on the concept of existence

back to main back to metaphysics site index site map

This is a very long page on existence and sections of it tend to vary in terms of how polished or edited they are. I am attempting to reformat these thoughts yet keep them in a fairly chronological order starting at the top with the present and ending with the oldest thoughts. This is the format for many of the pages herein.

Thoughts on Existence from 05.13.2011:
_________________________________________________

Everything exists but not everything exists objectively; at least not given certain assumptions about reality that we normally make in order to navigate the world. These assumptions, such as the idea that anything exists objectively, could be wrong because our everyday use of the idea of existence need not be anything like our philosophical idea of what exists.

Philosophers who maintain that the world must necessarily exist in the way science describes are fools who have spent no time understanding either the deeper nature of the field they claim to have knowledge of or the nature of the grand assumptions they work with. The world, and what it is, deeply, remains forever hidden because any test of the truth of any metaphysical claim lies below the observable sheen we can detect with the senses, should it be a veil or an accurate description of what is.

Our only possible way to know what reality is, is through personal experience and faith, if this can be said to be any form of knowledge at all- given the perhaps accidental nature of the truth of such beliefs. The causal relationship between an inner private experience and the realizations garnered therein is beyond complex and I begin to touch on this on my page concerning transcendentalism.

Let it be known that I stray on my transcendental page from analysis to sheer mysticism because this is, I am quite certain, our only hope of even a slight grasp at the underlying (or non-existence of an underlying), structure to this place I find myself in or that I think we find ourselves in should all this not be in my mind or our minds, etc. And, that may only be the next layer of an infinite onion- the proximal layer, where no absolutes may or may not be at the core. Perhaps it, "it" meaning "reality", never ends either inwardly or outwardly and to know this would be to have knowledge that is principally impossible.

As well as I can see, this reality is, (as in the line from a similarly named Crystal Method song I am currently listening to), "Totally Wide Open" in every sense of the phrase.

Further thoughts from 2011:
__________________________________________

Would color exist if no being could see it? Of course, if the world exists objectively (notice the "if" here), then the light waves on the visible light spectrum exist as energy. But the colors themselves, the reds and blues, seem to only be here if something is here to observe it. Pressure waves in the air cause force and exist independently of all observers, but the sounds themselves are created at the moment the conscious mind interprets those pressure waves through mechanisms in the ears and brain.

The perception of sound and color occur simultaneously with electrochemical reactions in groups of nuerons. The experience of being affected is the color and the sound. There are, then, no colors or sounds out there, outside of you. There are only the physical conditions in your environment that can cause colors and sounds.

The sun, then, does not exist in the same way that the orange of the sunset exists unless the sun is, like everything else possibly may be, a mental construct that we are in or that we somehow are the source of. We assume, from empirical evidence, that the sun is out there, in space and time. The orange, however, exists only as an event, in here, from where we experience the world. The orange is the dance between the observer and the observed, the child of subjective experience of and as an assumed objective reality.

All things, if they are to be said to exist, must have some referent that can be agreed upon. Though my orange may not be your orange, we can agree that it is orange because of the consistency in the frequency of the light acting upon the cells in our eyes. If my orange is your green, then my orange will, so long as our eyes do not change, remain your green. But what about those things whose existence is debated? What about god, ghosts, aliens, and honest politicians?

Unless empirical observation is possible, there can never be public agreement about the existence of certain theorized entities. If god, for example, is taken to be a being that is principally unobservable except through private experience, then there can be no knowledge of the existence of god. God, then, either objectively exists and has influenced some to divulge its existence, or does not objectively exist and was created in the minds of people throughout history.

The following set of numbered thoughts are arranged by the time at which I came to them. I think that this format has some advantages, in terms of clarity and simplity- and breif yet important thoughts. The subjects vary and the thoughts diverge from the main topic of existence, but generally remain related. Numbers 1-7 can be found on the truth page.
________________________________________________________________________________________

[8]. When one ceases to observe the environment in some way, does the environment, in respect to the observation, still exist? Can we know that the world remains when we close our eyes? But, what reason do we have to suppose that it goes away? Possibly our observation itself is the cause of existence, but then how would so many people observe the same things? Perhaps the whole of society is included in my ability to create by observation.

[9]. Is it possible that when we cease to exist, in the perceiving state that we are in during life, everything else ceases to exist? If all existence depends on the perceptual mechanisms of the observer, then it is plausible to assume that the ‘sphere of existence’ shrinks to nothing.

[10]. The sphere of existence, a conceptual sphere, is the sum total of perceptual mechanisms, and their associated concepts, that allow something to perceive what does and does not exist. [11]. The sphere of existence for an average human includes sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. As any or all of these perceptual mechanisms is changed, the sphere changes as well, and what exists for the observer changes also. What exists for a blind man is not what exists for a seeing man. [12]. The sphere of existence for other things would depend on their mechanisms of observation. Animals would have varying spheres of existence, primates with somewhat similar spheres to humans. Plant life would have very different spheres of existence, perhaps non-overlapping with many animals’ spheres. Inanimate objects may have spheres of existence, but they would be limited to simple reactions to force and the like.

