your assumed structure, and then only proceed to define your terms in terms of these
undefined terms’. This has been done completely, or approximately so, only in
mathematics. Yet, probably no one will deny that the new requirements of science
(1933), no matter how laborious, are really desirable, and constitute an advance in
method, in accordance with the structure of human knowledge.

NineOneFour wrote:

Nocterro wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:
No, I'm sorry, I'm not accepting any sort of silliness like this. The topic is science, not some sort of quasi-philosophical claptrap.

Russell and Wittgenstein is claptrap?

EDIT: I've noticed that many people here have a bad habit of not reading relevant linked material before responding. Odd.

No, Russell isn't claptrap, but the bunkum you posited is, despite it quoting Russell. By your definition of reality, Russell's teapot would logically be able to exist and honestly, Russell would have a field day firing howitzer shells through your arguments.

Nocterro wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Nocterro wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:
No, I'm sorry, I'm not accepting any sort of silliness like this. The topic is science, not some sort of quasi-philosophical claptrap.

Russell and Wittgenstein is claptrap?

EDIT: I've noticed that many people here have a bad habit of not reading relevant linked material before responding. Odd.

No, Russell isn't claptrap, but the bunkum you posited is, despite it quoting Russell. By your definition of reality, Russell's teapot would logically be able to exist and honestly, Russell would have a field day firing howitzer shells through your arguments.

Umm, it is logically possible for Russell's teapot to exist.

The misunderstanding of logic and philosophy on these forums is mind-boggling.

Nocterro wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility

A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction.

Tell me, what logical contradiction is entailed by the teapot?

NineOneFour wrote:

Nocterro wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility

A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction.

Tell me, what logical contradiction is entailed by the teapot?

That we'd have bonked into it by now, that it would have been detected by the zillion different types of measuring equipment we've shot into space, that it would blot out star systems...

I could go on, but...

William.Young wrote:"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong." - Richard Feynman

Just happened to be one of the 'Quotes of the Day' on my iGoogle page. It fits this thread rather well I think.

As far as the OP's question goes, my answer would be no... and it is a personal attack to claim I'm closed-minded because of my answer and I reported the earlier accusation as such.

Nocterro wrote:

William.Young wrote:"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong." - Richard Feynman

Just happened to be one of the 'Quotes of the Day' on my iGoogle page. It fits this thread rather well I think.

As far as the OP's question goes, my answer would be no... and it is a personal attack to claim I'm closed-minded because of my answer and I reported the earlier accusation as such.

How is that a personal attack?

Karljett wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

Karljett wrote:I'm starting to have second thoughts. Does anyone else ever wonder if they've got it all wrong?

Not really. Why are you having second thoughts?

Well it's a maybe. Lately I've been wondering about how someone can either decide that they believe, or decide that they don't, and it got me thinking. Maybe I'm just assuming that what I see with my eyes and hear with my ears and so on is all that's perceivable. Maybe those who genuinely believe in god are onto something that I haven't been able to get. They talk about "knowing" and feeling, what if they're right? What if there is a god but to really understand it you have to approach it in a different way?

Nocterro wrote:Everyone in this thread who said "No" is ridiculously close-minded.

Karljett wrote:I'm starting to have second thoughts. Does anyone else ever wonder if they've got it all wrong?