"is"  
This is one of the most confusing words in the english language.  At
least, it is when you stop and think about it in the pseudophilosophical
ways that us humans tend to do.  The topic I feel like debating is, can we
define the word "is" outside of our experience, whether direct or
indirect?  If something, some event, some place, etc.  is beyond our
ability to observe it, can we make any statements about its existence? 
What I'm trying to get at is, does the word "is" really mean "as far as I
know, it is" or is "is" just "is"  ?  

Hopefully, someone will take the side I disagree with.  This can make for
a great argument early in the morning (or late at night, depending on your
perspective).

46 responses total.

If something, some event, some place, etc. is beyond our ability to observe it,
can we make any statements about its existence?

I don't think we can.   We can speculate but how can we make a statement about
the existence of something if that 'something' is beyond our abilites to
gather information regarding it?

example:  in terms of what IS; planet dittybop exists
it has a physical space and can be measured and observed and etc....
The thing is, at no time have I come across any evidence to support it's
existence.  No mystical feelings, no scientific observations, no newspaper
articles that can be reasonably believed... no nothing.
Planet Dittybop IS, but I can make no statement about that because I have no
supporting evidence for or against the concept.
I hope my logic makes some sense.

(Gerund, how could we NOT make statements about things that are not within
our realm of observation? You mention that there are things beyond our
ability to gather information about it, but even if it were within our
abilities, there would be no way to know that the gathered information
had any modicum of "truth" [there's a word!] to it.)

(Besides, you could always say, "I don't know anything about Planet
Dittybop." That's a statement itself. ;>)

Yes, but can you say "Planet Dittybop exists?"  without having experienced
it?  
Carson, how can we make any meaningful statements about something we can't,
(at least at the moment) observe?  We THINK there are more planets and 
stars and whatnot out there just beyond our past light cone, but we don't
know for sure.  Can we say anything about them, in terms of their existence?
I don't think so.  

That's what I'm trying to say.
You HAVE to have some sort of WAY to KNOW something or it can't be known.
Carson, define truth.

(a truth is something you sincerely believe to be true.)

(I'll let you define true.)

What if you're wrong?  is it still true?

(what makes you wrong?)

(that's why I'll let someone else define true.)

If I utterly, completely believe that I can fly, then it is a truth by your
definition.  If I jump off the empire state building, with this truth in
mind, does it remain a truth?

I hope so... else you're gonna be pretty flat... :)

which is stronger:belief, or physics?

The science of physics did not exist until there were humans to believe
that it existed.  The laws which natural phenomena follow, of course,
predate human experience.

I was confused by the item heading.  The "is" being referred to was
never clearly defined, even though English actually has three 
completely different meanings for this word.  I assume the identity
is being referred to.
But, then again, maybe the sub-part relation is meant?

re #8: (yet if you stop believing that you will fly, and choose instead to
        believe that every bone in your body is being shattered by the impact
        of hitting cement at a speed most people don't travel on freeways,
        it's no longer a truth that you will fly, correct?)

        (Columbus died believing that he had discovered India. Was that not
        a truth for him?)

re #11: (I think we can cover any sort of "is" that will promote discussion.
         Hope that helps!)

is just is or is it?
sorry...

well, planet dittybop may well exist.
So THere.

Planet Dittybop must exist, because many Grexers seem to be from it.

(does that mean that anything which "is" also "exists"?)

No, but anything that exists is.

(ok. what else "is", then?)

My head IS hurting.

(I think I understand. If your head just is, then it exists, but
if it is feeling something, or if it is doing something, then
it doesn't exist!)

<beam with understanding>

C'mere... I'll show you how to make a head not exist!
A little closer...
<Brighn is hiding a baseball bat>

now that you've gotten your humor out of the way (BTW, I
laughed uproariously), can we get back to the difference
between "is" and "exist"?

When you are refering to "is", you mean like a copmarision? Similar to the
equal sign in math. With almost everything, there is probabilties, and
assumptions. You draw conclusions, that something IS like such and such,
because of something you've observed. But that of course, is dangerous,
and you must make sure you know of your own probabilities. And then,
dealing with truth and such, you have assumptions. You can draw a
conclusion, and it could be perfectly true, *provided* some other things
are true. For example. 2+2=4. That is perfectly true, assuming the rules
of mathematics are the same for everyone. The same goes for english
language. Words have definite definitions (I've heard people argue
otherwise!), and they have to be definite or else we wouldn't be able to
communicate. :)

There are four "is"s in English:
(1) I am.  =  I exist.
(2) I am a student.  = "I" is an element of the set "student"
(3) I am the best student in the world.  = "I" is synonymous with (eual
to, as in #22) "the best student in the world"
(4) I am typing. = a semantically virtually null element present for 
grammatical reasons

Mathmatics IS the language of truth, justice, and the american way.  We
even define our words with it.  :)

Actually, only content words have been defined mathematically, and only 
partially successfully at that.  <brighn temporarily considers a BOOORING
linguistics lecture, decidesdang was speaking tongue-in-cheek, and decides
against it.>

Linguistics doesn't bore me.  Tell me more.