[13]. In another sense, the sphere of existence only exists for those observers than can understand the difference between existence and non-existence. In others words, only when existence itself is within the conceptual range of a perceiving entity does a sphere of existence become applicable.

[14]. Consider the question, "What exists for a dog?" Color does not exist, and therefore, color is not within the sphere of existence for a dog. It does have vision, but this vision does not include the ability to interpret various wavelengths of the visible spectrum.

[15]. Other species may have spheres of existence that go beyond those of humans. Bats use sonar to perceive surfaces. While this is both a kind of touch and sound combined in a new way, this perceptual method is foreign to a human.

[16]. Imagine a blue, glowing, ball floating in a great expanse of black space. If one has never seen color, then how could one conceptualize the ‘blueness’ or the ‘glowing’ of the ball? These concepts would be outside the sphere of existence for someone who was born blind. However, this person would also then achieve something that we may not be capable of.

How does a person who has never seen color imagine a ball? Is it solely by texture, weight, shape, and other non-visual qualities?

Obviously, an average human can not imagine a ball without, in some respect, ‘seeing’ it. Without the capacity for sight, the brain would develop new and different ways of understanding the world.

[17]. The sphere of existence is dynamic. It encompasses everything that is for the observer. If one has never heard of a man named Joe who lives on a remote island in the pacific, then this man is not part of one’s sphere of existence until one is told of his existence, as in this passage.

[18]. Beyond the sphere of existence there are possibly infinite things or concepts that exist, but are not part of the sphere of the observer because of how that observer perceives his or her environment. [19]. Mathematics is within our sphere of existence, yet it appears that it is outside the sphere of existence for plant life. Numbers exist for us. Numbers do not exist for other things. But, do numbers exist objectively, absolutely? I imagine that everything that does or could exist, in either the mental or physical realm (though there is no distinction) is part of an infinite continuum of existence. [20]. Our world is the product of our perception, in the sense that we see it the way it is because of an interaction between the way it is and the way we are. [21]. When we see a difference in the world, is there a real difference in the world, or is this difference a product of our own interpretation? For example, is there something in the world that really corresponds to bright in contrast to dark, or hot to cold? We can distinguish these concepts in the mental realm of dreams and hallucinations, so why should we believe that these things really exist? [22]. But, our concepts of heat and coldness must have come from somewhere. Our concepts of light and dark, before we can dream of them, must impact our mind in such a way as to leave an impression on the memory. Although, when we poke at the brain, light can be seen, spots, hallucinations, sensations that do not exist. [23]. What is the regularity that exists in the world? Why are the perceptions I have so constantly similar? What I think is black one second usually stays that way unless something acts on it, like a light source. What reason do I have to doubt that what I see in the world is not really there?

"The Desire to be Understood", 2006 by Anthony Peter Iannini

[24]. If all the world is contained in my mind, then what acts upon it to make variations in my perceptions? Could my own mind give rise to my perceptions? But where would these perceptions arise from if there were never anything but my mind? Could I ever conceive of ‘blue’ without first seeing it?

The following set of numbered thoughts, in roman numerals for separation from the former set, are arranged by the time at which I came to them. I think that this format has some advantages, in terms of clarity and simplity- and breif yet important thoughts. The subjects vary and the thoughts diverge from the main topic of existence, but generally remain related.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

[i]. Everything exists

[ii]. Nothing does not exist

[iii]. It is strange that we have a concept of nothing, which is something that means nothing.

[iv]. Humans can not think of nothing, though we refer to nothing (0)

[v]. Humans can not think of everything, though we refer to it as everything (infinity)

[vi]. Everything, is ‘every’ ‘thing’ or object of perception

[vii]. Existence is an immediate property of everything

[viii]. Existence can not be an attribute of nothing

[ix]. Consider the question, "Does God exist?" This is a statement about the view of the person being asked, not about an objective reality. Similarly, asking the question, "Does blue exist?" depends on who you ask- a blind person or a person with vision.

[x]. I do think that there is an objective reality, an objective truth to the world, but this is the objective reality that must be interpreted by the minds of individuals. (It must be admitted that this statement is based on faith).

[xi]. It is in the minds of individuals that the world takes on the characteristics that we attempt to communicate to one another through our mechanisms of perception.

[xii]. What is the case when something ceases to exist? Could a chair cease existing? The chair could be burned or broken, and lose the property of being a ‘chair’ as we normally think of it. But, could the substance of the chair ever be lost?

