To mightymoe

Your quote: ....."it only exists because I can see it" thoughts...

You might agree with everything I've said, (or plaguerized, if you prefer - but I don't enjoy flattery!), if we bracketed the words "as far as I am concerned" after everything.

Excellent. It's the perfect solution. Existence is - AS FAR AS IT IS CONCERNED.

Your quote: "it existed long before humans we're ever around, we just didn't know about it..."

One can speculate endlessly, and extemporize infinitely, but there is no proof of anything without a prover.

the proof in in the pudding...the earth was here for at least 4.5 billion years before anyone was around to see it, so it didn't exist? So how are we living on something that doesn't exist?

Well Keith, deaf, dumb, and blind infants know of no words, but they must understand that they themselves, and other things exist, because they interact with nameless wordless objects until they are educated.
Helen Keller was deaf, dumb, and blind, but learned from her mothers teaching, and did amazingly, even though in her original world there was only tactile communication, not a word to be perceived as we know it.

Was it Johnathon Swift, who years before scientific telescope observation, described the attributes of mars in detail, and decades later his 'fictional' writing came to be quite accurate.
Now many knew of mars, and guessed at its conditions.
But did Johnathon fix the state of mars by using written words, and many minds, and making it just so in doing that ? So that when telescopic observation was available, the scientific observations agreed with his statements.

Can I then say that (although it previously did not exist as far as anyone currently knows), a planet 200 light years away in a direction directly opposite Andromeda, orbiting a binary star system, will be found to have 'intelligent' silica, carbon, and ammonia based life forms on it, able to communicate with each other over long distances.

Not excessively detailed, but descriptive enough to make a point/experiment.

Now I have worded it, and it will be published here, to be read and imagined, and made real by many minds, it may exist, and only time will tell.
Let us make life in the likeness of our imaginations; and it was good.

To mightymoe

You: "...So how are we living on something that doesn't exist?"

Just precede the first verb with one negative......and we agree!

Let me quote this, just for fun.

The human is a hamster pet,
scurrying in its sphere.
It hasn't quite discovered yet
that all its prattle's null and void
becos de wheel iz made o' Woid!

Thus I am The Slave of Word;
(I'd thought I was its master!).
Forgetting I invented it
‘s the cause of this disaster!

To notbeold

You: "...and made real by many minds, it may exist...
Me: if you say so! (Or to put that another way, if ANYONE says so, and provided you can hear them saying so!!

Me:"""Whatever I accept as being, is and remains so, for as long as I am able to think it."""

Add to this; 'when I'm not here, I won't be able to think it. If I can't think it, it isn't', because, quote: """the only “proof” of the contents and substance of this [Existence] concoction, is ‘humans declaring/agreeing that it is so‘. No other PROOF is possible""".

Keith what about the original Easter Island language and writing.
All useful memory of it and its meanings have been lost, no words are spoken, but the artifacts with ancient writing on it do exist.

Many have seen, and agree on their sighting what they saw, although understanding is individual levels of ignorance.

If I only saw the shadowy shapes of things, but not the item properly, and if no body agreed with me, would it then exist or not ? I know its shadow exists so by association the item must, but is unproveable - something else making an identical shadow could be the cause.

To notbeold

Quoting me: "The frame's the game".
Humans are enjoying inventing it.

Most people are happy to play it - {they just love to complain}.

My E=W by A is really only useful to anyone who is uneasy - (and therefore perpetually uncomfortable) - with the "existential explanations" offered so far. I have met people who are genuinely irritated by that 'uneasiness', and wish they could resolve it.

What uneasiness? The "it-doesn't-make-sense" one. My statement resolves it: but does it spoil the game to find out that there is no game? Not at all. I wouldn't miss the trip for anything! But..... I am free now, of THE ball-and-chain:

E X P E C T A T I O N S

Quoting me: """Knowing that I am solely responsible for ALL occurrence - (my perception decides on the relevancy of anything and everything) - I choose my moral/ethical obligations and commitments, without deferring to anything or anyone else. However, I am also just as free to decide to be bound by any principles I admire and respect - as is, say, the person who believes that “IT is all here anyhow”"".

