Imaginary things even many skeptics believe in.

[ZombieHorde]

Some to all Islamic terrorists believe they will receive celestial virgins when they martyr themselves. Thoughts about celestial virgins are real, the results of believing in celestial virgins are real, but the celestial virgins themselves are strictly imaginary.

Anything that exists only in our imagination is imaginary.

So here is a list of things we often take for granted as being real, even though these things don't exist outside of our imaginations.

1. Human rights
2. Laws
3. Governments
4. Organizations
5. Value
6. Meaning

I am not saying these things are bad; I like them. I am just saying they don't exist outside of our imaginations.

Please feel free to add to the list.

[TZ]

1. I disagree

Abstact concepts are not necessarily imaginary. For instance, can you tell me where exactly the ego is located in the brain? You can't can you? But most people accept the fact that it does exist, that people do have a sense of self.
Also, where is the conscience located? again, its an abstract concept but its something that almost all people acknowledge exists. I do not come from the school that something you can't see/smell/taste/touch isn't real, thats foolishness.
Most of what you listed are forms of ideas that exist as group functions in society, and they are valid and real.

[ZombieHorde]

2. I did not claim, and I do not believe abstract concepts are imaginary.

All concepts are real thoughts.

We can experience our own thoughts and emotions. Thoughts and emotions are real. The conscience is an emotional reaction to perceived stimuli.

I do not come from the school that something you can't see/smell/taste/touch isn't real, thats foolishness.

I don't either.

My claim is, anything that only exists in the imagination is imaginary. Laws only exist in our imaginations. Governments only exist in our imaginations. Meaning only exists in our imaginations. Etc.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

3. Isn't anything measurable real?

If anything measurable is real, I would argue that 1-4 are real because they can be measured. Even #'s 5 and 6 are measurable, although only using pretty arbitrary methods.

[ZombieHorde]

5. Let's examine it. Will you pick one and talk about how you would measure it? nt

[laconicsax]

4. I've never understood the appeal of virgins.

Who would prefer a partner who doesn't know what they're doing, much less kill for one?

[lazarus]

6. explanation is easy

It's because a woman is "damaged" by having sex. If she has sex with you, and you only, she's yours, so the damage is okay. No other man would want her, though, because now she's no longer pure.

I prefer Sam Kinison's philosophy. Paraphrased: Is your wife great in the sack? Thank all the guys she's slept with.

[ZombieHorde]

7. Apparently, Jihadist Muslims would kill for a pack of inexperienced lovers. nt

[TZ]

8. I understand it perfectly

Its like some bosses hiring people with no experience, that way no biases and you can teach them to do things the way you like it. Alot of people find it appealing to show someone something they've never done/experienced before..

[semillama]

9. Political borders

although that might be a subset of Government.

[ZombieHorde]

10. Good one. nt

[TZ]

11. etc for the ones delinated by natural features like rivers and oceans.

Plus the fact that they can be spelled out by latitude and longitude, real measurements. Are they a subset of human behavior and society yes, but they are very real.

[ZombieHorde]

61. The border of any country is imaginary. People who think they are measuring actual boarders

are actually just measuring land.

[laconicsax]

62. Are you saying that the Rio Grande is imaginary, or...

that the arbitrary naming of it as part of the border between the US and Mexico is imaginary?

[ZombieHorde]

64. I am saying...

"the arbitrary naming of it as part of the border between the US and Mexico is imaginary."

I completely agree that location exists. The area is real, but the border is a human agreement. All borders are agreements. Wolves create borders with their urine, but we don't recognize their borders, and wolves don't recognize our boarders.

[enki23]

12. free will

in the non-compatibilist sense that most people intuit, and generally believe that they have.

[jberryhill]

16. Amen

The notion that people choose what they believe is a basic and wrong assumption underlying a lot of things.

[Odin2005]

13. 7. A coherent self.

[Deep13]

14. Snuffleupagus

He's real, I tell you!

[jberryhill]

15. The value of money

As long as it remains a shared delusion, then I can trade gravure printed coupons:



for actual goods and services.

It's astounding. Each one looks just like another, but I have run into people who are positively mad collectors of them.

