The Black Vault

When did he imply anything? He asked for an opinion of when a watch begins to exist. Is that so hard to give an answer?

I gave an answer. Once you define "watch", you know when the "watch" starts to exist.

This is primarily a language question. The issue arises because we have imperfect definitions of things. There is no definition of an almost completed watch, or indeed of a broken watch, that's why questions like the OP exist.

Are we defining a "watch" or defining to "exist"?

Watch, obviously, it's pretty clear what "come into existence" means in this context.

Humphreys is correct but only by tautological reasoning.

I would like you to provide THE definition of a watch. You said "if you can provide definition of watch then you will know when a watch comes into existence." So provide the definition. IE, answer the question of the thread.

There is no clear definition because our language is limited.

I can give the dictionary definition but it will be limited. For instance, I could say "a moving metal contraption that goes around the wrist, and accurately tells the time using two hands". However, there are dozens of things wrong with that definition, that's my point.

Watches do not have to be metal, they do not have to have two hands, whether they need to tell the time is unclear and a matter of opinion. It's all language.

If we had a complete exhaustive definition of what a watch is, then we could answer the OP question, but it'd be about 10 pages long and we'd all to have sit down and agree to it. There is no right or wrong answer because language is made up.

humphreys wrote:There is no clear definition because our language is limited.

I can give the dictionary definition but it will be limited. For instance, I could say "a moving metal contraption that goes around the wrist, and accurately tells the time using two hands". However, there are dozens of things wrong with that definition, that's my point.

Watches do not have to be metal, they do not have to have two hands, whether they need to tell the time is unclear and a matter of opinion. It's all language.

If we had a complete exhaustive definition of what a watch is, then we could answer the OP question, but it'd be about 10 pages long and we'd all to have sit down and agree to it. There is no right or wrong answer because language is made up.

If we can't decide when a watch comes into existence, then deciding when a human being comes into existence will prove even more challenging.

My whole point was to try to tackle the issue of abortion.

I think we should stick to watches for now though.

You say there is no right or wrong answer but there must be a time when watches come into existence or else none would exist.

That was a rather poor way to trick everyone into the abortion issue. I said the watch exists from its concept stage, even before material is cut. That could be a thought, or a actual blue print, and actual drawn plan. Even if it is only a design plan, it is still called a watch. Like I said, many many things never make it past the drawing boards and concept stage in every industry. A broken watch is still a watch, an old relic watch is still a watch, they just exist in differnt states of their condition.

These things are not life, they are not living, breathing, They do not eat or sleep, reproduce, think, are not born and do not die. It does not cease being a watch becasue the hands break, or it doesn't work anymore, and ends up a relic that is worn out.

Unlike the concept phase of anything manufactured by man from materials, A man and a woman only, can concieve a life with their own living bodies, and life begins with Conception. Watches do not have little watches, they exist only as objects we know to be watches, and the fact they mechanically do something, does not equate to existing and sustaining life, as a living organism that grows. All life has some formation stage before birth, and all life grows, sustains life with food and water, has a life cycle and dies. Watches do not have souls, but it is beleived Humans do have souls, and the minds to reason with.

I don't think you are going to make any point about life or abortion, by the coorelation of when a mechanical thing begins to exist. If you are trying to equate the watch exististance point, to some comparison to a viable fetus, I don't think it going to fly.

at1with0 wrote:

humphreys wrote:There is no clear definition because our language is limited.

I can give the dictionary definition but it will be limited. For instance, I could say "a moving metal contraption that goes around the wrist, and accurately tells the time using two hands". However, there are dozens of things wrong with that definition, that's my point.

Watches do not have to be metal, they do not have to have two hands, whether they need to tell the time is unclear and a matter of opinion. It's all language.

If we had a complete exhaustive definition of what a watch is, then we could answer the OP question, but it'd be about 10 pages long and we'd all to have sit down and agree to it. There is no right or wrong answer because language is made up.

If we can't decide when a watch comes into existence, then deciding when a human being comes into existence will prove even more challenging.

My whole point was to try to tackle the issue of abortion.

I think we should stick to watches for now though.

You say there is no right or wrong answer but there must be a time when watches come into existence or else none would exist.

Agreed, it will be even more challenging because defining life is far more difficult than defining a watch, and is going to be problematic due to religious differences. As greeney states, believers are going to want to debate when a soul coms into existence, and atheists will think that a silly question.

I maintain that it still is a problem of language and definitions, though, but to progress with the problem we need to truly define what makes a human "human", and we're not even close to being able to do that.

LIke I thought earlier, are we defining a watch or exist? I think the key word intimated was exist, and when did a watch begin its existance. It only exists as a watch, because humans have placed a name on everything. We know it as a watch when we recognize it. Every other living thing, has no idea a watch is called a watch, or a table is called a table, or if you spank the dog and yell "get off the couch", even knows the difference between a table or couch.

I think the mixing of words is in the part of speech it is, and how the word is used. An object exists because it is named and recognized, by humans who have assigned it to some mental catagory. When a human takes a walk, he knows what is a tree, a building, a rock because we have educated ourselves to their assignment of terms, that all are defined. If a dog takes a walk, they are all just places to lift his leg on, and could care less what they are. He doesn't know thier names, or what they are. He learns simple things, like knowing he can not climb a tree, and he can walk into buildings, and knows his food is not up the tree, its in the building with his bed.

Objects only exist as their names in the minds of humans, which are names of things, and Nouns. To exist is an action word and a verb, a state of doing something, such as existing as the reaction of breathing, eating and sleeping. All things exist, even if they are inanimate objects like a watch, car, or bridge, they exist becasue we gave them a name and know them as such. Human existance and the act of existing, is not the same thing, where life has to be sustains by a biological process. Life begins with Conception and life is existing within the Mothers womb. It is being formed while nurished by Mom. When it is ready to sustain life outside the Mom, birth occurs, and when it is ready to sustain life on its own is wiened. After a long life cycle(hopefully) death occurs. Objects do not have these abilities or existance, their existance is only the product of human assignment of their titles and names. A mechanical function of an object, is also not an example of life.

Notice I have not brought into this religion or the soul Humphreys. It is my believe that human have a soul from Conception, but that is aside for the terms we are defining.