CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Let's consider the interesting case where a thing only exists in the imagination. It should be rather obvious that this thing still exists. Any retort leads to a contradiction. How can something exist in the imagination while not exist? Existence in one particular sense implies existence. How could it possibly be otherwise?
Imaginary ideas can have causal influence on the world
So a thing that exists only the in the imagination still does exist. That's obvious. Another question that might be interesting is whether a thing that exists only the imagination necessarilly doesn't have any causal influence on the world outside the imagination. This question should be answered in the negative, i.e. if an idea only exists in the imagination, it can still have an influence on the world outside the imagination. This should be obvious in relation to the history of Christianity.
So in this sense, imaginary ideas can be just as real as any other thing in this world. God is just as real as any other thing.
It's not a matter of definition, since it is debatable what reality is. I am a Platonist, so my understanding is that everything comprehensible and perceivable is real.
You are not a very good platonist. You like to mix your words to fit this debate. Real platonists still acknowledge that things exist in different dimensions. So, like I said before, there is a difference between real and existing. Actual platonists would agree with that.
So, like I said before, there is a difference between real and existing.
Platonists acknowledge that certain ideas exist in a different dimension, that is true. I don't understand why this implies that Platonist consider these ideas unreal. A Platonist considers a mathematical object just as real as anything you can point to in the physical world, so what indeed makes me a bad Platonist?
Real implies the dimension. Exists does not. You swap out words of different meanings without acknowledging a difference. It is like replacing horse with unicorn.
Saying that it exists because it can exist in the imagination reduces the word exist to mean nothing. If something can only exist in the imagination, it doesn't exist. Existence should only include reality.
By this logic, can't we say that human existence itself is not real? After all, even if everything originates as external sensory impulses, our actual experience of the world exists only within our minds.
I think you're conflating concrete vs. intangible with existing vs. not existing.
I could be wrong though, and I'd love clarification.
I don't see how you can get that from what I said. I am not saying that things that can be found in the imagination can't be real, I am just that finding it in the imagination doesn't mean it exists. We can use our imagination to think about stuff in the real world. That doesn't reduce the value of the stuff in the real world. I don't quite understand your logic. Did my explanation get in the ballpark?
I thought we were doing a role reversal and it was my turn to point out a bit of a flaw with one of your statements that I don't really disagree with :P
Your explanation makes sense, but it still seems to me like you're conflating concrete vs intangible with real vs unreal. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong!
Actually, you are right. My argument is interpreting the debate asking if something can only possibly exist in the imagination. I wasn't trying to talk about concrete vs intangible, but I guess I did. There are things that do exist in reality that are only known in the imagination currently. I wasn't trying to talk about that. I was thinking about the stuff that is for sure only in the imagination.
Just because your pic is Cartmen it remind me of the episode where they go to imagination land and terrorist are attacking peoples imagination, they were then left with the question is what we imagine real?
In my opinion anything is possible something that could of started off as imagination could become something massive, I mean for example this website someone had to of thought of it before creating it right?
For something to exist, it must manifest in reality. If it only exists in the imagination, then what actually exists is the brain state responsible for the thought, not the thought itself.
If all a thing exists as is a thought pattern, so be it, but it is nonsensical to think thought patterns exist somewhere outside of reality (as if there were such a place)
The idea of the thing and the thing itself are distinct (e.g. a cat and the idea of a cat are not interchangeable). Subsequently, that the idea of a thing exists does not mean the thing exists
A purely imaginary thing manifests only as a subjective construction, not as an objective reality. A thing which exists only on a subjective plane cannot said to actually exist in reality.
Allow me to clarify, as I think my point may have been lost. I do not disagree that the idea of a thing exists; I disagree that the idea of a thing may be accurately construed for the thing itself.
The idea of a thing exists subjectively, but only as the idea of the thing and not as the thing itself because the idea of the thing lacks an objective presence.
Allow me to clarify, as I think my point may have been lost. I do not disagree that the idea of a thing exists; I disagree that the idea of a thing may be accurately construed for the thing itself
Suppose I have an idea about something which exists purely as an imaginative construct. I am not thinking of nothing am I?
The idea of a thing exists subjectively, but only as the idea of the thing and not as the thing itself because the idea of the thing lacks an objective presence
This is dismissive of the possibility that some things we can refer to might truly exist only as imaginative constructs.
Suppose I have an idea about something which exists purely as an imaginative construct. I am not thinking of nothing am I?
You are not thinking of nothing, but neither does your idea of a thing translate into the reality of a thing.
This is dismissive of the possibility that some things we can refer to might truly exist only as imaginative constructs.
No, it is not. My express point is that an imaginary idea is a thing that exists but that imaginary thing does not itself mean the actual thing the idea references exists.
