You foiled your own criticism when you said it was a dream. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out why.

SpeedOfSound wrote:You foiled your own criticism when you said it was a dream. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out why.

I didn't invent the label known as 'dream'.

You're avoiding dealing with my posts because you know that you're wrong and lack the ball size to admit it.

Actually I am limited to a cell phone for a little while more and can't type.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Actually I am limited to a cell phone for a little while more and can't type.

Don't worry, I'm psychic. I'll type for you:

"Yes, jamest is right, again. I just want to take this opportunity to thank james for showing me the light. Without him, I'd have wasted all of my kids' inheritence on books about the agency of brains. Fuck me, this guy is better than John Wayne.".

... Get outta town, SoS. What can I say.

threatens to topple your little philosophical fantasy does it?

SpeedOfSound wrote:threatens to topple your little philosophical fantasy does it?

When a guy with a little cell phone meets a guy with a big pc, then the guy with the little cell phone needs to shut up.

jamest wrote:
Think about your definition of existence, which equates to: something exists only in the sense that you can interact with it. It can have no other meaning than that.

... Yet, it is true that I can act upon objects in my dreams and imagination. Therefore, by your definition, not only do these things exist, there is no way to ontologically distinguish their existence from the ones of everyday experience. Hence, you're going to have to do better than that.

ETA: it might be true to say that your experienced body cannot act upon an imagined glass of water. But why is that any more significant than acknowledging that your imagined body cannot act upon an experienced glass of water?

First you missed my point about definition. A formal axiomatic definition of this thing has never been offered to my knowledge. I have never seen it in any case. So I am reverting to a common sense definition because I have seen that we all know what that one is if we are greater than three years old.

Second you missed the OR part of the informal definition I did offer and ran off into your idealistic hinterland without comprehending.

I can act on OR something that behaves sensibly.

See the OR now? I colored it for ya.

the imagined hordes of naked females currently all begging me for my attention, must be real.

Do they behave sensibly? Can you go to sleep and find them any time you want? Can you decide now to take some action on them and have that action happen exactly as you can drink a glass of water? (I am assuming that you can drink water without spilling it all over). Do they act sensible? Can you point them out to a friend? Do they stay the same from one dream to the next or even within one dream?

it's also possible to act within imagination and dreams.

But you do KNOW the difference between a dream or your imaginings and the other stuff. You would not refer to dreams or imagination and expect us to understand you if you didn't. That is the undoing of the LittleIdiot argument about mind being identical to all the other things int he world.

Now I am stating that there is no axiomatic and solid definition of exist that you can offer me. Your reference to ontologically distinguishing what exists and does not is not meaningful to me. Maybe you have a solution for that?

I look at 'to exist' in the same way as the meaning of 'is a leaf'. We all know what we mean by it but I doubt we could come up with a perfect and accurate definition that captured our usage of the phrases.

Seeing as our friend asdfkl or whatever is gone for a month we can use this space to get into these ideas about exist. I think further that your inane idea of what it is to perceive and object is responsible for your confusion about existence and imagination.

I have the big PC now. 7 terrabytes, 12 gig, Six 24+ inch monitors, solid state drive.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:
Think about your definition of existence, which equates to: something exists only in the sense that you can interact with it. It can have no other meaning than that.

... Yet, it is true that I can act upon objects in my dreams and imagination. Therefore, by your definition, not only do these things exist, there is no way to ontologically distinguish their existence from the ones of everyday experience. Hence, you're going to have to do better than that.

ETA: it might be true to say that your experienced body cannot act upon an imagined glass of water. But why is that any more significant than acknowledging that your imagined body cannot act upon an experienced glass of water?

First you missed my point about definition. A formal axiomatic definition of this thing has never been offered to my knowledge. I have never seen it in any case.

'Formal' definitions don't carry any special significance with me, anyway.

So I am reverting to a common sense definition because I have seen that we all know what that one is if we are greater than three years old.

'Reason' is what we are all interested in. 'Common sense' won't cut it in matters of metaphysical/ontological significance, obviously.

Second you missed the OR part of the informal definition I did offer and ran off into your idealistic hinterland without comprehending.

I can act on OR something that behaves sensibly.

