Jud Evans lives in the North West of England with his wife  Susan-Clare
                               and their three young children, Cameron, Connor and Marius.

                               Does *Simple* or *Pure* Presence Exist?

                                                                  Jud Evans


Only that which is present exists. The *presence* of that which is present does not exist .

Does *Existence* or *Being* exist? Only that which is exists exists. The *existence* and *being* of that which is what it is does not exist.

Does Nuclear Fission exist? What exists is nuclear reactive material in which a massive nucleus splits into smaller energetic nuclei which are simultaneously released.*

A lot of people [not all] have great difficulty in grasping what is going on here - Even when the underlying principle is explained in the most simple manner. The theory that no action of any kind exists in the cosmos is so counter-intuitive, that when someone is first exposed to eliminative materialist ideas, it seems so stupid that one wonders how anyone could have ever conceived of it in the first place.

There is a theory going around that is a variant of the *nature or nurture* argument, that some people are born with a genetical make-up which renders them incapable of ever understanding it. The story goes that there are some who are just physically incapable of dealing with the idea at all. There is a similar yarn that some are born with a gene that predisposes them towards religious and transcendentalist appetites as you probably know.
           

The basic idea of eliminative materialism is a simple one. Only material entities exist. Thus a tree exists, and whilst that tree is falling it exists as a falling tree. When it lies on the ground it exists as a fallen tree. It can be described as a fallen tree because it exists in the existential modality or manner of a fallen tree.



     Now this is the important bit - Because whilst it is falling it is described as a *falling tree* is not because it has *assumed, taken-on, adopted or acquired the characteristics of a Platonic-style abstract template of *fallingness,* for *fallingness,* and *the falling* of a tree* does not exist as a separate entity.

Only the upright, falling or fallen  object exists. The reader who is perusing these words right now exists - but *your reading* does not. I could fly to wherever you live and meet the *reading you* or *the you who read* but if I flew to the ends of the cosmos I would never meet up with *your reading.*

     Humans refer to a falling tree as a *falling tree* because that is the way that we describe the way an object exists when it is coming down under the influence of gravitational force. But *the coming down under the influence of gravitational force* doesn't exist - only the falling object [the tree] exists in the state or mode of coming down under the influence of gravitational force. Do you understand this profound ontological observation?

     The seamless change by/of the tree from existing as an upright tree to that of a horizontally prone tree is simply the way that the tree changes the position in which it exists, but that does not mean that either uprightness, falling, lying horizontally prone, or even change itself actually exists. Only the changing tree exists.

Now apart from the constant physical changes that objects undergo, they can change in many other ways - but usually these changing ways of an object are ones that we humans attribute to them as categories 4 through to 9 show this.

The Existential Noctet was created in an attempt to explain precisely what the “IS” word actually does in a sentence from a linguistic point of view, and was meant as an essay at a further development of the Russell/Frege view of its function and not as a modernisation of the Aristotelian categories.

1. An existential modality.
2. An existential state.
3. An existential relative or absolute equivalent numerosity.
4. An existential relative spatial positionality.
5. An existential identification.
6. An existential classification
7. An existential nominality.
8. An existential transcendentality.
9. An existential spatial occupancy.

For an “IS-word” equivalent substitute any of the above terms in the following sentence in place of the “IS” word:

“ features the anthropocentrically attributed existential modality of …”

Example:

“The leaf is green.* becomes... *The leaf features the anthropocentrically attributed existential modality of green.*

“The apple is red.* becomes... *The apple features the anthropocentrically attributed existential modality of red.*

*The tree is falling.* becomes... *The tree features the anthropocentrically attributed existential modality of falling.*

     The most important thing that this demonstrates is that redness, greenness, and falling, are not so-called medieval *properties* owned by the tree. Plainly they are anthropocentric sensorially transacted perceptions of the way that certain wave-lengths of light are reflected from the surface of the leaf or apple into the lens of the observers eye, which are then attributed to the objects as adjectival descriptives and claimed to be inherent or intrinsic *properties* of those objects.

In fact the so-called *properties* of objects are in reality no more than verbalisations of the manner in which humans perceive different wavelengths of light.

The same pattern and attribution of properties is true of the other four senses of mankind - touch, taste, hearing, and smell.

Etc.

     I do not personally subscribe to the belief that some eliminativists hold to - that there are people who are congenitally incapable of ever grasping the ontological principle involved here. My own view is that for tens of thousands of years the human race has internalised the apparent *obviousness* of *action* as an existing fact of the cosmos. To find the *fact* challenged at first seems utterly incredible. In my experience of meeting many people who have at first rejected eliminativism as preposterous, and who have later *seen the light*, they all admit that it was the hardest intellectual problem that they have ever experienced, and that it took a lot of concentration.