An idea may not accurately represent conditions anywhere but in the very mind that entertains it. In these cases, it's not that a referent term has no subject. Instead, I argue that the nature of the subject is misunderstood.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but I do not see that this at all refutes my argumentation. The idea may be entirely internally referential, but it still exists purely as an internally referential idea and not as an actualized reality. The idea is real, but the realization of that idea is not (i.e. the idea of unicorn is real, but this does not translate into the unicorn being real).
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but I do not see that this at all refutes my argumentation.
Well by golly I want you to understand my point well enough that you either accept it as valid, or refute it in a way that I can intellectually digest to improve the way I think about reality.
The idea may be entirely internally referential, but it still exists purely as an internally referential idea and not as an actualized reality.
If what we are talking about is pure thought, so be it. Let's be realistic about it and describe it (and perhaps its effects) as accurately as we can. Let's not pretend it doesn't exist.
The idea is real, but the realization of that idea is not (i.e. the idea of unicorn is real, but this does not translate into the unicorn being real).
If what we are talking about is pure thought, so be it. Let's be realistic about it and describe it (and perhaps its effects) as accurately as we can. Let's not pretend it doesn't exist.
I fail to see in what way I am being at all unrealistic or inaccurate. I am not pretending that pure thought does not exist; I am simply not claiming that pure thought translates into tangible, objective reality.
That doesn't make sense to me...please help.
An idea exists as an idea; however, the idea does not exist as a tangible, objective reality. One may possess as a pure thought the concept of a unicorn... but that does not mean a unicorn actually exists as a tangible, objective object.
I fail to see in what way I am being at all unrealistic or inaccurate. I am not pretending that pure thought does not exist; I am simply not claiming that pure thought translates into tangible, objective reality.
As you said in another debate: "There is evidence that God serves a socio-evolutionary function."
Am I crazy for thinking that for something to serve a function it must be real ?
An idea exists as an idea; however, the idea does not exist as a tangible, objective reality. One may possess as a pure thought the concept of a unicorn... but that does not mean a unicorn actually exists as a tangible, objective object.
Thanks. Yeah I agree with that and am tiring of talking past each other...oh well
What I was saying about the unicorn I am saying about God. I was semantically imprecise regarding the function of God... my intended statements was the function of the idea of God (the two are interchangeable to me since I do not conceive of God as anything but an idea).
I think we are just talking past each other at this point, though, and both tired of it.
God is an idea. therefore god is not nothing, I doubt I can make my point any clearer.
That even with an intelligent person such as yourself I still find myself in this type of impasse has me losing faith in these type of conversations which I'll call "bludgeoning one another with our respective opinions". I am going to aim for dialectic or Socratic style of engagement for a bit at least.
I want my logically contradictory ideas (I assume I have them somewhere) exposed, but I think it will require someone who knows how (and cares) to examine me in this way.
Have you considered that the impasse may be on your end? I have reiterated the distinction between idea-God and real-God in a plethora of ways, yet never received any direct refutation. Your consistent response has been to reassert that idea-God exists, which I have never disputed. I fail to see how your apparent incapacity to address a counter-argument renders it void or me incompetent.
Have you considered that the impasse may be on your end?
I have. But in your case, I understand the point you are making, agree that it is valid, but It doesn't address situations where what is being described is imaginary but may be mistaken to be more than that. You act as if a referent must address only things that exist outside the imagination.
I have reiterated the distinction between idea-God and real-God in a plethora of ways, yet never received any direct refutation.
If god is just an idea then there is no valid distinction to be made between what you call "idea-god" and "real-god". If in reality god is a psychological phenomenon then THAT is what god is, and those who think god exists outside of human intellects are wrong. They are not wrong about god existing, they are wrong about the nature of god. Now I can create an imaginary representation of my couch and this imaginary representation is not actually my couch (see I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT) However with god I propose that that imaginative construct IS in fact what god is. You say I didn't directly refute your point before, but I think I did and you just don't acknowledge it. I have even reiterated rephrased, and still no acknowledgement. Is this because you are unintelligent? I don't think so. Is it natural resistance to having to possibly overturn a strong conviction. That's what I suspect.
Your consistent response has been to reassert that idea-God exists, which I have never disputed.
I did more than that. I acknowledged your point and conceded that it is valid for non-imaginary things but fails when the subject (properly considered) is itself a psychological phenomenon.
I fail to see how your apparent incapacity to address a counter-argument renders it void or me incompetent.
If you like I will combine our entire conversation where you say I didn't address your counter-argument into a google doc and highlight in red where I DID directly address you. Then I will show you the point I brought up that I think you left un-addressed and you can TRY to do the same.
I am not trying to cast doubt on your cognitive ability. It is you who are trying to cast doubt on mine.