[laconicsax]

17. The shared belief and resulting agreement makes it real.

That and government backing.

If it's value was imaginary, you couldn't actually exchange it for real goods and services.

[jberryhill]

18. The value is entirely imaginary

But the "real value" is the shared belief in its value.

That doesn't make the value "real".

If everyone in the country woke up tomorrow believing you were the President of the United States, would you be the President of the United States?

[laconicsax]

19. Bad analogy.

"If everyone in the country woke up tomorrow believing you were the President of the United States, would you be the President of the United States?"

An accurate analogy would be if everyone in the country woke up tomorrow believing as such, and statutes declaring me President, and people in other countries also believed me to be President.

Money doesn't have value simply because everyone believes it does, but because you can actually exchange it globally for goods and services and it's legitimacy as having value is backed by law. Simply put, the value of money is both de facto and de jure.

[ZombieHorde]

23. "it's legitimacy as having value is backed by law"

One imaginary thing backed up by another imaginary thing.

If human motivation and behavior determined reality, then all practiced religions would be true.

[laconicsax]

26. You've defined imaginary as 'only existing in our imagination.'

That definition, while valid, doesn't quite work when applied to things that exist independently of our imaginations. An existence independent of our imagination can't really be said to only exist in our imaginations. Laws exist independently of our imaginations, as do governments, other organizations, and monetary value.

If something exists independently of our imaginations, what makes it imaginary and not real?

[ZombieHorde]

27. Those things don't exist outside of our imaginations.

If five children form a club, and then all five of them completely forget the club when they are adults, what happens to the club? Does it exist in the subconscious? A club so secret, none of the members know the club exists? Clubs are make believe.

If all humans suffered from complete amnesia for some strange reason, governments and monetary value would cease to affect us because we would no long imagine them. They wouldn't affect us again until we re-imagined them. Governments and monetary value are make believe. Computers would still compute, and keys would still open locks, but of course we would no longer know how to use them in my weird scenario. Computers and keys are real.

[laconicsax]

34. No longer existant does not mean never existed.

In your analogy, the club of five children existed while they had it and ceased to exist later. There could even be a point where they made the active choice to ended the club.

I think you need to differentiate between imaginary things that have never existed (such as monsters in the closet) and the form of imaginary you're using in your argument.

Suppose a group of people from 1785 were to Rip Van Winkle themselves to 1835. They would still 'imagine' the Articles of Confederation to be the law of the land and their state currency to have value, yet neither would be the case even if they didn't encounter anyone who knew otherwise. This is because government, monetary value, laws, etc. operate independently of human imagination. Another example would be a group of children who are ignorant of the government under which they live. They don't imagine their local government, yet it operates.

Things which exist only in the mind operate like religious beliefs--they have a diverging nature.

[ZombieHorde]

39. "No longer existant does not mean never existed."

I agree, my children's club argument was bad.

Suppose a group of people from 1785 were to Rip Van Winkle themselves to 1835. They would still 'imagine' the Articles of Confederation to be the law of the land and their state currency to have value, yet neither would be the case even if they didn't encounter anyone who knew otherwise. This is because government, monetary value, laws, etc. operate independently of human imagination. Another example would be a group of children who are ignorant of the government under which they live. They don't imagine their local government, yet it operates.

I agree, even if someone has no concept of a law, that person may be affected by it. The reason is other people do have a concept of the law, and they act on those concepts.

Laws are agreements some people make. Legislators pass a law, "no smoking in schools." The police have already agreed to enforce any law the legislator has passed. The schools agree to cooperate, most of the students agree to cooperate, etc. I think we both agree on this.

What is the source of agreements? Where are agreements? I think the answer is our imaginations.

[ZombieHorde]

22. Imaginary things can have real results; e.g., religion.

Money's value only exists in our imagination. Anything that only exists in our imagination is imaginary.

[laconicsax]

24. Is it my imagination that I can exchange money for goods and services?

:shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

28. No, but the amount and type of goods and services you can aquire with money

is based on imaginary values.

Value is not an inherent property of matter. Value is added to matter by our imaginations.