O.k., gerund, at the risk of treading on Lang conf ground...
Within modern linguistics, morphemes (minimal units of meaning)
are generally classed within two groupd:  function morphemes and
content morphemes.  Already I have glossed over two major bones 
of contention:  that one can segment words down into minimal bits
of meaning relaibly (i.e., that morphology exists) and that the 
function/content distinction is a black/white distinction (i.e., that
there are no gray areas).  Ignoring these bones for the sake of 
simpicity, and any others I may gloss over, let me steam forward.
Function morphemes exist solely (or primarily) for grammatical 
reasons.  That is, they have no meaning, and their presence is 
unreliable between languages.  Content morphemes exist primarily for
semantic reasons:  they usually carry grammatical information which
determines what function morphemes are present in the sentence.
One can remove all of the function morphemes from a sentence and still
have it make a degree of sense, although it will sound like Tarzan
speech; removing all the content words results in nonsense.  Ex:
(1) The big man is sleeping in his favorite bed.
(2) Content:  Big man sleep in favorite bed.
(3) Function: The is -ing his.
In fact, there are languages in which (2) would be a literal translation,
such as Chinese.  Other languages contain significantly more function
morphemes than English.
The words in (2) can have mathematical definitions:  "big X" is the 
set of objects in the universe that, for the object type, the object is
of greater dimension than typical X (e.g., "big man"is true of X if
X is a man and X has greater dimension than the typical X); "in"
represent a relationship between two objects such that one is located
in the other.
The morphemes in (3) cannot as readily be given mathematical 
definitions ("the" has a significant semantic literature all by 
itself, and there is a huge amount of dispute about it).
(How was that?  Somewhat interesting and clear, I hope.)

I'm laughing for some reason at the turn this item has taken, and I
feel somewhat bad about doing so. give me sometime to sleep it off...

I'm VERY intrigued.  PLEASE if you do the lang.conf... enter an item.
Tell me where I can read up on the subject too.... I'm interested.

Ok, I will, but give me a few days or so.  This weekend is a holiday, and I'm 
a bit busy with two rituals and other stuff.  :-)

Well, this particular item has seeming deviated from it's beginning topic.
However, I'm interested in this linguistic stuff as well. :) English
can get very techical, and I want to know how to use it well.
(Woops, that should be "its" not "it's" in that first line there!)

I don't think it's digressed at all, but rather progressed. 
The topic "is" "IS", isn't it? ;)

topic is (read equals) "is"
More math!  :)
(in case you didn't guess, I like math  :)
(And, I'm joking.  I know that not everything can be difined with math.)

fish.

A fish is a member of the set of ... OH!  
Well, dang's spelling certainly can't be defined mathematically...
(well, I suppose it could.  There is a .03% chance of him spelling a given
word right...)

Interesting.  Here's a couple points:  The use of variations on t'to pula (Bob
is hungry or Bob is a student) is fairly language specific, as was mentioned
above.  For example, Hebrew either does not use a copula or it uses a personal
pronoun, so literal translation runs as 'Bob hungry' or 'Bob he hungry' (BB R'V
or BB HWA R'V for you purists).  What does it say about we, who use the same
word for existance and copula - does it imply that we hold relationships to be
existantial - i.e. when I say "I am hungry" am I implying that I am
ontologically different than when I say "I am sated"?

Also, what about the problem of extension and non-reference (a al Russell and
F) Merde! Let's try that again: What about the problem of extension and
non-reference (a la Russell and Frege)?  If I say "Moby Dick is a white whale",
I am speaking of something that has no extension (a fictional character) and
'does not exist' yet my sentence does seem to have meaning, so maybe 'is'
'isn't' as strictly tied to existence as initially appears.

very good point.  I forget which position I was defending, tho.  :)

er, yeah.  Never argue with a linguist.

esp. a cunning one.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss