in reply to Ideas can exist without minds to m{end,old} them.
in thread evolving - meaning of life?

human ideas absolutely cannot exist without minds.
  • Comment on RE: Ideas can exist without minds to m{end,old} them.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Unexistence? Wha?
by gryng (Hermit) on Sep 15, 2000 at 02:35 UTC
    So, just because no one has thought of something, or even, isn't thinking of something at the moment, it doesn't exist???
      gryng, I think you misunderstood what brother mdillon was saying. Look at it again:
      human ideas absolutely cannot exist without minds
      This does not mean that apples don't exist if we fail to notice them. It means what it says. Ideas spring from minds; mdillon made no assertions regarding reality. Now it's possible, granted, that reality cannot be separated from our perception of it (a lot of quantum physicists would argue this), but I that's not what he said.

      In fact, it appears that the definition of idea that mdillon was applying was something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity. Ideas, therefore, require minds to form them.

      Cheers,
      Ovid

      Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just go the the link and check out our stats.

        As I noted to jcwren earlier, I agree with both sides of the coin. In fact, I would go so far as to say there is no way to prove one way or the other.

        My entire point, was simply to illuminate the possiblity of another way of thought. That is, ideas exist before their "creators" bear them. Much like the concept that people have souls and their body's are the bearer of them.

        Again, I don't adamantly follow either side of the coin; I just wanted to give the benefit of both sides to our Monks here.

        Ommm,
        Gryn

      There's a widely held belief that "reality" is a consensus belief system. That if no one believes (or perhaps thinks) of something, it doesn't exist. Right now, I'm trying real hard to not imagine the IRS.

      --Chris

      e-mail jcwren
        Thank jcwren,

        I of course presented the original question as: "Which came first the scriptor or the script?" Because I think there are two sides of the coin. I agree with your summed up view, that things must be believed before they exist. But similarly the notion that things exist even before they are believed is equally appealing.

        On the trek for knowledge I think it's important for the adept to see both sides of the coin.

        Ciao,
        Gryn