For example: You see a box of cereal at a grocery store selling for $5. You saw the same box of cereal at a different store for $4, so you decide the cereal is not worth $5. Another person sees the $5 box of cereal and decides that is a fair price, so that person decides to buy the cereal. The cereal's value only exists in the people's imaginations.

[laconicsax]

35. I think you mean artificial, not imaginary.

Monetary value is an artificial construct, but that doesn't mean it is imaginary.

[ZombieHorde]

38. I think artificial constructs only exist in our imaginations.

Money's value is based on opinions, and opinions only exist in our imagination. The US stock market rises and falls based on based on people's perception of it.

[laconicsax]

40. "Imagination," "imaginary," "imagined," etc. are inadequate terms for this discussion.

It seems that while a specific idea/concept agreed upon by millions of people can be said to only exist in the 'imagination' of those people, the fact that it has a definition which has been derived through convergence of opinion suggests that it is of a different sort than any of the various imaginary things such as gods, childhood imaginary friends, hallucinations, etc. which are based on divergent beliefs.

Ask n people where a country is, and you'll get a singular answer (ignorance notwithstanding). Ask n people what their god believes, and you'll get n answers.

I would argue that the difference here is significant, and requires separate terms.

[ZombieHorde]

42. Gods and imaginary friends may be very different from person to person,

but what about unicorns, Hello Kitty, or Pac-Man? I bet more people can identify and describe Pac-Man, than Montana.

When I say Pac-Man, I mean the hero of the game, not the game itself. Obviously the game is real, but the hero is make believe.

[dmallind]

20. This will quickly become semantics but to me imaginary does not equal nonexistent.

at least how you use it here. Laws certainly exist in tangible written form, data bits, etc, but even if they didn't they could still be said to exist. A meme widespread enough can be said to exist as every bit as much human perception as sight can be said to exist. That killing people needlessly is bad is a good example. Almost all humans embrace that at least proximally as a matter of moral agency. Not only will all but a tiny fraction of humanity refuse to shoot a total stranger dead, but they also will refuse to accept the willing arming of those who do want to shoot the same stranger. With a couple more degrees of freedom it's less clear - a minority for example would suggest banning the manufacture of the gun that kills the stranger, or fund better social services so the wannabe killer gets counseling and food stamps instead of prison as a juvenile and does not develop homicidal rage there. It is that completely imaginary but shared precept much more than the physical West law tome that has an effect on human moral agency. And how can an idea that is universal enough to drive human behavior not be said to exist? Not a silly platonist ideal form of course - there is almost certainly no perfect "do not kill" concept wandering some other dimension as an immanent phenomenon. But it really comes down to can you accept abstract existence separate from immanent phenomena?

BTW in case any DU believer wants to jump in here be careful to note that I say a widespread meme can be said to have existence if it is both shared by enough people and able to drive human agency. I do NOT say that what the meme itself posits exists. Christianity certainly qualifies. It's a very widespread, very effective meme. I very much believe Christianity exists, and not just as a figment of our imaginations, but as a construct that actually interacts with the physical world. Just not that what it talks about does too - that remains a figment.

[ZombieHorde]

21. "Laws certainly exist in tangible written form, data bits, etc,"

Ink on paper is not a law, it is ink on paper. The ink on paper, or data in computer, describes the law, but it is not the law.

That killing people needlessly is bad is a good example.

What killing doesn't fulfill a need? The only ones I can think of are accidental killings. Accidents are usually viewed as being outside of the realms morality and ethics.

And how can an idea that is universal enough to drive human behavior not be said to exist?

The idea is a real idea, but the idea's subject is imaginary. Islamic suicide bombers believe they will get celestial virgins. The belief(idea) is real, the celestial virgins are probably not real.

[Orrex]

25. I have to ask you to name something that truly does exist, by your criteria

As was noted above, you're playing with semantics a bit, in that you're sort of reserving the ability to declare that this or that "thing" doesn't really exist.

By what criteria do you judge something to exist? And can any "imaginary things" meet those criteria?

[ZombieHorde]

29. If something can be, even if no one knows about it, then it is real.

For example, there are probably insects humans don't know about yet, but they still exist. There are probably planets we don't know about yet, but they still exist.