As statements go, mine isn't a long one. A very, very slow and calm reading of it should do the trick: but most prefer to think that The Frame was put there by someone or something else, rather than accept that THEY ARE DOING ALL THE PUTTING ALL THE TIME

I think I get it Keith. But word is not needed, only collective understanding, like with the Egyptians and their cartouches containing imagery and symbolism to convey meaning easily understood by the illiterate folk of the time. Which I suppose had language words not written words, for the illiterate, (oral tradition), so back to words, minds, and agreements.

It also sounds a bit buddhist, 'all is illusion' but if more than one agree on the illusion it is then tangible to them only by agreement of minds, even if only in concept and not physically in reality.
But others not agreeing with the concept does not make it disappear, or void, it only creates another concept of discredit in relation to the former concept.

So then, if I assert only to myself that an un-named thing exists, and make no name or sign or symbol to attach to it as identification, it does not exist.

That reminds me of a legal thing: that if a 'society' can not be named, it is then not a society; as societies have names, memberships, laws rules and articles, officers, symbols signs flags, treasurers, etc..

It's hard to get away from, even animals have agreements of understanding: this screech means danger; this squawk means food is here, this facial expression means I am displeased; this posture means I acquiess, etc.

Even the plant world has chemical signals of understanding.

But if I turn off and don't think, or acknowledge, then nothing exists.
And when I sleep and don't dream, then nothing exists.

To Notebold

You: "...only collective understanding..."
me: for which one needs a tool [word!]: i.e. e=w/a[greement]
you: "...a bit buddhist, 'all is illusion'..."
me: 1) they've been known to burn bits of paper!, which means that they think they and Buddha are 'around'. 2) to have 'illusion', there must be someone or something having it!
you: "So then, if I assert......does not exist."
me: dead on !!
you: "I think I get it Keith."
me: I think you do indeed. And you're about the only one I've met who hasn't run away from it. Not surprising. For most, it'd spoil the game.

But NOT SO; it doesn't actually: I'm certainly enjoying playing it!!! However, I'm no longer nagged with the "what does it all mean?" bit. I'm no longer afraid that if I don't find its 'meaning', it won't have any 'purpose'. And that, believe me, is a great and permanent relief!!

""The Word I am
that pens the eye
that views the void
that hems the sky
that spawns the soil
that yields the one
who kens
The Word I am
that pens the eye""......etc.

In a book named the book, an alleged 'being' apparently asserts "I am therefore I am".
But no contemporary of/at the time agrees with, or acknowledges this being, (in the various interpretations of the writings).
There is no name except 'am' in that particular statement. There is no confirmation or agreement by any other cohort.
Therefore "am" does not exist. - Does not am.
Yet billions, long after the alleged fact, assert sometimes violently, that their version of it ('am') not only is, but is supreme. And not only that, but under many different names and understandings.
Oh - the humanity !

There is so much that I don't agree with, that other people do agree with mainly because of 'tradition', dis-education, fear and superstition, and lack of understanding and logic; it only exists to me when others' reaction to my 'attitude' impacts on me.

It was good puzzling with you. Got any more ?
Nice circular poem Keith.

LOL

Perhaps you need to watch a movie or two?

Kong: Skull Island and The Matrix would be two good starting points.

In Kong: Skull Island, The Native islanders had no word, they didn't speak at all. I live alone, I don't speak much anymore yet things still exist. The label I assign things does not define their existence. The labels are there so I can identify the different things that exist.
There are things that exist that I have no word to describe, I just make one up.

In The Matrix, Neo is asked if he thinks that's air he's breathing.

The concept behind The Matrix is that reality is merely signals in the brain. That if something can cause those signals to reach the brain, anything can be considered reality.
The problem with that is there needs to be a brain there to begin with.
Brains don't just manifest out of nothingness.
They have atoms and are alive. Even if it is a computer AI it still needs energy.