Even in changing the chair, nothing that was once in the chair ever really ceases to exist. Rather, what made the chair changes into another form of substance- whether it be splinters, energy, ash, etc.

[xiii]. The chair never ceases to exist in a sense. However, for the person who wants to sit on the burned chair (which is now a pile of ashes) the chair no longer exists.

[xiv]. Someone who knew of the chair’s existence prior to its incineration and who has not yet seen that it has been burned will still think that the chair exists.

[xv]. Two people A and B know of some common object X. Object X is in a closed room. Person A leaves this room to run some errands. Person B remains in the room and destroys object X. Person A has not yet returned to the room, and has no knowledge or reason to predict the destruction of object X.

[xvi]. Based on the situation in (15), does object X still exist? If person A thinks about object X before returning to the room, he or she will think that object X exists. However, person B, who destroyed object X, will no longer think object X exists.

[xvii]. The substance of object X can never cease to exist (or so it seems), but the form of object X is capable of changing in infinite ways. When the form of object X changes so that someone thinks object X no longer exists, then the form of that object has ceased to exist, for that person.

[xvii]. There is no clear line between the form of object X as it is at time t1 and the form of object X as it is at time t2. What is the level of distortion or change that must take place between t1 and t2 in order for the form of object X to cease existing? Again, this depends on the person considering the existence of object X.

[xix]. For example, consider a chair in the center of a room. Once the chair is cut in two, we can still understand that the parts of the chair exist, but that the original form of the chair has been lost. However, we no longer realize the existence of the chair if it has been burned into ashes, because it seems impossible to reconstruct the chair from the ashes and energy that remain where it once was. We can mentally ‘assemble’ parts to a point. Wooden legs, a seat and a back make a chair. However, a pile of fine ash does not readily become a chair.

Some Conclusions about Existence:
______________________________________________

{1}. Existence is an immediate and necessary property of every 'thing' or object of perception.

{2}. Existence is in the interpretation of the properties of the 'thing' or object of perception, not in the object itself.

{3}. Existence is neither in mental nor external (real) reality, there is no distinction. (as far as we will ever be able to tell).

{4}. Humans will generally agree that the same 'thing' or object of perception exists because they generally have the same method of interpretation.

Hence, all people will call the sky 'blue', but a blind man will not be able to call the sky by any color, because the blind man lacks the general mechanism of interpretation we call vision. For the man that lacks vision, 'blue' will never exist. But, this certainly does not mean my blue and your blue must be the same by any means.

Because of {1}, existence can not be added as a property of something, because it is immediately a property of everything as soon as it is perceived. In terms of St. Anselm's argument for the existence of God, which tacks on existence as a property of god, (1) is a refutation because of {1}, {2}, and {3}.

Because of {4}, there may be an objective reality, but it can never be known because of the method of interpretation something uses to have the notions of what does and does not exist.

If we were all blind, then 'blue' would not exist for anyone. But, because we are all made with the same mechanisms of perception, we generally agree that 'blue' exists. Therefore, existence is in the relation between the observer and the object of observation, not in any real or mental realms.

More Thoughts on Existence (1) | From 1998, 1999, 2000 | (Editing in progress of the portions below)
______________________________________________________________________________________________

What does it mean to "exist"? Most generally, we think of things existing in the world. We believe that a chair exists, or has the property of existence. But what if something does not have the property of existence? What does that make it? Based on what we know about the physical world, there are no perfect squares, there are no two-dimensional things, or planes. So, does a triangle exist? The triangle only exists in the realm of perfection, or the realm of ideas.

In a sense, numbers do not exist except when something is existing to conceive of them. In other words, if nothing was around to count three apples, would there still be three apples there? Yes, there would be physically, three apples there, but the label "three" would be reserved for a time when someone or something came to see them or know of their presence. This brings up another important point.

If there is nothing around to perceive or think, can anything exist? Is existence an attribute reserved for those things that are perceived by beings, or is existence outside the necessity of observance? Does a green box in space exist if nothing is around to perceive it? The question seems completely paradoxical and points to a subjective view of reality, but it's hard not to see how the box really could exist if no one were around to see it.

Now, there are two sub-categories of this version of existence. First, if it is a necessarily observer oriented reality, then things come into existence when they are observed. The digression occurs when one tries to conclude if the object being observed either remains in existence while someone is observing the object, or if it disappears from reality until the light of observation once again shines upon the object. In other words, if there was a red ball, and someone was looking at it, it would exist. When the observer closes his or her eyes, the outside world ceases to exist.

If there is a red ball on a table, and no one is around to observe it, does it exist? Or, does the mere mention or imaginary thought of this red ball bring it into some kind of subjective existence? Is it that we must first know of something for it to exist? Is it possible that something outside what we know exists, like a sixth or seventh sense that we have never been privy to? Or, is it not possible to ask such questions in light of the fact that we can never really be certain that if a tree fell and no one was around to hear it, would it make a sound?