This isn't semantics. Governments are make believe. They don't exist anymore than celestial virgins exist. Both governments and celestial virgins affect the world in real ways, but they are only in our imaginations.

[Orrex]

30. Is the number 3 real?

Not the numeral, and not the quantity, but the number itself.


And sticking with the semantics for a moment, I would distinguish between "imaginary things" and "abstract constructions." The tooth fairy is imaginary in a way that government or law is not.

[ZombieHorde]

31. The concept of the number three is a real concept, but there is no three.

The tooth fairy is imaginary the same exact way the government and laws are imaginary. Children believe in the tooth fairy, and their beliefs motivate their actions and plans. The concept of the tooth fairy is a real concept, but the tooth fairy is imaginary.

What is the difference between the tooth fairy and the US government? Both motivate people to act and plan, both affect the world in a real way, both are recognized by some, and denied by others. Both the tooth fairy and the US government have the same exact source, the human imagination.

The source of abstract concepts is the imagination. As far as I know, the imagination is the only place abstract concepts exist.

[Orrex]

32. I disagree, and you're still equivocating

The tooth fairy is imaginary the same exact way the government and laws are imaginary. Children believe in the tooth fairy, and their beliefs motivate their actions and plans. The concept of the tooth fairy is a real concept, but the tooth fairy is imaginary.

Hoenstly, if you can't see the difference, then there's no point in discussing it further. The tooth fairy does not "affect the world in a real way." Instead, the concept of the toothfairy (which you accept as real) affects reality, insofar as it motivates "actions and plans" as you note. Government is an aritifical construct imbued by its creators (i.e., humans) with abilities and authority, and government is therefore real in a way that the tooth fairy is not. The fact that government (likely) wouldn't exist without us is irrelevant; it exists now because it can be demonstrated to exist.

Does a corporation exist? Does any legally recognized entity exist?

Earlier you stated that a thing is real if that thing exists even when no one is aware of it. By that criterion, nothing can be said to be imaginary because you have no basis for determining that some imaginary thing (the tooth fairy) doesn't exist in some remote outpost unseen by humans. How can one make any claims at all about such heretofore undiscovered entities? All you can say is "I have not yet determined that X doesn't exist, therefore I declare it imaginary."

Does a group exist? Does history exist? Does consensus exist?

[ZombieHorde]

33. "Government is an aritifical construct imbued by its creators"

Where does the artificial construct exist? I think it exists in the imagination.

with abilities and authority,

Where does authority come from? I think authority comes from our imaginations.

Does a corporation exist?

The concept of the corporation is a real concept, but corporations themselves are strictly imaginary. What is a corporation? I think corporations are an agreement made by some people. Where do agreements exist?

Does any legally recognized entity exist?

The concept is a real concept, but the entity is only in the imagination. Where else would it be?

By that criterion, nothing can be said to be imaginary because you have no basis for determining that some imaginary thing (the tooth fairy) doesn't exist in some remote outpost unseen by humans. How can one make any claims at all about such heretofore undiscovered entities? All you can say is "I have not yet determined that X doesn't exist, therefore I declare it imaginary.

There is some truth to this. Islamic suicide bombers could be right about the celestial virgins. Santa could be real. The Flying Spaghetti Monster could be real. Mind controlling toasters could be messing with both us right now. Maybe I am wrong to put on pants without concern they will turn into a herd of sensual water buffalo who will then invent a new form of cancer. We haven't proved otherwise. Right?

Government on the other hand, is strictly imaginary. It is nothing more than an agreement by some people. Where do agreements exist? We could, hypothetically speaking, discover the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but we will never discover a government that exists outside of the imagination.

Does a group exist?

Only in our imagination. The people are real, the activities the people do are real, but groups only exist in our imaginations. Some people think atheists are a group, and some people think atheists are not a group. Groups are not an inherent quality of matter, or any arrangement of matter.

Does history exist?

Events actually happened. At one point in time, my parents made me, but they are no longer making me. We can imagine them making me, but those are two different things.

Does consensus exist?

Consensus is people holding a similar opinion. Where do opinions exist?

Hoenstly, if you can't see the difference, then there's no point in discussing it further.

