Existence :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
"In common usage, existence is the world we are aware of through our senses, but
in philosophy the word has a more specialized meaning, and is often contrasted
with essence. Philosophers investigate questions such as "What exists?" "How do
we know?" "To what extent are the senses a reliable guide to existence?" "What
is the meaning, if any, of assertions of the existence of categories, ideas, and
abstractions."

The word "existence" comes from the Latin word 'existere', meaning to appear or
emerge or stand out.

The word 'exist' is certainly a grammatical predicate, but philosophers have
long disputed whether it is also a logical predicate. Some philosophers claim
that it predicates something, and has the same meaning as 'is real', 'has
being', 'is found in reality', 'is in the real world' and so on. Other
philosophers deny that existence is logically a predicate, and claim that it is
merely what is asserted by the etymologically distinct verb 'is', and that all
statements containing the predicate 'exists' can be reduced to statements that
do not use this predicate. For example, 'A Four-leaved clover exists.' can be
rephrased as 'There is a clover with four leaves.'

On 17 Aug, 04:35, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:44:55 -0700 (PDT), greasetheweal@yahoo.com wrote:

Probably. Entertainment, such as "religious experience" is all
that is needed from guesses.
I have no idea what you mean by "humility". Granted there are
word constructs that use that word, but from an engineering perspective
on human operation, I don't get it. Are zombies humble?

I suspect that human logic (which is all we can know), has very little
bearing on the issue.

On Aug 16, 10:35 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

On Aug 16, 7:35 pm, Sir Frederick fuzzysys.com> wrote:

How does it have fraudulent aspects, and are you saying that all
humans are arrogant when you say hubris?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:57:56 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:35:18 -0700, Sir Frederick wrote:

Following the reasoning (or is it hubris?) behind this question, a more
concrete lead up question might be "Why is there a lake, rather then a
desert?" This question now forces a near infinite set of environmental
even cosmic givens common to both a lake and a desert so a reasoned
answer can be found.

Any question of why is there one thing and not another has this quality
of commonality. First a common denominator is found then the specific
differences can be found.

What is common between something and nothing? As it is, there can not be,
this is the given in the question. There can not be any common 'thing'
with 'no thing at all'.. uhh well not quite.

There is the easy, too easy commonality of the words themselves (hubris?)
AND the presumption (even more hubris) that both conditions can be
('nothing' being a condition without things). Something, or rather
nothing becomes suspect!

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 03:05:51 -0700, Sir Frederick wrote:

By what standard are these 'constrained'? How do you know?

Again you presume knowledge of something else yet only can define error.

Still more. How do you know there is deceit?

You see flaw upon flaw. Flaw can not be flaw without some other condition
less flawed or without flaw. What is this?

You are describing water by how many people drown and how being wet can
make one sick.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:58:05 +0000, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

Unfortunatley, I'm afraid that's quite descriptive of the philosophy
of our friend Freddy :(

Art
http://home.ptd.net/~artnpeg

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:04:06 -0400, Art zilch.com> wrote:

Attacking the messenger, I see. Weak, as
are your stories.