More Thoughts on Existence (2) | An extensive look at existence:
______________________________________________________________________

The term existence has been used extensively in philosophy and in other areas of study. And, many people have tried to decipher its strange meaning in a world where everything must exist, just by being something. Can anyone imagine anything that does not exist? When I say everything must exist, I mean in all realms of existence. We normally don’t think of something fictitious existing, like a unicorn.

However, when we think of a unicorn, it does, in some sense, exist in our minds. Just what this type of existence is, and how it relates to the world we commonly know as the real world is a very important point— a point that will be the topic of much of this writing. To begin with, I could pick any number of things that do not exist in the world we normally think of, but for the sake of simplicity, I’ll choose unicorns.

Do unicorns exist? Well, I can think of a unicorn, as can most any mentally able person who has seen a picture or a description of such a thing. But, where does this concept come from if there are no unicorns in the real world? I stress the ‘real world’ because this is another term we will have to look closely at later. For now, lets just use the term to mean anything external to us, like real trees and real cars.

Now back to our idea of unicorns. It seems like we create the idea of something that does not exist from those things we have already perceived. By this, I mean that a unicorn must have properties that we have already perceived in some manner (which may be innate or experienced). The color of a unicorn, which is commonly white, must be a color which we have observed before in order to attribute this color to the thing we create in our minds. In other words, the unicorn must be a color that we have already perceived.

Try and imagine a unicorn that is colored infra-red. You will quickly find that attempts to do this are futile, because we can not (without the aid of some instrument) see infra-red electromagnetic wavelengths. Humans are able to see only visible light, which is what we commonly see as the colors of a rainbow.

Any wavelengths greater or smaller are not perceivable by our eyes. Also, in order to get a concept of the unicorn’s overall shape, and size, we must have some idea of an animal, a horse, or something like this to get a concept of four legs, large torso, and other such features. We must also know something about the shape of the horn, the way it looks, and how it is positioned on the head. Using the ideas of horse, cone, white, and a number of other complex ideas (including the ones that must go into making up horse and cone, we form the concept of a unicorn)

Various philosophers have tried to divide our ideas up into simple and complex categories (most notably John Locke); the simple ideas being those that can not be broken down any further such as the idea of white; the complex ideas being those that involve more than one idea put together in some manner such as a white ball. But my focus is not how we get ideas of things, but how we consider things to be things in themselves, or how we determine whether things exist in the real world in just in our thoughts.

Often, the word essence has been used to describe an aspect of something, an aspect that may itself involve existence. The term essence is, in my opinion, faulty. It tries to point out one main characteristic of something that describes the thing in question better than any other word. For example, the essence of mind for Descartes, was thought; similarly, the essence of body was extension.

So, again, does a unicorn exist? We can show that our idea of a unicorn exists in some sense just by imagining it, thereby bringing it into the realm of mental existence. So what is the difference between a unicorn and a horse that we see in a field, or that we see in the real world? This distinction, between the real world and the mental world may not be a distinction at all— as we can see if we continue on this path of exploration into the heart and nature of existence.

We see a horse in a field. It has properties that we observe, like being four-legged, having a mane, having eyes, being white (or brown or black), and other such things. So what is the difference between the white horse and the white unicorn we can imagine? What if I were to glue a yellow horn on this white horse? Will it then become a unicorn? Actually, it will become an annoyed white horse with a horn glued to its head, not a unicorn.

So, what then makes something a unicorn? Its properties, like being white, or having legs, make it a unicorn. The one special property that we ascribe to unicorns, to fairies, and gremlins is that they do not exist in the real world. Sometimes we say that a unicorn does not exist, but of course we do not mean that we have no mental concept of the unicorn, rather, we mean that the unicorn does not exist in the world we observe every day. This is something we must look at more closely. Now we must take a closer look at what we mean when we describe something, or give it properties. Again, the properties of a unicorn include anything we can use to form the idea of a unicorn (white, four legs, eyes, etc.). Recently, I took a trip to a small island off the coast of south America called Boca Conejo. There, I was able to hike through the mountains and see many of the things that one would commonly find on such an island: trees, mountains, gorgeous cliffs high above the ocean, and white sandy beaches that sparkle in the sunset. But there was a rare animal on Boca Conejo that I had never heard of, nor seen, nor even imagined. It was called a Dirani. The tour guide who led me through the hilly paths had told me of the small creature, and of its secluded life in the bushes of the deciduous forests on the island. A small, rodent-like mammal, it is a cross between a squirrel and a fox with a rather exotic coloring. The bushy, stubby tail of the Dirani is a deep red, and its underside white. The males have a spotted gray back, and the females are generally smaller. Its eyes are positioned somewhat farther apart than we are normally accustomed to thinking of, and this has helped it evolve a wider field of vision, and hence a better chance of survival.