If the government exists outside of our imagination, then where is it? Some undiscovered location?

I try to answer all of your questions, try to answer mine.

[Orrex]

36. Explain to me what you mean by a "real concept"

You are, in essence, trying to have it both ways. You are happy to accept as real those things that are convenient for your argument ("real concepts") but dismiss as "imaginary" those very real entities that do not support your view (government, corporations, consensus").

And let me ask you this: is a person real, in your estimation? If not, then again there's no point in discussing this with you, and you've fallen back into the hoary internet tradition of crying "psyche!" when someone manages to pin you down.

However, if you do accept that a person is (or can be) real, then consider the following:

A government might not be "real" insofar as you can't pick it up and put it on a table, but in an absolute monarchy, one person is the sole ruler of everything. That person is real, and that person is the government. Therefore government is real.

Further, I submit that a "group" most certainly does exist, if it can be said that it describes a set of real things, and if the group is distinct from its constituents when considered individually. Is a multicellular organism real? It is, after all, a group of cells, so by your yardstick either the organism is not real or it is not a group.

Likewise a corporation exists because it is also distinct from its components, and in addition it is legally distinct from its constituents, whether or not you personally accept "law" as real.

If the government exists outside of our imagination, then where is it? Some undiscovered location?

Obviously, that's a red herring. You're requiring me to define a thing by your criteria of "realness," when I don't accept your criteria.

[ZombieHorde]

37. "Explain to me what you mean by a "real concept"

Thoughts about unicorns are real thoughts, but unicorns are probably not real.

And let me ask you this: is a person real, in your estimation?

Yes, people are real.

A government might not be "real" insofar as you can't pick it up and put it on a table, but in an absolute monarchy, one person is the sole ruler of everything. That person is real, and that person is the government. Therefore government is real.

The person labeled "king" is real. Where does the king's authority exist? Or, if you prefer, what is source of the king's authority?

The only reason the king is listened to is because people believe he has authority. Authority is a veil the king and many others drape over the king. His authority comes from his subjects' minds.

Further, I submit that a "group" most certainly does exist, if it can be said that it describes a set of real things, and if the group is distinct from its constituents when considered individually. Is a multicellular organism real? It is, after all, a group of cells, so by your yardstick either the organism is not real or it is not a group.

Great example. The cells are real, and they next to each other. Most people in English speaking countries would call this a "group," and they would be right to do so. To use your words, the group of cells is a set of real things. I agree with all of this.

What I disagree with is the nature of sets. "Sets" and "groups" are abstract concepts, and abstract concepts that only exist in our imagination. We look at something, such as a group of cells, our imagination will drape the veil of "set" or "group" over the cells. Groups and sets are reactions to stimuli.

Obviously, that's a red herring. You're requiring me to define a thing by your criteria of "realness," when I don't accept your criteria.

Is anything imaginary? How do you determine if something is strictly imaginary?

[trotsky]

41. You just contradicted yourself.

You just said: "Yes, people are real."

But earlier you said: "If something can be, even if no one knows about it, then it is real."

By definition, a person who existed would know about him- or herself. Self-awareness is a pretty integral part of personhood, isn't it? So no *person* "can be", without someone knowing about it. Ergo, people are not real.

[ZombieHorde]

43. An honest mistake on my part. Why reinvent the wheel? Let's look at the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/real

–adjective
1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/real?region=us&rskey=pAKKCv&result=1

Pronunciation:/ˈrē(ə)l, /
adjective

1 actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed:Julius Caesar was a real persona story drawing on real eventsher many illnesses, real and imaginary
used to emphasize the significance or seriousness of a situation or circumstance:there is a real danger of civil warthe competitive threat from overseas is very real
Philosophyrelating to something as it is , not merely as it may be described or distinguished.
2 (of a substance or thing ) not imitation or artificial; genuine:the earring was presumably real gold
true or actual:his real name is Jamesthis isn't my real reason for coming
(of a person or thing ) rightly so called; proper:he's my idea of a real manJamie is my only real friend
3 informal complete; utter (used for emphasis):the tour turned out to be a real disaster
4 adjusted for changes in the value of money; assessed by purchasing power:real incomes had fallen by 30 percentan increase in real terms of 11.6 percent
5 Lawof fixed property (i.e., land and buildings), as distinct from personal property:he lost nearly all of his real holdings
6 Mathematics(of a number or quantity) having no imaginary part. See imaginary
7 Optics(of an image) of a kind in which the light that forms it actually passes through it; not virtual.