My sole response to your initiation of personal attacks was to ask if you had considered introspection as well as external criticism, and to then observe that I did not perceive any direct refutation of my point. A simple clarification of what you meant by "psychological phenomenon" (i.e. not simply another iteration of "idea") would have sufficed. Instead of improving your communication with someone you readily acknowledge as intelligent, however, you stooped once more to attacking my integrity and cognitive capacity. It seems your frustration extends well beyond your interactions with me, indicating that you should probably spend more time working on your ability to communicate your ideas and less on insulting the people trying to understand them.
I have further thoughts on your idea as you have presently clarified it, but am frankly quite disinterested in presenting them to someone more bent on insulting than conversing with me. May our next exchange be a better one; they usually are.
The attacks were on my personal integrity, intelligence and receptivity foremost. Intended or no, they were there and I have zero intention of continuing in this thread. However, neither of us is about to convince the other so this is an absolute of waste of time and energy. Feel free to defend yourself as you deem necessary, but expect no further reply from me. I am truly done with this nonsense.
Pursuant to your request and in light of otherwise largely congenial history, the pertinent text as I understood it:
"I want my logically contradictory ideas (I assume I have them somewhere) exposed, but I think it will require someone who knows how (and cares) to examine me in this way." - The obvious implication being that I am someone who does not know and/or does not care to engage on your level.
"That even with an intelligent person such as yourself I still find myself in this type of impasse has me losing faith in these type of conversations [...]" - A backhanded compliment, rather plainly.
" Is this because you are unintelligent? I don't think so. Is it natural resistance to having to possibly overturn a strong conviction. That's what I suspect." - Again, the backhanded compliment accompanied by an assumption of my pigheadedness and attachment to some purported strong conviction that I apparently hold.
"Then I will show you the point I brought up that I think you left un-addressed and you can TRY to do the same." - Directly implying that I will be unable to do so.
"I am not trying to cast doubt on your cognitive ability. It is you who are trying to cast doubt on mine." - Saying it does not make it so, particularly after so many qualifications surrounding your "compliments."
"I said nothing that could reasonably be construed as a personal attack against you or your intelligence." - Thus establishing that no matter what I highlight or explain you are inclined to dismiss it as unreasonable.
In contrast, all I ever did was ask if you considered that the impasse may be on your end rather than otherwise and then make observations based on my understanding of what you tried (and did not succeed) in communicating to me.
"I want my logically contradictory ideas (I assume I have them somewhere) exposed, but I think it will require someone who knows how (and cares) to examine me in this way."
The obvious implication being that I am someone who does not know and/or does not care to engage on your level.
I was talking about dialectical engagement where you ask questions to trap me with my own logic by showing how a proposition I accept cannot stand in light of another that I have accepted. That I have shown my suspicion that perhaps you don't have the experience or interest shouldn't be taken as a personal attack.
"That even with an intelligent person such as yourself I still find myself in this type of impasse has me losing faith in these type of conversations [...]"
- A backhanded compliment, rather plainly.
I'm gonna say you must have been looking to get offended. When you want to communicate something and you can't, it's frustrating...I was being honest about my thoughts, I was being polite and respectful. You must have been agitated before you sat down to type up your response.
" Is this because you are unintelligent? I don't think so. Is it natural resistance to having to possibly overturn a strong conviction. That's what I suspect."
- Again, the backhanded compliment accompanied by an assumption of my pigheadedness and attachment to some purported strong conviction that I apparently hold.
Or just me recognizing that you are human. And trying to make effort to NOT come across condescending. You chose to be offended in spite of my effort to not be offensive
Then I will show you the point I brought up that I think you left un-addressed and you can TRY to do the same."
- Directly implying that I will be unable to do so.
Only because I DID refute your assertion that an idea itself cannot be the subject proper, and I can show you where. Not because you are inept.
"I am not trying to cast doubt on your cognitive ability. It is you who are trying to cast doubt on mine."
- Saying it does not make it so, particularly after so many qualifications surrounding your "compliments."
If you are hell bent on taking what I have to say as an insult, I can't stop you.
"I said nothing that could reasonably be construed as a personal attack against you or your intelligence."
- Thus establishing that no matter what I highlight or explain you are inclined to dismiss it as unreasonable.
Upon further consideration I can see how you interpreted my responses as insulting. If you think I was trying to be subtle and put you down, you are just wrong, and yeah it would be a waste of time to debate THAT. Either you assume good will or you don't. I wish you would.
In contrast, all I ever did was ask if you considered that the impasse may be on your end rather than otherwise and then make observations based on my understanding of what you tried (and did not succeed) in communicating to me.
I never tried to blame the impasse on a defect of yours in the first place. I know that it is a struggle for me to communicate my ideas so others comprehend them. Have you read my profile?
In my opinion the first attack was you saying "I fail to see how your apparent incapacity to address a counter-argument renders it void or me incompetent."