Something somewhere must exist for anything at all to exist.
A word can't be formed without something forming it.
So...For word to exist, something must exist before it.
If one thing exists without word, why can't other things exist without word?

To notbeold

You: "It was good puzzling with you. Got any more ?"

ANY MORE ???!!! This one already cost me about 30 years sir. (Admittedly I'm a very slow student.) So just the one will have to do; although I do have a couple of (YouTube) audios, which make it all somewhat entertaining instead of simply laborious: THE NONSENSE TREE and THE TRICK.

The verse: yes; it's from my 'Eulogy Cantata'

welcome to the clubless.

keith

To Tom4Uhere

you: ....."why can't other things exist without word?"

'Existence' is a word; without that word, there would be 'not a thing called existence'.

But it's there just the same, you say? Ah, but no doubt, when there are no words, it goes by some other form of identification.

Do let me know what it is, won't you.

Well, since human beings evolved to use language and written forms of communication, how would you like me to let you know?
I could show you reality by smacking you upside the head with a 2x4 and not say a word.
But...in order to communicate in a non-invasive way, I choose to communicate with you by using words.

Reality is there whether it is defined by words or not.
Two people can be in a burning building and neither understands the other's language but they both understand the fire that exists in front of them.

The brain didn't manifest the fire out of nothingness by naming it.
The fire exists without the word.

Then you have the whole world that exists for infants that can neither speak or form words, yet they know when mom offers to suckle them.

Do you think your pet defines reality with words?
Stand in front of a starving tiger and he won't be thinking or defining you with words, he will be chowing down on you.

To Tom4Uhere

You: "Reality is there whether it is defined by words or not. "
Me: Really? Do tell me what put it there? Your statement is so 'definitively conclusive' that it can only have been YOU!

you: "The fire exists without the word."
me: "And pray, what is it called?"

Quoting me; "...Mind you, if you dare[!] to propose that ‘Word’ was around before “the big bang”, (or any other ‘kick-off hypothesis’), you’ll have to ask, ‘then who or what was doing the talking at the time?’!"

Your argument makes no sense to me.
You're saying that nothing can exist unless it is named.
Things exist that I don't label, most of the time they are things that have no importance to me and don't really get any attention from me, yet they still exist.

What happens if I call a screwdriver a shoe?
Does it become a shoe?
Will others recognize it as a shoe?
You can use a screwdriver as a hammer or a prybar but it remains a screwdriver no matter how it is used. Its function changes but its existence remains. If you melt it down it becomes a glob of melted plastic and metal and is no longer able to drive screws but the name may or may not change to reflect those changes. Someone asks, "what is that glob of plastic and metal right there?" "Its a screwdriver" you reply.
They don't automatically define all screwdrivers to be that way.

Before I was born I was alive in my mother's womb. I had many different names both boy and girl depending on how I was being referred to.
When mom got pregnant with me, she didn't know I was in there till something changed in her body that she felt. I didn't have a name but I existed. I existed and she didn't know I existed.

If one thing can exist without a name, it breaks your argument.

Do you know what this is?
It exists and many people have no word for it.
It existed before it was found and because it exists it can be found and then named with a word.



It is called a Giant Isopod aka Bathynomus giganteus.



Your argument demands that I believe that no such animal existed before the 1879 discovery and that Alphonse Milne-Edwards' act of naming it was what created it.

Tom4Uhere

You: "You're saying that nothing can exist unless it is named."
I quote me: "NO THING CAN EXIST UNLESS IT IS PERCEIVABLE."

me: I thank you for the time you're spending on this - BUT.......

as it is clear from your 'mis-recalling of even the first line of my little statement, that you are concentrating let's say, far more on your argument than on mine, I'm wasting your time. My apologies for this.

I'm one of the great criminals in terms of 'wasting time'; and unfortunately, because I am HOMOMAL and not its ideal, MAN - (well, except for occasionally maybe!) - I'm doomed to go on and on wasting time; mine and others'.

As I just said to "notbeold" in this column: "My E=W by A is really only useful to anyone who is uneasy - (and therefore uncomfortable) - with the "existential explanations" on offer so far. I have met people who are genuinely irritated by that 'uneasiness', and wish they could resolve it.

What uneasiness? The "it-doesn't-make-sense" one.

You're obviously not 'uneasy'; so most of what I've said can't be of any serious interest to you. Enjoy the game.

Then you go on to claim that it can only be perceivable by 'word'.

Its the ole tree falls in a forest and noone is around did it make a noise?
Yes, it made a noise but noone was there to pick up those sound vibrations with their ears. You know it made a noise because there is evidence that can be seen with close examination that shows change of the surroundings by the shock wave of the falling tree.
When a similar tree falls and someone is there to witness the change, they detect a series of noises resulting from the fall. It leaves evidence that is the same as when the tree falls and nobody is around.
In our atmosphere sound is transmitted by waves in the atmosphere.
In space, there is no atmosphere and sound waves can't propagate so no noise is heard.

Mass exists at all levels of size from megastructures to sub-atomic scales. Atoms have properties that govern how mass acts at the sub-atomic level. It happens whether it is perceived or not. Without a way to make those particles look bigger, you can't see them. Yet they govern what we can see.
A mass that is at absolute zero is not moving (frozen) and if there is no movement, no heat. Light is completely absorbed so it doesn't reflect back to your eye (sensor). It can be described as 'dark matter'. A black hole is a point in space that has so much gravity that light can't escape so it looks black. The light never makes it to your eye (sensor).

Reality exists whether we can perceive it or not.

Keith your words do make more sense (more easily digestable), on re-reading them once the point is understood.
Your "perceivable" is only from an anthropocentric point of view, since it is only 'our' mind that we recognise/accept perception from/in.
The perceptions assembled by any other 'else' is out of our realm, thus irrelevant to our own actual perceptions.
Parts of the concept reminds me of religious archaeology: 'god made the dinosaur bones and coal [and radioactive decay etc.] so they seem old, though they were all created rather recently'.
I often wondered how it all "came to be" from childhood, after realising that the people who claimed to know, gave explanations that made no sense at all, without blind faith in nonsense.
"(“I fired my first god as soon as I found out.”)", so did I !
"Switching frames": I wanted to head that way, and the more I tried, the more the old frame tangled me in knots of 'potential loss', and piles of stuff I 'couldn't do without', without losing family, friends, ego, and the ME game.
The land YOU walk on may be flat, but map makers have named and agreed that at least parts of the land are not; it could be true.
A flat Earth puzzle I read somewhere is a flat disc Earth, where as you get further and further from the centre, the relative size of everything on the disc decreases, including your measuring instruments, so you can never reach the outer limit from the 'on disc' frame of reference; an apparently 'infinite' expanse of flatness according to any on disc measurements.
Here is a conundrum: nothing is curved, all is merely straight lines between points; nothing is straight, all is curved, as the smallest things' surface curvatures make straight lines impossible.

Word is nothing and useless unless another perceives it and both agree on a meaning, so entire new languages can newly exist (from nothing) if more than one can agree on a structure, and speak and understand it. [eg. Lord of the Rings; Star Trek.] Some old languages are being re-born by people using it again, and agreeing on current meanings, since the exact original meanings have expired with the old folk who formerly used it.

Sorry if I seemed flippant about your decades of thought put into the equation, but I enjoyed it. I've done a lot of mind bashing navel gazing, philosophising, and like that sort of thing, [I need a girlfriend to help waste my time].

Thanks for the welcome to the clubless.
Funny thing is, the way I think, other people want to use a club on me !

If you are well off enough to seriously think about 'really' changing frames, see 'The Magnificent Deception' video. It tells of the false perceptions created to control populations and profit from them, making them not Free Men.