[trotsky]

44. OK, you pick the definition(s) you want to use.

No more equivocating. Nail it down.

[ZombieHorde]

45. OK.

actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: Julius Caesar was a real person; a story drawing on real events; her many illnesses, real and imaginary

Perhaps we can say something is real if it is not strictly imaginary. Something is strictly imaginary if it only exists in the imagination.

[trotsky]

46. Ah, now you're shifting your equivocation to the word "imaginary."

I'm not sure what the point is in continuing to discuss this. We really do have a government. We really don't have virgins awaiting us in heaven if we martyr ourselves. If you don't want to apply the label "real" to *either* of those, that's your prerogative. But it makes for a lame discussion. Unless I was back in college with a joint or two being passed around.

[ZombieHorde]

47. I started my OP with the word imaginary.

I am using the definition I started my thread with.

The government only exists in people's imagination. If you think otherwise, then just come out and say where it really is.

Man made laws are abstract constructs. If you think otherwise, then just come out and say what they really are.

Why am I wrong?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

50. Seriously, dude?

That's sad.

[ZombieHorde]

52. Fallacious arguments make me sad.

Especially when I see intelligent posters making them.

[trotsky]

54. On that we completely agree. n/t

[jberryhill]

76. That, by the way, was the opener to my international law class

In relation to the concept of "sovereignty".

[ZombieHorde]

49. To my fellow skeptics.

I just want to point out that I am willing to answer everyone's questions, but no one is willing to answer my questions.

I believe my claim is accurate, and has real life implications.

I also believe claims to the contrary are similar to supernatural and/or theistic claims. The contrary claims are complete bullshit. But these bullshit claims also have real life implications, just like belief in the supernatural has real life implications.

Fact: Abstract constructs only exist in the imagination.
Fact: Man made laws are abstract constructs.
Fact: Anything which only exists in the imagination is imaginary.
Conclusion: Man made laws are imaginary.

[greyl]

51. Isn't one major point really that imaginary things might still be useful?

Like imaginary numbers and every other example in this thread?
Imaginary doesn't always equal contra-factual, as with most imaginary things skeptics are fond of debunking.

[ZombieHorde]

53. I agree, imaginary things can be very useful. nt

[Orrex]

57. Several people have answered your questions already.

In addition, several have pointed out that your basic argument is flawed: you conflate "real" and "tangible." When we have named a multitude of things that are real but non-material, your answer has been "where is it?" Your definition basically amounts to "it's real if I, ZombieHorde, can touch it."

Further, in the course of this discussion, it's become clear that the actual definition is "it's real if I, ZombieHorde, say that it's real."

You can join hands with your fellow skeptics if you choose, but in this discussion you're not being a skeptic; you're being a contrarian.


Is inertia real? Is force real?

[ZombieHorde]

59. I am not trying to equate real and tangible. Where is love?

In the mind. Where is fear? In the mind. Where is government? In the mind.

Inertia is an inherent quality of matter.

Force is an inherent quality of movement.

[Orrex]

69. But you have claimed that thoughts are real

How can thoughts--a product of the mind--be real, but fear and government and law--products of the mind--be imaginary?

[enki23]

58. in a sense, they aren't imaginary. they're behavior.

there is no platonic perfect law hanging out in the ether, obviously. so, no, they aren't "things." cognition, about laws or otherwise, is a behavior, as is communicating our cognition through our various behaviors. they're verbs, not nouns. we can make up nouns for them, but that doesn't actually reify them. that's just a mental shortcut, a behavior regarding our other behaviors, as part of the endlessly looped and knotted and self referential series of behaviors we call consciousness.

