>If so, then all I can think of to say is; the fact that you can have a
>thought and post it, means that you exist. If you didn't exist, you
>(quite obviously, which is the real point here) would not be able to.
>The distinction between these two scenarios should be enough to drive
>home the concept of "existence". Any individual's ideas about
>any particular /quality/ of existence, or the /nature/ of it, is surely
>/not/ the point.
Hmm...if existence has no properties you can agree on, then it would
seem to be a meaningless statement to say things exist.
> Asserting that there are different definitionss of the
>concept of existence is also asserting that there are more fundamental
>concepts that can be used to define it. An oxymoron. I've had
>conversations like this before, and without exception, they degenerate
>into a mass of non sequiteurs and simple refutation. If nothing else,
>one surely must acknowledge that refuting the simple concept of
>existence is mental masturbation - it gets you nowhere. If you hear
>one starting, run away and /really/ masturbate instead. It's more fun.
You talk about "existence" like some people talk about "God."
>
>Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com +1.206.688.8600
>CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA USA
>http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
>Do you know what a "meme" is?
>http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>