     One man described the experience as being as if his brain was *rebelling* against thinking about it - as if it was *intentionally avoiding the strain* [his words.] So in answer to your question, an occurrence cannot happen because *occurrences* do not exist to be *able* to happen - what exists are the two cars that collide - not the *collision.* Put another way both cars exist in a modality of colliding - but *the modality of colliding* does not exist - only the colliding cars exist. I realise that this is a VERY DIFFICULT concept to grasp and there is absolutely no shame to be felt if one cannot understand it immediately.

Eliminative materialists are the most extreme anti-reificationalists you will ever encounter. One way of coming towards an understanding of the idea is to look at the semantic value of words - because it is the words we use that cloak and obscure the ontological reality that lies behind our imperfect view of the world around us. This is where I part company with Hume. You will notice that the eliminativist assiduously avoids certain states of the verb. It is a constant struggle for me to achieve - for at the age of 71 most of my life I have been exposed to the old way of thinking and I have been as much brain-washed as the next man.

The way we think about the IS-word is a very important part of the confusion - I constructed a whole website on the BE-Mechanism alone.

But the BE-word apart, many innocent-looking words are fraught with ontological problems. For example verbs that have been turned into nouns which we call gerunds, or adjectives [less common] that we turn into gerundives [adjectival nouns] Gerundive: Passive verbal adjective - Gerund: Active verbal noun.

     The insidious nature of language and the way in which it affects our understanding of ontological actuality can be seen in these following examples:

I. The gerund is a verbal noun, just as the participle is a verbal adjective. That is, just as the participle is a verbal form that functions as an adjective, the gerund is a verbal form that functions as a noun. You must be careful, however, because in English both the gerund and the present participle end in -ing. You will have no problem, however, if you ask yourself whether the verbal form is adjectival or substantival. Noun or Adjective?

(1) Leaving the theatre, we ran into our friends. ("Leaving" = adj. modifying "we")

(2) I like running. ("running" = a noun, the direct object of "like")

(3) We saw a man running across the field. ("running" = an adj. modifying "man")

(4) Swimming is fun. ("Swimming" = a noun, modified by the adj. "fun")

So if we look above and pick one example out at random, we can see that our use of certain forms of language reinforces our illusion that action exists, for in (2) the use of the word *running* as a noun [the name of something] suggests that what is named exists - when plainly it does not - only the running runner exists. It is all fine and dandy to use the present participle [continuous present] form of a verb but because in English in the gerundial form of a NOUN the gerund ALSO ends in -ing in continually confuses our ontologically grasp of what really exists and what does not. The same problem is now recognised in the field of computerology and *ontology-talk* is all the rage within the world of computer programmers and AI experts and theorists.

Nuclear Reaction

Fig. 1: Fusion of Hydrogen into Helium
A star is like a gigantic nuclear furnace. The nuclear reactions inside convert hydrogen into helium by means of a process known as fusion. But does the 'Process exist' or is it 'that which is processed or that which processes' that exists?

It is this nuclear reaction that gives a star its energy. Fusion takes place when the nuclei of hydrogen atoms with one proton each fuse together to form helium atoms with two protons. But does this nuclear reaction' or 'fusion' exist? Or is it that which reacts and fuses that exists? A standard hydrogen atom has one proton in its nucleus. There are two isotopes of hydrogen which also contain one proton, but contain neutrons as well. Deuterium contains one neutron while Tritium contains two. Deep within the star, A deuterium atom combines with a tritium atom. This forms a helium atom and an extra neutron. In the process, an incredible amount of energy is released.

     So if we now turn again to nuclear fission and apply the same analysis the original sentence string which I produced to describe it, we can see that I totally avoid any gerund or abstract noun:

Here it is again...

What exists is nuclear reactive material in which a massive nucleus splits into smaller nuclei with the simultaneous release of energy.

We see that when I was forming the sentence I selected present perfect and present continuous forms of verbs but avoided any word-form which would suggest that anything else *extra* existed over and beyond the actual fissionable material itself.

As I have my *linguists* hat on at the moment I shall be extra-nit-picking and observe that even in this sentence there is an ontological mistake, for technically speaking:

*the simultaneous release of energy* doesn't exist either - what exists is *energy which is simultaneously released.*

So the final eliminative materialist sentence which is designed to render an accurately scientific ontological description of how the fissionable material exists as it changes its existential modality from a macro-community into a number of micro-communities can now be expressed as:

*What exists is nuclear reactive material in which a massive nucleus splits into smaller energetic nuclei which are simultaneously released.*

Bottom line?