[Jim__]

55. Do you think that pain is imaginary?

We only feel pain in our mind (our imagination). But, a form of the pain also exists in our body, for instance in the bone that is cracked and in the nerves that carry that "message" to our brain. The cracked bone and the transport of the "message" exist outside of our brain; they deliver the message that translates into pain; but they themselves are not pain. Would you classify pain as imaginary?

In some ways, governments are similar to pain. You say they exist only in our imagination - but is our imagination imaginary? I think it is, but there are non-imaginary objects that make up our imagination - neural networks. These networks exist outside of our imagination, but they only exist as our imagination, as a compound object, within our imagination.

I think the difficulty between existence outside of our imagination and only within our imagination is seen when you consider how things exist in our imagination. If we are playing tennis, then, presumably, the ball that we are playing with exists outside of our imagination. But, what exists for us is really only the various neural representations of the ball in our brain. Our only access to this ball is to its representation. Yet we accept the ball as existing outside of our imagination. The artifacts of government (buildings, etc) and the effects of government (police departments, fire departments, etc) exist outside of our imagination. The ball is really a specific collection of atoms, or even further, a specific collection of sub-atomic particles that our imagination identifies as a ball. This collection of atoms, the ball, exists as a set of relationships between these atoms, but, as a ball, only in our imagination. The government is a collection of buildings, people, activities that exist outside of our imagination. Do you consider the ball to be only imaginary? If not, how is it different from the government?

When I look at your list, I think that all the entities on your list are compound objects that are composed of simpler objects that exist outside of the imagination, but the compound object only exists in the imagination.

[TZ]

56. Good points and the arguments he has been making

remind me of some really unpleasant things in the past..Women were always being accused of having "hysteria" or not real medical conditions because they would have symptoms like pain that you mentioned that aren't measurable or observable to the physician were written off as being imagined.
I suffer from fatigue from my chronic blood disorder that can't be seen or measured by any doctor and for a long time I was haunted by the "you don't look sick therefore I think you aren't telling me the truth" behavior from many.

This idea that man made constructs and concepts and ideas aren't real is not only fallacious and filled with logical holes, but leads to all sorts of troubles, by suggesting that they aren't real and can be disregarded. I've heard anarchists/militia types making the point that the concept of govt and law aren't real and therefore don't apply to them.

[ZombieHorde]

63. I would love to see a clear list of the logical fallacies I am using, and teling me

how I am using those fallacies. This is a subject I have a lot of interest in.

I would also like a clear list of the logical holes.

by suggesting that they aren't real and can be disregarded

I am not suggesting the government can be disregarded, I am suggesting the government imaginary. These are two very different things.

The difference between me and an anarchist is I believe the illusion government does a lot of good.

[Orrex]

65. Would you feel better if, rather than calling your argument illogical, we called it nonsensical?

[laconicsax]

66. Sense is imaginary.

:hide:

[ZombieHorde]

68. Do you really not understand agreements don't exist outside of the imagination?

Do you really not see government is an agreement?

[laconicsax]

70. I understand that perfectly.

I was trolling Orrex.

[ZombieHorde]

71. Oh, sorry. nt

[Orrex]

73. .

:thumbsup:

[ZombieHorde]

67. Perhaps a concrete example will help you out.

Two people can be doing the same exact thing, but one is punished, while the other is not. This seems unfair to me, but most people, because they believe countries exist outside of their imaginations, think this actually very logical and good. So some people will round up other people, who are labeled "illegal immigrants," and send them away or lock them up.

When our illusions cause us to make decent people suffer, we are taking it way too seriously.

[ZombieHorde]

60. "Would you classify pain as imaginary?"

Not usually. I think there are cases where pain is strictly psychological, but I don't remember the details. A psychologist could probably offer a good answer to this question.

The government is a collection of buildings, people, activities that exist outside of our imagination.

I don't think the government is buildings, I think it's laws.

[Jim__]

72. Do you think pain exists outside of our imagination? If so, where does it exist?

I think pain itself, only exists in our mind (I'm using mind as synonymous with imagination). But, the cause of pain is often outside of our mind, for instance, a cracked bone. I'm not clear what you mean when you classify pain as not imaginary. Do you mean that pain has a cause external to our imagination? Or, do you mean that the feeling of pain exists outside of our imagination.

