Is existence [necessarily] objective?

OOC: Yes I know I posted in GC

--

Somebody from another forum posited a scenario that is irrefutable, but made me think all the same.

If there was a person who was just like us in every way except that the person was braindead, had no sensory abilities, and by some magical feat of suspension of disbelief was either not in our physical realm or was not able to interact with it (or invent whatever mentally feasible justification for what I'm trying to say), would that person exist? We couldn't sense the person and the person has no sensory abilities or cognitive ability.

The quick answer of course is the person doesn't exist -- we can't sense the person and the person can't sense the external world.

But it made me think -- there's a theory of existence where (generally) it is stated that because person A is thinking or has invented/created an idea, that idea, and thus the concept exists. Naturally thanks to solipsism of the mind the idea itself doesn't exist in the minds of others (until other people are told about it), but ultimately and in the end, the idea can be shared, and yet not 'exist'.

One can then make a loose idea that God exists because there are billions of people who have the 'idea' of God. God need not physically exist to 'exist' in this definition, though naturally it is now subject to the idea that God's existence is wholly subjective (which naturally believers don't attest to).

Thoughts / flames / pies?

The firings of certain neurons in the brain that happens when you're thinking about something can be said to "exist" in the physical word. In this sense thoughts are a physical part of reality. That does not make them the same as something actually existing in reality, of course (i.e., me thinking about the Invisible Pink Unicorn - the firing of certain neurons in my brain when I think about Her Horniness - is different from an Invisible Pink Unicorn actually existing outside of my head). You can easily make a distinction: something existing outside of your head is objective, whereas you can think about whatever-the-hell nonsense you want. But if you wanted to completely pervert the word "exist," I guess you could make the argument.

I guess it amounts to a semantics argument.

My friend pointed out that computer data is essentially non-existent without the proper software / hardware to interpret, even though a hard drive 'physically' exists (also ultimately hard drive data is just potential energy)

I would assume computer data exists in a similar way as thoughts - the firing of certain triggers which are interpreted by the hardware and software into what we see (like the firing of certain neurons in the brain is interpreted by our brain and body into certain words or actions). Actual spoken words don't seem to tangibly exist, but they are vibrations in the air which are interpreted by our ears and brain. In that sense, they do physically and objectively exist.

The body would exist. The person wouldn't.

And pie is delicious, no matter what decimal place you try it at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pureghetto

If there was a person who was just like us in every way except that the person was braindead, had no sensory abilities, and by some magical feat of suspension of disbelief was either not in our physical realm or was not able to interact with it (or invent whatever mentally feasible justification for what I'm trying to say), would that person exist?

---

A person with no physical presence has no brain or body. A person with no brain or body can't be braindead. Contradiction.

If you assume a contradiction, anything logically follows from it. So yes, he exists, in Fairy Land, and he plays with the Fairies.

When talking about such things as human beings, "exist" implies and requires physical presence.

[qq]One can then make a loose idea that God exists because there are billions of people who have the 'idea' of God.[/qq]

You can't conflate ideas and matter. They aren't the same thing. The idea of god absolutely does exist. (Assuming you can define "god".) A god who is not physically present doesn't exist no matter whether the idea does.

This is the distinction between imaginary friends and real people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pureghetto

But it made me think -- there's a theory of existence where (generally) it is stated that because person A is thinking or has invented/created an idea, that idea, and thus the concept exists.

---

I agree with this. The concept itself is the only thing that exists, and loosely at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pureghetto

Thoughts / flames / pies?

---

All of the above.