See the OR now? I colored it for ya.

I didn't miss it, I ignored it. That something appears to behave 'sensibly' (consistently ordered) is of no relavance to whether it actually exists.

the imagined hordes of naked females currently all begging me for my attention, must be real.

Do they behave sensibly?

Of course.

Can you go to sleep and find them any time you want?

If I'm asleep, then my only desires are those which I have in relation to my particular dreams. If I'm not 'asleep', then I'm ~here~, by definition, which means that I'm not ~there~. As noted, the experienced man cannot interact with the imaginary glass of water. Neither too can the imaginary man interact with an experienced glass of water. So, no, I cannot find them any time that I want. Neither, also, can I find an experienced glass of water any time that I want.

Can you decide now to take some action on them and have that action happen exactly as you can drink a glass of water?

No, but your point is worthless. Establishing that I cannot do 'things' to the subjects of my dreams/imagination, within experience, is no more a significant point than establishing that I cannot do things to "everyday entities" within my imagination/dreams. You don't seem to have grasped this point.

it's also possible to act within imagination and dreams.

But you do KNOW the difference between a dream or your imaginings and the other stuff. You would not refer to dreams or imagination and expect us to understand you if you didn't. That is the undoing of the LittleIdiot argument about mind being identical to all the other things int he world.

I understand that they are different, but not from an ontological perspective. You, on the other hand, assume that the differences are due to some ontological distinction. Don't you know that there is more than one way to create an illusion?

Now I am stating that there is no axiomatic and solid definition of exist that you can offer me.

Existence is what it is. For instance, "existence is God". Therefore, what sort of muppet-philosopher would define existence prior to proving what it is? As I've said on many occasions, one cannot define existence until one reaches the conclusion of one's philosophy. Those fuckwits who define existence as a prelude to proving what existence is, are just a waste of philosophical space.

Your reference to ontologically distinguishing what exists and does not is not meaningful to me. Maybe you have a solution for that?

Yes: read my posts with an open mind.

SpeedOfSound wrote:I have the big PC now. 7 terrabytes, 12 gig, Six 24+ inch monitors, solid state drive.

Six monitors?!

... When the distracted guy meets the guy with a sharp focus, then...

SpeedOfSound wrote:Seeing as our friend asdfkl or whatever is gone for a month we can use this space to get into these ideas about exist. I think further that your inane idea of what it is to perceive and object is responsible for your confusion about existence and imagination.

What's he done now?

jamest wrote:
'Formal' definitions don't carry any special significance with me, anyway.
...
'Reason' is what we are all interested in. 'Common sense' won't cut it in matters of metaphysical/ontological significance, obviously.
...
I didn't miss it, I ignored it. That something appears to behave 'sensibly' (consistently ordered) is of no relavance to whether it actually exists.
...
If I'm asleep, then my only desires are those which I have in relation to my particular dreams. If I'm not 'asleep', then I'm ~here~, by definition, which means that I'm not ~there~. As noted, the experienced man cannot interact with the imaginary glass of water. Neither too can the imaginary man interact with an experienced glass of water. So, no, I cannot find them any time that I want. Neither, also, can I find an experienced glass of water any time that I want.
...
No, but your point is worthless. Establishing that I cannot do 'things' to the subjects of my dreams/imagination, within experience, is no more a significant point than establishing that I cannot do things to "everyday entities" within my imagination/dreams. You don't seem to have grasped this point.

I think you missed my request for your explanation of how dreams are the same as things I encounter while awake.

...
I understand that they are different, but not from an ontological perspective. You, on the other hand, assume that the differences are due to some ontological distinction. Don't you know that there is more than one way to create an illusion?

Where do I assume this ontological business?

...
Existence is what it is. For instance, "existence is God". Therefore, what sort of muppet-philosopher would define existence prior to proving what it is? As I've said on many occasions, one cannot define existence until one reaches the conclusion of one's philosophy. Those fuckwits who define existence as a prelude to proving what existence is, are just a waste of philosophical space.
...

Not much here in the way of an argument now is there. I think you are saying that after your entire spiel has ended, sometime in the 2060's, that you will have a definition of 'exist'. So you and I agree that for now we just have the putative meaning before us. Very good.