I don't think the government is buildings, I think it's laws.

I agree that the government is, in part, laws. But, I think there are other things besides laws. If government laws have any meaning there must be some sort of enforcement of the laws. The methods of enforcement are also part of government. The laws must be written down or people will not agree on what they are. These written laws and these methods of enforcement are part of government that exist outside of the imagination. I agree that the combination of writings and enforcements as government is a mental construct. My argument is that there are objects external to the imagination that are components of government.

But, for now, let's say the laws are not written down. They're known through common understanding. That understanding has to be passed on to young children. The methods that are used to pass that understanding to the children are overt methods that exist outside of the imagination. So, again, I see components of government that are external to the imagination.

One more thing, when you say that government exists only in our imagination, the "our" has to be collective. A government that exists only in my imagination, is not really a government. So, some form of agreement must exist, must have somehow been overtly agreed upon, outside of our imagination for the government to have any real meaning.

My point is that there has to be more to government than just laws, that at least some aspects of this "more" exists outside of our imagination; although I agree that the compound form of all these aspects that we refer to as government may just exist in our imagination.

[ZombieHorde]

74. My wife teaches anatomy, so I asked her what pain is.

She said pain is an overstimulated nerve cell. So the pain is outside of our minds.

I completely agree that government is an agreement. Agreement is the "nature," or "essence" of government. Without the concept of agreement, government could not exist. Agreements only exist in our imaginations.

I agree that the government is, in part, laws. But, I think there are other things besides laws. If government laws have any meaning there must be some sort of enforcement of the laws. The methods of enforcement are also part of government.

I completely agree the concept of government motivates some people to hurt, intimidate, and/or capture other people. I like it when murderers are captured and locked in cages, but capturing people is not government; capturing people with a specific motivation (duty), in accordance to previously made agreements is government.

My argument is that there are objects external to the imagination that are components of government.

A witch's love spell may have specific trappings and words, but that doesn't make the spell any more real.

[Jim__]

75. "A witch's love spell may have specific trappings and words, but that doesn't make the spell any ...

"A witch's love spell may have specific trappings and words, but that doesn't make the spell any more real"

Yes, it does. If Madame Rhu didn't have a gold-capped tooth, if she weren't a gypsy, if her potion doesn't smell like turpentine and look like Indian ink, it wouldn't work. If Madame Rhu were Jane from next door, and she handed you a glass of water that she said would improve your love-life, then it probably wouldn't work. But, love-potion #9? From a gypsy with a gold-capped tooth? How can it not work?

Without the verification that comes from real world objects, purely imaginary objects are not accepted as real.

[Silent3]

77. An important distinction not made simply by using the word "imaginary"...

...is what so-called imaginary ideas are delusional and which are not.

Believing that there are 70 celestial virgins waiting for you as a life-after-death reward is delusional, even if in some societies that delusional is common and socially supported.

Believing that the United States government exists is not delusional. In fact, not believing that it existed would be delusional.

Both beliefs can lead to real-world consequences, but the real-world consequences of a belief in these 70 virgins never produces a direct verifiable observation of those virgins. A bomb going off is real, a building collapsing is real, but nowhere in the aftermath of such events will the virgins which may have motivated those events be discovered.

Belief in the existence of the US government, however, produces consistent verifiable results completely in accord with what the "imagined" government is excepted to do, how it's expected to act, where its physical manifestations like buildings and law books are expected to be found.

Rather than use the word "imaginary" for both of these concepts, I'd prefer in general speech to use "imaginary" only to denote delusional concepts, or deliberately imaginary constructs such as fictional characters, where the concept as defined refers to an entity that should, if it truly existed, have verifiable observable qualities apart from and in addition to the consequences of merely acting as if that entity exists.

For concepts such as the US government or winning a game of chess, I'd prefer to use the word "artificial".

[laconicsax]

78. +1

[ZombieHorde]

79. Can you explain what you mean by...

"produces consistent verifiable results completely in accord with what the "imagined" government is excepted to do"?

GWB has admitted to the use of torture, yet he remains free.

Police Officers don't always follow procedure.

Innocent people have been convicted of crimes.

What is consistent about the US Government?