"Golden-Auraed Abstract Spirits Rising #3", 2007, by Anthony Peter iannini

After hours of walking on the coast, I finally saw one of the small creatures scurrying through some fallen leaves near a large rock. It paused for a moment, looked around, and jumped up on the stone. Before I could get a picture, it was gone.

Do you have an idea of what the Dirani looks like? Could you see the vegetation and beauty of Boca Conejo? There is something amazing about the Dirani; it doesn’t exit, it never did exist, and it probably never will exist in what we call the real world. Amazingly enough, I’ve never been to an island off the coast of South America called Boca Conejo, and in fact, it does not exist in the real world either. Was this a cruel joke on my part? Maybe— but it proves an amazing point about existence.

For a moment you probably thought the Dirani did actually exist in the real world, unless you read ahead or are a zoologist with extensive knowledge of South American geography. Unless you are one of the former, the Dirini was, for a moment, an animal that lived on a beautiful island.

So what is the difference between fiction and fact? What does this little exercise in trickery prove about existence? Let’s pause again for a moment and take another look at perception, or how we form idea about things in our heads. Then, I will go into more detail about the consequences of the fictional Dirani example.

We perceive using five senses, namely sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. Also, we perceive using innate or hard-wired parts of our brains. Exactly what these parts are is a topic of much debate, but it is highly likely that we have some abstract ideas about animals, food, and space without ever actually having to actively perceive them.

While I don’t want to get stuck on this point, it is important to realize that child psychology has shown us that some things are definitely not learned but are developed during the formation of the brain. For example, we not learn to perceive hunger and we do not learn to perceive sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

These are basic, obviously necessary perceptions for survival. However, we do perceive colors. A blind man, it seems, can never perceive blue or red. And a deaf man can never perceive sounds. A human that has been fortunate enough to have all five senses in good working order then forms a conception of the world through senses and through a limited innate understanding of some concepts that we may discuss later but are not of much importance at this point.

Now, if you are in a wide open field with a horse, you can use all of your senses to gain an understanding of what the horse is, or what it means when someone refers to a horse. Your vision allows you to see the color of the particular horse (lets say this one is white), the shape of the horse, and its movement through space.

You can smell the horse, whether it be pleasant or not. Your auditory senses allow you to hear the sounds of the horse, and its ‘clip-clop’ sound on the ground. You can pet the horse and feel the texture of its hair, the composition and hardness of its musculature, and you can ride the horse to better understand its size and movement.

Depending on your culture or eating preferences, you can even taste the horse. Many people have never actually seen a horse in real life but rather on television or in a painting. Do these people have as good a concept of what a horse is as those who spend their lives riding them? Of course not.

Just as a blind man may have a better concept of what a horse feels, smells, and sounds like, the man with vision has a better understanding of a what a horse looks like. So, what do all of these varying degrees of perception of the thing we call a horse have to do with existence? Everything.

If you have never actually seen a horse, then how do you know it exists in real life? Well, you can rely on what other people have said to you, what has been written, pictures, film, sculptures, all manner of representations of what a horse is like. But, didn’t I just produce a moderately descriptive portrayal of the Dirani?

Did the Dirini exist in the real world while you were forming a concept of it from the description I presented? What if I had presented you with a film of the Dirani using computer graphics that were so advanced, you couldn’t distinguish the film I fabricated from a real film?

How many people and places have you never actually seen or observed with your senses that you take to really exist? Think back to childhood and remember all of the falsehoods that you took to be so real— Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and other such characters. Do any of them exist in the real world?

Not in terms of what we may think of as adults, but we once did think they existed in the real world, just as you may have once thought the Dirani existed while you were being told about it. Now we move one step further towards understanding the notion of existence by comparing it to how we know or perceive it in relation to certain things.

It would be one thing for me to say that Santa Clause does not exist, but it would be another thing to say that there are no such things as horses— right? This is a distinction that, as I have been hinting at, fades away when we get to the heart of existence. This is the point at which we enter the realm of seemingly improbable situations that defy common sense and common notions. At this point we must question the ability of our direct sensory perceptions.

In other words, if we have seen a horse up close, and we have touched one, or ridden one, how can we be sure that it actually exists? This is where we bring in the reliability and soundness of our memory, and begin to analyze our perceptions under the scrutiny of certainty and possibility. As we dig deeper into the subject, we should remember to avoid sustaining this scrutiny after it has been done; for otherwise we may be left mentally paralyzed— unable to be certain of anything other than that which we are immediately perceiving, which also, comes into question.

