I believe I corrected you on this before, but I can’t seem to find it.
Action is what a person can possibly do. For example, playing a guitar is action. Action requires an anticipated outcome, a goal or purpose, and a bodily movement directed by the individual. Being in a coma is not action, yet the individual still clearly exists.
Further, your reply is still non-sensical, as it fails to show how that discussing fiction implies an actual belief, using this action axiom, the intended outcome of discussing the Easter Bunny hop/jog discussion could be nothing more than for the mere enjoyment of discussing pointless fictional things. I’ve seen many a nerd discuss Star Wars, few people could be ridiculous enough to think that they really believe it exists.
Again you lack proof, as its impossible to prove what an individual actually believes, you can make inferences from what they say, but then that has to be viewed within context, which is a concept you don’t seem to grasp.
Being in a coma is an action. Incapatication is a state of being. Your heart still beats, your mind still works to some degree, your body is still committing action in order to sustain yourself. These actions are controlled by the mind and if the mind still functions then you are in a state of existence albeit a severely lacking existence.
Wouldn’t it kind of depend on the tense? Descartes famous statement, I think, therefore I am, seems to be a respectable one that shows the existence of action assumes existence.
Well we have to see if he is under the impression that the Easter Bunny is currently in a coma thereby proving [ according to him ] we can discuss the actions of the Easter Bunny without actually establishing its existence because like you said and according to Descartes, the existence of action assumes existence of the entity in the first place. Yet even if it is in a coma, that would mean it would need to exist to devolve into a coma state.
No Descartes stated ‘I think therefore I am’ meaning by the action of thought, I establish I exist in the world. Angurse said we can speculate on the actions and demeanor of the Easter Bunny without actually establishing its existence.
I don’t see how this contradicts Descartes. After all, the inability to exist or the being of non-existence precludes actions like thought. That the Easter Bunny does not exist doesn’t really say much. Descartes would merely say, well of course the Easter Bunny does not exist, but he does not think either.
Are you trying to make the point that because we can see that the Easter Bunny does not exist, it means that his thought would not prove his existence? I’m confused, though. For if he could think, he would exist, right? I think the point, however, is much more that he cannot think or devolve into a coma because he does not exist and if he could do either of those things, we could show quite undoubtedly that the Easter Bunny does exist.
You need to seriously read up on the philosophy of action, or just read my previous comment. You’ve completely ignored the requirements of action, in fact you basically ignored the entire post, as usual.
How surprising you’ve gotten my position wrong…again.
Establishing an existence and belief in existence are two entirely different things.
I’ll try to make this as clear as I can:
Take the statement “the Easter Bunny hops”
One can certainly reason that to the statement “the Easter Bunny exists,” it does not follow that the I am implying that the Easter Bunny actually exist (as in physically, made of atoms), but rather that the Easter Bunny exists within context, the context of modern childrens legends. Again context must be understood.
I’m still waiting for the proof of how making such a statement shows that one actually believes in that an anthropomorphic rabbit physically exists.
I’ve heard many debates over who would win in a fight between the Terminator and Robocop, I never once thought that any debator actually believed in either of them, because that would be completely absurd.
I’m growing tired of this. Truly I am. You give here an example of the Easter Bunny hopping house to house delievering things, committing actions thereby establishing its existence and then you think you can say…well this thing doesn’t actually exist yet it capable of hopping and exchange. You must either concede that the Easter bunny does exist because it commits action and therefore needs form in order to do such or concede that the Easter bunny doesn’t exist and therefore anything you say on it is useless for you cannot conceptualize what doesn’t exist and then give it action.
The Terminator and Robocop are fictional character portrayed by actors and don’t actually exist therefore then can be no ‘arse kicking’ in the first place.
Yes. Did you see the difference between what I actually said and your attempt, it was clearly there?
Couldn’t you just understand what context means, a wee bit? Committing an action in a fictional world only establishes existence within that fictional world, it doesn’t imply existence anywhere else, such as the physical world.
Honestly, are all fiction writers just insane too you?