what does existance entail or require as a necessary accompaniment or consequence?
an effect on the senses of an observer. It can be as indirect as you like, but it must be there for the thing to be said to exist.
To justly say that something exists one must perceive it in some fashion…
perceive it through the senses?
can you perceive anything you don’t know?
True, but that only says something about one's knowledge of something's existance, and nothing about it's objective existance.
Does one's knowledge of a particular thing create it?
That is, since humans only discovered the ice caps of Mars recently, did they not exist for the rest of the history of the universe? Furthermore, if the knowledge of their existance dissappears, will they no longer exist? Does a particle not exist in a definite state below a certain uncertainty, or is it just impossible for us to quantify its exact state?
Ontology is incredibly tricky.
The only assumption that I am comfortable making about objective existance is that some things must exist, because the mind is incapable of completely generating it's own perceptions - that is, in order for us to percieve something, something must exist to percieve.
Nothing other than ability
Dear Emorgasm
All we have is the knowledge of something’s existence, we never know whether or not we have the ‘objective existence’ of a thing…
We cannot know either way. Yes, it is possible that this is all just one consciousness experiencing itself, creating its own meaning. But the way we seem to experience life is as irreducibly separate consciousnesses.
We cannot know either way. The earth may well have been flat 700 years ago, there’s no way of knowing for sure.
That depends on whether one expects answers or just a series of questions and presumptions…
From that one could spin out grammatical habits into any number of inferred conclusions - not least the Cartesian one of a thing which perceives, a consciousness of some kind. As I’m so fond of pointing out, this is more a problem of the difference between what can be experienced and what can be put into language. Indeed, even my saying ‘the difference between…’ cannot do that difference justice.
To be honest, the existence of a particular “what” implies absolutely nothing, except maybe its own existence.
How do we know that an object exists ?
Obviously, to avoid being in err when admitting that something is, we must perceive its mark somehow beforehand. Of course, we are talking about physical objects existing in a objective reality. Their existence is verified through our senses and it accumulates in to what we call experience, or practical knowledge.
Theoretical knowledge operates with concepts and ideas of things. The problem arises when trying to link the theoretical world with the physical one outside us, that is to say when attempting to give the same name to a physical and theoretical object. This is what Plato failed to find a solution to and remained a heavy issue for all post-platonic philosophers.
So is objective knowledge is knowledge that originates from physical reality? Can we say any subjective “knowledge” exists?
or is subjective thought just an opinion?
A very nice article by Wikipedia has this to say about the definition of Existence; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence .
I pretty much believe that if i can touch it, taste it, smell it, or think of it or percieve it in any way shape or form it must exist or possibly exist or might exist at sometime or another. Infinite combinations are surrounding us at all times wether it is physically present or just a random thought brings to the possiblity that all things that can be brought forth by thought or presence alone can exist. Just as a dream exists in your mind, a rock exists on the ground. existence is being percieved in one form or another wether it is a mere single electric impulse executed by your brain or anothers, to a fingernail on your hand. it exists, It is real, in one form or another.