Theli

Ojuice5001...
This will be interesting.

If you have ever read a Marvel comic you will find alot of superhero concepts. Moving on...

So, when we find an event to be "dramatic", a black hole appars in time and sucks that event into this magic realm?
And you have witnessed this?

There's that word again, "better". Better in wich sense?

Not necessarilly, but ok. You say that "better" means more appealing to people?

Haven't you lost track here? This is an argument for theism, isn't it?

No, was I supposed to explain why fiction is good?
I think you did that above. Adding drama, action and general appeal.


If you were to sum up this argument for theism, what would it be?

Ojuice5001

LOL. No, I'm saying that the magic realm caused the event to be dramatic rather than otherwise. If your question meant, when can humans enter or affect the fictional realm, I think it's likely that that's what the afterlife is, but don't know other than that.

If A satisfies a need not satisfied by B, then in one respect A is better than B.

Yes, more or less. See above.

Not quite, just an argument against metaphysical naturalism. Now if this argument is sound, AND there are intelligent beings in the fiction realm who affect things on Earth, then theism is true. But I don't think the argument establishes that second thing, and for me that is necessary to make theism true.

1. Needs are for something real, not for something unreal.
2. Fiction satisfies a need poorly satisfied by factual knowledge.
3. Fiction is intentional. By definition, fiction is about something other than itself.
4. Because of this, the need satisfied by fiction must be for what the fiction is about, not the fiction itself.
5. But the properties of what fiction is about are, in many cases, rare or nonexistent in this world.
6. Therefore, there is another world where these things are real and common.

Synaesthesia

Materialism is perfectly comfortable with the conception that counterfactual discourse (ie. fiction) can eludicate the structure of the world.

A good example of this sort of thing other than fiction qua literature is running computer simulations of non-existent physical systems or having dreams about situations you haven't encountered.

This is all a part of our learning process. Other mammals, purely molecular, material, scientifically investigatable mammals, also dream.

Clutch

Premise 1 is so transparently false that it's hard to see where to begin. People often need things that do not exist -- like, eg, cures for cancer.

Premise 2 is, on occasion, true.

Premise 3 is approximately true, though confused. Even when something represents itself, it is no less intentional.

Subconclusion 4 implicates false Premise 1, and hence does not follow. It would not follow in any case, though, since it equivocates between the reality of fiction -- which is uncontested -- and the reality of the intentional objects of fiction. In other words, even if the baffling P1 were true, the needs in question would be satisfied by fiction, that is, real works of fiction and real thoughts about them. Declaring that the objects of these needs are the intentional contents of the fiction is completely unmotivated.

Again, however, this is all beside the point. There is no reason to take P1 seriously.

Premise 5 is false. The properties discussed in fiction are overwhelmingly real properties. The objects and events of which they are predicated are the fictions. Not the properties.

Conclusion 6 utterly fails to follow.

Really, you are arguing: Fiction involves objects and events that do not actually exist. It would be really useful if they did, though. Therefore, they (kinda) do.

Who would think this is anything other than a Catastrophic Non-Sequitur?

Ojuice5001

You know I think all mammals (and birds) have souls, don't you? I've said it to you, IIRC.

Theli

Ojuice5001...
I agree with this for now. Although it's unclear if the need is for the emotion the needed event provides, or if it's the event itself.
People likes to watch horror movies, because they like the excitement. But they don't want some monster or killer chasing them in real life.
Therefore I don't know if this can be used as a premise.

I wouldn't say poorly, but fiction is designed to fullfill such needs (among other things).
Life is not that boring.

I don't understand this premise.

Do you mean the intentions of the fictionwriter?
Well, that depends. A pro-nazi movie can still have good action scenes, and thus be satisfying in that sense.

Not really. Most fictionwriters (even fantasy and science fiction) draws constantly inspiration from real events.

Fiction isn't that different from reality. All fictional material can be traced to real events, they are simply colored and twisted around by the writer's imagination.
For instance, unicorns aren't real. But what is a unicorn, but a horse with wings and a horn?
The same goes with old polytheistic beliefs that draws inspiration from their surroundings, making their gods look like cats, dogs, birds and elephants.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Synaesthesia

So what's the difference between a sophisticated brain and the soul? It is possible in principle to distinguish them?

Ojuice5001

Synaesthesia,

The reason I draw the line where I do is a self-concept. Although it is hard to know for sure, I think warm-blooded animals have a self-concept and no cold-blooded animals (with the possible execption of snakes) do. There is no clear way to know with certainty that a rabbit is aware of the difference between itself and its environment, and yet I think it does.

Synaesthesia

There's no clear way to know anything with certainty. That's beside the point.

The idea of a self-concept is notoriously ambiguous. However, when we develop specific formulations, it rather obvious that a rabbit has similar cognitive process going on when it is awake as when humans are awake. The areas which, when humans loose them, make us loose consciousness are present in mammals such as rabbits.

Ojuice5001

What about birds and reptiles?