If I rode a horse one year ago, can I be sure that this memory is not false? Is it not possible to mistake dreams or imagination for actual memory? On an average fishing trip, someone may catch a fish one foot in length. Over time, if the story is told again and again, the fish may grow. This growth is, of course, not real, in terms of the size of the fish at the time it was caught, but internalized by the person telling the story. After a lifetime, a small fish story may become a big fish story- hence the analogy used when people embellish a past event to make it more interesting.

Also, when we dream, we seem to confused things in the real world with things in the mental world. For example, if someone wakes up to music every morning, they may imagine, while still dreaming, that the music is coming from some other source than the clock radio which seems to really exist. Hallucinations are common for people who have recently been injured or are under the influence of certain chemicals that induce dream like states while they are awake.

So, what really exists? How do we wipe away the distortions of reality and truly know anything about the distinctions between what exists in our heads and in the external world? There are a number of ways we can attempt this distinction, but it may be that each of them has some underlying possibility of falsity; of being an illusion. Before we can decide, we must continue on our journey into, and out of, existence.

We can move on from the aspect of existence that has to do with time and try to show the subjective nature of existence independently of temporal aspects. Let’s return to the unicorn. If a child is told that there are horses and there are unicorns, what will make that child distinguish between the existence of the horse and the non-existence of the unicorn?

Would it not be easy to continue such a false idea in the mind of a child for the duration of his or her lifetime if we wanted to? Is this not what we attempt to do for a number of years in relation to the existence of Santa Clause in our American culture?

But what if the child one day asked to see Santa Clause? What if he or she was unconvinced about the existence of the jolly old fellow? Well, we could show him Santa Clause— in the form of an old, white-bearded man dressed in a red suit. But what if the child asked to see the reindeer and the sleigh, not only on the ground, but taking off in the sky?

Well, we may have some problems, but we may be able to fabricate this as well. (I think that the child who asks many questions and refuses to believe is the one who will make the best use of the senses to really get an understanding of what is ‘out there’, regardless of its actual existence, because 'actual' existence is irrelevant.) 

The complete analogies of Santa Clause and of the Dirani are usually what I would call weak examples of existence, in terms of their certainty or their source. You never really see the Dirani or Santa Clause (unless we dressed an old man up, which would not really be Santa Clause), but merely formed images about them.

Likewise, we have (except maybe for a few astronauts) never been to the moon. Yet, we all believe that our country sent Apollo missions to the lunar surface, where rocks were collected and brought back to Earth. Is this like the Santa Clause example or the Dirani example?

Well, it is much more like the Dirani example, in that it is possible within the bounds of what we know about physics and mythology. In other words, the real existence of Santa Clause is highly questionable based on understandings of how the world works (which are questionable), whereas the trip to the moon and the Dirani example fit our conceptions of the world and rely only on non-deceptive forms of information.

It would be possible to make the public think our trip to the moon existed even if it never did. With this I would like to conclude the weak examples of existence, namely those like the ones based on second-hand information, and move on to what I would like to refer to as strong existence.

Strong existence is the existence of properties of things that we immediately perceive. It may seem that strong and weak existence fade into one another in certain examples, and indeed they do. However, I would like to make a sharp distinction at this point to demonstrate strong existence.

Look at your hand. You can see it, you can feel with it, and do a number of things that would make you believe it does exist outside of your mind. But, can you see your hand in front of your face while you dream? Yes. But can we tell the difference between a dream and reality? Maybe. Even if we can tell the difference through some intrinsic variation between a dream reality and a real reality there are still problems to overcome. When you look at your hand, you are perceiving something through the use of your mind. Imagine there is a machine that is throwing tennis balls at you.

Each ball comes at a regular interval, in the same direction, with identical velocities. Every time a ball flies out, you catch it. This is analogous to what you do when you ‘look out’ at the world. All light comes at you like the tennis balls, and your eyes catch it. Hence, you are ‘catching’ reality. And, the farther away the tennis ball machine (or the light source) is, the more in the past this reality is.

Therefore the reality of your hand may be only a fraction of a fraction of a second old, whereas the reality of stars in the sky may be a few billion years old. If everything ‘out there’ exists in the past, then where does this leave the present? There is no present existence outside your mind, and the question of where in time reality exists in your mind is difficult, if not impossible to answer.

Another Look at Existence (3) | The underlying nature of existence:
____________________________________________________________________________

What is existence? Is it our linguistic attribution of a concept to an abstract idea? When we say that a unicorn exists in our minds, what do we actually mean? I think we are talking about something more like the image stored in a computer’s data banks. If we were to process a unicorn in an image file, and store it, it would not actually be a unicorn. Rather, this image would take on a form that only the computer itself could understand in terms of translation and reproduction into something that we can visually perceive. If this unicorn had "properties", what would they be?

They would be properties of the interpretation, not of the unicorn itself.