Eliminative materialism seeks to DESCRIBE the way entities exist WITHOUT reifying the WAY that they exist into pseudo-entities in themselves.

     Thus whilst the exploding massive nucleus undoubtedly exists, and the multi-versioned smaller energetic nuclei that are the new modality of what was once a singleton exist - the actual *process* or *action* or *occurrence* does not exist for those sorts of words are just useful linguistic short-cuts or useful fictions that we employ to avoid using a long sentence such as...

*What exists is nuclear reactive material in which a massive nucleus splits into smaller energetic nuclei which are simultaneously released.*

... when we can throw actual *reality* out of the window in favour of brevity, and just use three words and say...

*Nuclear fission exists.*

  When   Marie Curie  first heard about the advent of nuclear fission she changed the way she existed [specifically her neuronal networks modified their existential configuration] from that of a human ignorant of the way in which nuclear reactive material exists at the moment when a massive nucleus splits into smaller nuclei with the simultaneous release of energy, to a human with a brain which was cognisant of the way in which nuclear reactive material exists at the moment when a massive nucleus splits into smaller nuclei with the simultaneous release of energy

  If we had the technology to take a super-dooper electron magnetic microscopic picture before and after shot of the relevant parts of the net where the templates are stored you would detect a configurational difference twixt Shot 01 before the new information became available to her and Shot 02 after the new information became available to her.



     Like Heidegger's phantasy of the existence of *simple presence* - the word *existence* is an abstract noun. *Existence* itself does not exist. What exists are the ACTUAL OBJECTS in the cosmos. Put another way - *Being* does not exist, and like the metaphysical manikin *dasein* neither does *simple presence.*

Only objects that *BE* [are] the objects they are exist.



Communicating humans exist. The methods they use to communicate are gestures, signs symbols and sounds. We can even communicate with taste and smell.
Examples?

An unfaithful wife says to her lover who sometimes visits the cafe where she works:

*If I put sugar in your tea you will know it is safe to come tonight - no sugar means that my husband will be at home.*

     In this case the medium of communication whereby the message *My husband will be away tonight* [the dissolved grains of sugar which impart the *taste-message*] to the lover exist. But what about the lack of sugar which does not exist in the cup when the message is the opposite?

Now what about the other customers who have or do not have sugar in their tea? Does the sweet sugar taste in their cups carry a message?

     You perhaps will see now that symbols like sugar, or the scent a woman wears as a signal that she is available sexually whenever she wears it HAVE TO BE agreed in advance in order to have any meaning in the brain of the addressor and the addressee. It is the same with letters and words and signs and symbols of all types - there has got to be antecedally agreed.

So while sugar exists, and scent exists, and the configured graphite particles or dried ink particles exist on a paper page [or as pixelations on a screen etc.] in the shape of previously agreed shapes of letters the *meaning* of those shapes only exists as an existential modality of the writer's and the reader's brain. The words themselves are MEANINGLESS - like the sugar and the scent they *contain* no *meaning.* The *meaning* is attributed to them by the communicators. Only the meaningfully communicating addressee exists and the meaningfully updated human addressor between which the meaning of one can be conveyed to the other.

   

 Ontologically *debt* does not exist. What exists is the human debtor who owes X-amount of money. You could certainly try to claim to your bank manager that your debt did not exist, but I would not advise it. Bank managers like scientists are notoriously uneducated in ontology - he would probably press the secret bell under his desk which signals for the men in white-coats. ;-)

The reification of money like the reification of number, mind, consciousness, time, speed, motion, space and all the rest of the importantly helpful abstractions which we have dreamed up and created as essentially useful fictions to make our lives a lot easier are human ways of existing which set us apart from the animals and have allowed us to emerge from the caves to Cape Canaveral. We exist as abstracting humans - but the abstractions themselves do not exist.

Do Numbers Exist?

     Do abstract numbers exist? Definitely NOT! Numbers are a brilliantly conceived *useful fiction* which allows us to carry out all kinds of operations and create all kinds of things that we could not do if we had not created them. Originally men used stones or their fingers as counters - then they made the giant step for mankind of awarding names to the amount of stones or fingers that were held up. As time went by man abstractionalised and distanced number away from stones and fingers [broke the link of cognitive dependency] But, since numbers change in shape or position from one digit to another, and since change is a condition that only real things experience, doesn't that make numbers real? If so, what's wrong with considering that numbers exist -- especially, since they also have changing relationships to each other?

No – it does not make the abstract meaning of numbers real, it just means that the material medium [the pixels, ink stains, graphite, paint, wood and plastic etc.,] changes its existential configuration on the page, screen or chequebook.