So yeah, that's me defending myself from your charge of personal attacks. It really is silly that anyone got offended.
it doesn't exist as what you imagined it as being, it only exists as an imagined idea and imagined ideas do exist but what you imagined doesn't exist because its not real.
Just because a "thing" may only exist in the imagination......
.....doesn't mean that "it" doesn't exist at all.
Quotations are my emphasis. The use of "it" I assume refers to the "thing". If so I disagree. The "things" existence and the "thoughts" about it are two separate things. The existence of one thing does not necesitate the existence of the other.
For example memories or learned behavior of a person who existed may persist in the thoughts and habits of future generations as their own memes however these patterns do not cause any existence to the one who passed just that the patterns themselves are existing.
Your first assumption is correct. However, sometimes we have thoughts about thoughts. Your reasoning implies that when we think about thoughts we are thinking of nothing.
Not at all, it only implies that the existence of one thing is not necessarily dependent on the others existence. This does not rule out the two separate things existing, one existing one not or neither existing at all. There is no necessary connection.
For instance not believing in a new species of fish doesn't mean it doesn't exist any more than believing in such a species causes that species to exist.
You mean a dialectic, I am not sure how to approach this as I see "it" and "thoughts about it" as two different things.
Thoughts about something do not equal that something. These thoughts are part of a subjective reality which may or may not reflect varying degrees of objective reality. The objective reality of the "thing" has no necessary connection with the subjective reality.
I do see where causal attribution can really muddle this up when you start discussing what qualifies something to "exist" though. So maybe I will start the questions there.
What do you consider qualifies whether or not the "thing" exists or not?
I am not sure how to approach this as I see "it" and "thoughts about it" as two different things.
For the most part I would agree. But sometimes the thing thought of is just the very thought.
Thoughts about something do not equal that something.
Except when what you are thinking about is nothing but thought
These thoughts are part of a subjective reality which may or may not reflect varying degrees of objective reality.
Agreed.
The objective reality of the "thing" has no necessary connection with the subjective reality.
There are only real things. We misunderstand, poorly describe, theorize, and attempt to explain the nature of many of these things. But our being error prone, renders not a thing more or less real.
I do see where causal attribution can really muddle this up when you start discussing what qualifies something to "exist" though. So maybe I will start the questions there.
YAY!.
What do you consider qualifies whether or not the "thing" exists or not?
We can tell something exists because it's effects can be witnessed, described and/or measured to a certain degree of accuracy.
We can tell something exists because it's effects can be described and/or measured with some accuracy.
Here is what I mean when I mentioned causal attribution. Lets look at some object that many would agree does not exist, Phil a 6foot talking rabbit. He is in your head telling you right from wrong. According to your line of reasoning so far he has some affect on you that can be measured like in your behavior. Because Phil can affect you you may claim Phil exists. The cause has been attributed to Phil and not the thought process itself.
However Phil cannot be measured or quantified but brain activity can. To say Phil exists is to anthropomorphize brain activity as its own entity or to attribute brain activity to Phil and not to the activity itself.
Lets look at the brain function as its own entity and replace the Phil with an object that does exist, an empty soda bottle. The bottle exists in objective reality, but can also be experienced in subjective reality. This bottle is now in your head telling you right from wrong and has named himself Bill.
Here it is easier to see the cause goes to the subjective thought process rather than the object or idea that is the subject of those processes because of the object existing in objective reality. Saying an empty soda bottle is the cause for your moral choices says it exerts force over you rather than you experience the bottle subjectively.
This also shows a point we agree on, that subjectivity is fallible.
It makes more sence to attribute the cause to the thoughts rather than the object or idea that is the subject of those thoughts. Abstract concepts can be recognized in this manner but have no existence as they are not a force of their own exerting some force but a by product of our brain activity.
A term used for the subject of any discussion or statement is a "referent". Referents may refer to a mere thought, mere thoughts can be mistaken for something more. However "mere thoughts" actually do occur in the part of reality we refer to as our intellect.
I have been mulling this over using abstract thoughts as the referent the past few days (had a lil time).
Math. You cannot show me math, you can give me examples of math though. Math itself does not exist, math is intangible however the idea of math exists and not math itself. You cannot measure math but measuring could be a type of math.
Math itself has no power though, it exerts no force on the physical reality. Math is the patterns we recognize in realities.
Math is the referent of our thoughts, thoughts again can be quantified but their subject (math) cannot.
This goes back to causal attribution. We agree thoughts exist. I say thoughts cause the referent (math in this example) and not the other way around. Math itself exerts no force over us, it is a construct we build to help recognize things.
The referent to your thoughts may or may not exist, there is no necessary connection between existence and thoughts or subjective reality. This can be further demonstrated through our ability to abstract.
I keep returning to attribution due to what you said qualifies for existence, that it has a measurable effect on reality. I keep seeing these things as a product of our thoughts rather than the other way around.
