That is referring to the existence of a thing which exists independently of the mind, such as 'God', spirit, etc. What makes a thing evidence is it's use as such. So with the above statement, change the last word and it will appropriately describe unknown and unrevealed evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.

JB,

With the term actuality, I distinguish between perception and what actually is. I have no problems with reality discussions that way, because it removes some of the possibilities. Without the distinction, those conversations become conflated.

There really is no way to know for sure exactly what actuality/reality is. We can only begin with what represents consist repeatable conditions and go from there.

How does our inability to explain sub-atomic behavior equate to making a firm conclusion about the existence of the universe?

Isn't that saying that by our ignorance we can know?

If it is used as such.



It can be used as such.



Use is what makes a thing evidence. It is always a thing, but it is not evidence until that thing is being logically connected to something else in order to prove something. The thing being used as evidence is not subjective, the assessment is. Evidence is an element of knowledge. There are problems with knowledge.

Well???

You never answered the questions.

1. I am looking for an "indication of proof".

2. I am looking for an "outward sign".

3. I am looking for "evidence".

Can any of the "things" in the quotes exist outside of the mind?

If this is the only definition of "evidence" then, when one says he is "looking for evidence" then he is really, in truth, looking for "something" or "some stuff" that can be used as evidence.

correct?

I suppose that is why there has to be "agreement" where actuality is concerned, because no single individual is an expert on what it is.

This was the philosophy that gave brith to the the scientific method. However, that philosophy ultimately breaks down. This is what science has taught us. If we begin with consistent repeatable conditions and 'go from there' (which is precisely what science did), we end up at the quantum level which tells us taht consistency and repeatablitiy ultimately break down.

So when we place all are eggs in the basket of "determinism" (in the sense that everything can be based on the idea that everything is ultiamtely consistent and repeatable), then that philosophy leads to a dead end and circular paradoxes.

This is what science has shown us to be true.

Many people have a very difficult time accepting this. Einstein rejected this notion in favor of having utter 'faith' that "God does not play dice".

But the evidence clearly shows the contrary.

The pure objective approach to seeking any "truth" about actuality is dead. It's an old-fashioned belief system that evidence no longer supports. In fact, the evidence (obervations of reality) support that just the opposite to be true.

That's my current world view.

You're millage may vary.

Pan wrote:



Yes. That is the wrong question though. The right one would be can any of those things exist independent of the mind?

No.

Jb wrote:



Yup.

The definition is a sign or indication of proof. The fact is that use is what makes a thing evidence, until then it is just a thing, in and of itself. The correlation to another thing or idea is what constitutes it being evidence.

Main Entry: outside
Function: preposition
Date: 1826
2 : beyond the limits of <outside the scope of this report> <outside the law>


Right question, wrong semantic game...

That posistion places one squarely at the center of the universe.
Care to answer the question about the tree again???

So, the "outward sign" of light radiating from the sun never existed before someone could perceive it? How was Earth able to sustain life then? I know, the inteligent designer was able to perceive it.

It is time for one to venture outside of one's universe and realise that things, outward signs, indications of proof and evidence exist regardless of one's ability or willingness to perceive them.

Pesonally, I'll take the general concensus here that evidence does exist before one connects it to anything... The evidence is on the pages, as long as one perceives it and accepts the truth.

Your an idiot.

Words are symbolic representations of abstract concepts – the words in quotes, by themselves, are products of the mind. By common definition, I can use the words, you’ve placed in quotes, to infer what you might be “looking for” – below is my demonstration.


Number 1:

Indication – sign; something that points out
Proof - evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
You are ‘looking’ for a sign, something to point at to poof an assertion.

In this case I might infer that what you seek is outside the mind & physical

Number 2:

Outward – on the outside; physical exterior of something
Sign – indicates the existence of something; can be representative of the existence of something else – in both cases the sign is physical

Worded together in a sentence – Outward sign – represents the physical presence of something to which the sign is pointing or indicative of something.

Again I might infer that what you seek is both physical & outside the mind

Number 3:

Evidence – something that makes another thing apparent; indication; sign
As indication and sign have been shown to mean something physical & outside the mind

then I might infer that what you seek is both physical & outside the mind

In every case the inference is the same – but that is all I can infer from the abstract information you have provided.

Just because you are “looking for” something, does not mean it exists.
However, if you complete the argument in the following manner
“I am looking for the gun that was used to murder Mr. X.”

then I know you are looking for a gun that exists. The gun is NOT evidence of it’s existence, we don’t need to find it to KNOW it exists. The autopsy has given us the “proof” / “evidence” tha the gun DOES exist. But again, that is all we can infer, because an autopsy can prove that a gun shot wound was the cause of Mr. X’s death.

Now – if you add more to the argument, such as:

“I am looking for the gun that was used to shoot Mr. X, so that it might be used as evidence to convict the murderer “

We still know that a gun exists, so you are not looking for the gun to prove it exists, we KNOW it exists. You are looking for the gun “in the hope” it will be evidence (proof) of a particular individuals guilt.

The key words use above are “in the hope” – because finding the gun may not provide proof that is sufficient to convict ANYONE. So while we know the gun exists, we cannot assume that, if found, it will provide evidence of anyone’s guilt.

So if we are discussing ‘evidence’ in the present tense, that is – do you HAVE evidence – or can you ‘provide’ evidence (now), if the answer is no – then he “evidence” does not exit in the context of the discussion.

One final point – evidence may exist that can prove a specific person is guilty (or not guilty) of murdering Mr. X. However, the proof of an individuals’ guilt, or innocence, may not be evidenced by the gun, it may be evident in some other form. But once again in the context of a present tense analysis – the evidence does not exist (yet) all that remains is the HOPE that evidence might be found.

Ad hominem: Fail!!!

Are you implying that there is no question which man can pose for which there is not an answer that can be evidenced by somthing that exists independent of mind?

I'm implying that one is not the center of the universe and that those things do exist regardless of one's perception or lack thereof.

Sorry I don't understand your reply - What do you mean by ('THOSE THINGS' do exist) to what do you refer - what are 'those things?'

Things do.



All of the rest require inference.

So, you're going to assert that they require inference using only your opinion with no evidence whatsoever?