Kain aka That Evil Guy (nanikore) wrote in unjust_phil,
Kain aka That Evil Guy
nanikore
unjust_phil

Lane, existence can be a property.

I joined this community just to show Lane that he is mistaken about something. Oy vey.

How existence can be a property
(previously a model I cooked up to bug apperception with, now recycled just for i_am_lane)

llustration:

Key:
a = object of experience
a'= virtual object of experience
---> = sequence of recalled experience arranged in time

Usage of the term "stratum":

"Time is the formal, a priori condition of all appearances whatsoever, and all appearances whatsoever, that is, all objects of sense, are in time and necessarily stand in time-relations. Time serves a foundational role in experience, and as such it is a “substratum,” i.e., the representation of time (our indeterminate, pure form of intuition) must be presupposed in order to represent either coexistence or succession" -apperception

The creation and use of virtual objects of experience

--->a
(absolute coming-into-existence, with broken stratum due to lack of reference)

a'--->a
(absolute coming-into-existence with recollection of existence of experiential object coupled with a recollection of previous nonexistence of the same object as virtual reference)

a--->
(absolute passing-out-of-existence, with broken stratum due to lack of reference)

a--->a'
(absolute passing-out-of-existence with recollection of nonexistence of experiential object as virtual reference coupled with a recollection of previous existence of the same object)

Stratum is preserved via a "shadowed copy" of recalled experience. When dealing with absolute coming-ins and passing-outs, the "mind" pushes out a copy to the reference time in question and does a comparison. Because this is a "shadow," it does not interfere with normal operations upon the stratum (i.e. I won't suddenly have real memories of something that did not previously exist existing in a time that it didn't or vice versa simply because I imagined such a state of affairs in order to perform a comparison of "did this thing exist/not-exist?")


Hypothetical example of application:

1. A stuffed bear suddenly appears in front of me, out of thin air.

2. In my mind I ask myself, "was this bear here a second before?"

3. What happens when I ask that question is that I recall in my mind a sort of "mental imagery of a second ago" (I don't mean literally 1.0000 second ago, and I hope people won't pick on this needle point) and-

4. "See" if that mental imagery contains the same bear.

The "bear" in that recalled/created mental imagery is what I refered to as the "virtual reference." I had a "virtual experience" (it could be said as the creation of a "virtual stratum") for the sake of comparing the virtual reference with the real one. Both of those references are of the same "bear," except one is real and the other is virtual.

The model is applied in the same way for disappearing bears.


What does this have to do with the question "Is existence a property"?

The stuffed bear in the example, prior to its absolute coming into existence, can be said to take on a "virtual existence" for the sake of mental comparison. This "virtual object" has the property of "existence" set to "false". The moment that the stuffed bear pops into existence, its property of "existence" is then set to "true". This renders it an object and no longer a virtual object.

Now, we could have all sorts of virtual objects with their property of existence set to "unknown", up to and including cabals of tree-borne snipers. Existence can be a property when virtual objects of experience are involved.
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 6 comments
Get off my side.

'The state of affairs one second ago contains a stuffed bear' = False.

Huzzah! We've demonstrated that you don't need an existence predicate in order to state that the bear appeared.

What's a virtual object?

- M.
I'm on my own side

The question isn't whether the bear appeared or not but whether existence could be a property of a bear, in general

A virtual object is a mental entity created by the mind for the purpose of comparing the present state of affairs with a state of affairs that is not present
Is our imagination not a sort of present state of affairs?
It is. However, it does not make sense to utilize my model to analyze imagination (be it the faculty itself or its products) as an object.

I do not know how useful it is to produce a statement or a question regarding whether or not one's imagination exists.
You mean "use", not "utilize". These words are not interchangeable.

A model which does not or can not analyze imaginary objects (whichever you mean by "does not make sense") is making some rather bold ontological assumptions that I, personally, do not agree with.
You said:

Is our imagination not a sort of present state of affairs?

My response to you is regarding the analysis of imagination, not imaginary objects. My model obvious does deal with imaginary objects.