These properties would depend on the interpreter. If I saw the stored unicorn, (if such an entity can be seen) it would be incomprehensible to me because of the fact that it is in a foreign language; namely, the language of computers. Now, in the brain, the unicorn would take only equally specific properties that are reserved to human cerebral interpretation. It seems as though we could imprint a unicorn on another human and this would generate generally a similar construct in terms of its properties.

"We Thinks Babies Eat Kittehs", 2008, by Anthony Peter Iannini

Can we attribute properties to something that does not exist? Existence itself is in question here, and this is a central question in the search for answers. White is not a property of the picture of the unicorn, white is a property that we GIVE to the picture. The unicorn in our minds is not actually white in any sense, because it does not actually reflect light into our eyes as do other ‘white’ things. So what is the nature of this whiteness that we can see both internally and externally? What are the properties of this property to be more precise? Whiteness is another word. I would say that when we see white and when we recall white they are separate things, that is to say the whiteness from a light bulb is direct, forceful, and hits our visual senses. However, the internal ‘whiteness’ that we recall is much more abstract in a sense. You can not ‘strike’ yourself with a bright light, meaning you can not physically be blinded by light from within the mind. Where is this taking the conception of properties? Properties are soon becoming things that we attribute to mental images and to things that we think are external or independent of our minds. The word ‘properties’ itself must be scrutinized so as not to confuse what we are trying to pursue by giving something ‘properties’ whatsoever. What exactly is a property of something? It is what we use to describe an object. Humans must use much the same tools to describe something, and therefore it will have much the same properties regardless of which human perceived whatever is in question. For example, the unicorn— all humans will see it as white, with a single horn (and the idea that humans do not see the same colors but refer to the same colors by name is recognized here but is also irrelevant)

So, again, what is a property? Am I going to be forever lost and engaged here in my own cyclical dialogue, or is it that I will eventually come to know what this thing— a property actually is....maybe I should look at some things to clarify the point....

a tree- properties depend on the specific tree, but general properties are common to trees- green, leaves, trunks, roots, and other such things are nearly universal to the concept. So where does the line between say a rock and a tree fade? Picture a large boulder carved slightly in the shape of a tree...now people will say, ‘that rock looks like a tree’....now say this rock is actually carved much more to look like a tree...

Much like a perfect ‘rock tree’...people will now point out how beautiful this rock is, as it is made to look just like a tree. Now, paint the rock so that it is identical in outward appearance to another tree. People will remark, ‘what a beautiful tree". And is it not certain that if we took a Real tree from the forest and coated it with a rocky layer, people would then say it was again a beautiful carving of a tree, but not recognize the tree below the surface at all...

Humans see the properties at the surface of everything....we do not see in more dimensions that the two-two dimensional cones that are cast out by our visual senses- our eyes. These are much and all we have to go on, in the sense that we give properties based on our senses...for what other properties are there?

Are there properties that do not need senses to be perceived? Because isn’t a property only a property when it is an aspect, a part, of something that is observed. And something is observed only when there is an observer. Therefore, all properties derive from the observer.....in question.

Existence is something perplexing because we must find out if something that does not exist can have properties.

[a] I think of a unicorn

[b] It does not exist (but it must now exist in some sense, because it is in my mind)

[c] So it does exist in another sense or in the same sense

[d] I can give properties to it

[e] I can call a non-existent unicorn ‘white’ because that is how I perceive it to be

[f] How can the mind perceive things that it has never seen?

[g] It must make things up from parts already seen...it must combine memories....

To make the idea of "pludgemonger" I put together the ideas of a dragon with the ideas of a large bird, and feet of a horse to make an incredible beast that I have never seen before. Where did this come from? It is an invention, and made-up by my mind. So, the question then becomes, how is it that I was able to do this?

Obviously, everything that I perceive is not everything that I can mentally represent. I can create, I can paint with art and make drawings of things that were and things that never were- in the sense that they existed in the external world. So, does something truly exist and have properties when it is in the mind? No. Just as something I am not immediately attending too does not have to exist in the external world now....or does it? Where would something in the external world go if it did not exist? Into a type of non-existence? Into some - no that is something.

Existence...what the hell does this word mean? It means APPEARING, it means having the perception of something....IT MEANS PERCEIVING THE PROPERTIES OF SOMETHING....it means perceiving the properties of something...things are no where, they are never really in the world and they are never really in our minds, in the sense that they ever existed separately whatsoever.

So things do not exist until something perceives of them, things do not exist until they exist in the sense that existence is an attribute applied to them BEFORE all other attributes...because if I say that something has an attribute, then I am saying that it exists in the utterance of the sentence, PROPERTIES CAN NOT BE APPLIED TO NON-EXISTENT THINGS, but anything thought of becomes existent as soon as it is thought of....therefore, the mind of the perceiver determines what does and does not exist in the sense that everything is subjectively found.

If I think of God, then my mental image of god does exist, this does not, however, mean that a god must exist beyond my mind. It is enough to say that it begins and ends where my mental concept of god is. If I were delusional and thought that god was a person named BOB who I had just spoken with, then that person bob would have similarly only existed in my mind.

Actually, everything that I perceive only exists within my mind because as soon as I reflect upon it, the damn stuff has already gone from what I am reflecting upon....it is as if my mind is trying to catch up to something ‘out there’ but the out there can never actually be perceived because of the fact that I am trying to perceive it....

in terms of physics, if I am something, let’s even assume a non-ideal world, then light and force is transmitted to me every instant...by the time I get to ‘perceive’ this, it is already in the ‘past’ in the sense that when I ‘look’ back out again at the world, it is hard for me to know if this is what I remembered or if it is something completely different from moment to moment.

More thoughts on Idealism:
_________________________________________

It seems as though there is something outside of us, some substance that acts upon our perceptual mechanisms. It also seems as if there is something inside of us, some non-spatial, non-temporal mental thing that exists in some fundamentally different way. But is this the case? Is there a real distinction between what the mind is and the body is? Or, is all of reality just a totality of mind or of physical substance?

That which is observed to exist does exist. That which is not observed to exist is the negation of everything, or of existence itself. If something is said to exist, then it does in any sense the word can mean. The heart of the problem at hand is understood when we try to define existence as something outside of minds or inside of our minds.

For, there can not be such a distinction. Because all sensations that act on the mind must first be incorporated into the intellect, all things that are given to the senses must necessarily exist mentally. When we speak of an objective and external to the mind world, we speak of both actual existence and possible existence.

The possibility of existence depends on what the observation of the mind encompasses, and also what the imagination conceives. The complete realm of the possibly experienced is infinite. This infinity can not be actualized without experiencing all possible objects of existence. If we consider the possible objects of existence as the objective and the actual objects of existence as the subjective, then we have done nothing more than categorize a set of objects within the greater set of possible existence.

The existence which is often used to describe imaginary or conceptual objects (such as mythical creatures and numbers) is an existence not of a distinct sort— though it can be conceptually categorized as distinct. The question of what exists is dependent on the observer and its interaction with the objects of possible experience. If the observer is a normal human, and an object of possible experience presents itself as green, then green exists.

Whether or not there is an actual distinction between existence outside of the mind and within the mind is something that can not be answered. Because existence only comes about in the mind of the observer, all existence must necessarily be a property of the object of possible existence and the perceptual properties of the observer. When we ask whether or not X exists, we are not asking a valid question. To ask whether or not some thing is actually some thing or not some thing is a question that misunderstands the meaning of the term existence. All objects of thought exist in the same way.

When someone imagines red and looks at a tree in a garden, they sometimes will claim that their idea of red is not like their idea of a tree in a garden— which, they claim, actually corresponds to some thing outside of the mind. But, how do we ensure that the tree exists independently of the mind? We can not. It seems as though all objects of possible experience lend themselves to us in certain ways— namely in a spatio-temporal order, and that we bring these concepts to bear on all of our thoughts. A tree in the mind is a spatial tree, with dimensions. A person in the mind is a person existing through time.

It is as if there is an objective existence just beyond our grasp that is so fragile as to be only stable during observation. But, if this is so, then isn’t it we who bring the stable, but fragile, existence to that which is outside of us? For, with no observation all things collapse into a dimensionless singular thing. All things must collapse into one thing because without observation and the accompaniment of a spatio-temporal order, there is no distance and no size, no measure and no duration. A nothingness ensues until something arises from it to bring it order. But, the order is like a beacon that shines in the direction of observation.

When an intellect comes to be from the nothingness, all objects of possible existence within the scope of the intellect’s perceptual realm become actualized existence. But, all actualized existence is completely relative. One actualized existence that categorizes and perceives, is still caught up in the oneness of the whole.

And, the totality of actualized existences become merely potential existence. What we call consciousness is the first-person experience of actualizing existence. Memories of patterns of actual existence build up to form a representation of time and causality. This representation becomes the well from which we bring forth the imagination and concepts of the intellect.

The well is everything. Anything which is not in the well is possibly existent. Anything inside the well is actually existent. Objects can move in and out of the well, and flirt with non-existence and existence in the same moment.

When we forget, some object of actual existence converts to an object of possible experience. The more we know and understand, the wider our existential field grows. Its most outer bounds are defined as god. If there is anything that lies outside of possible experience, then it is nothing, nothing even for god.

A mind that has actualized all of possible existence is god. Must there be a mind that has actualized all potential existence? What is possible must first be understood to be possible, which means that everything possible is actual for all minds. Therefore, each mind actualizes all of the possibly existent objects, and each mind is god experiencing once facet of one possible mode of one possible being.