Does Homer Simpson exist?

We all know Homer Simpson is a fictional character and therefore does not exist in a physical flesh-and-blood body, but to what extent does he exist?

Is he merely a figment of the writers’ imagination, or does the fact that so many people have shared in the collective experience of watching Homer Simpson mean that he is elevated above mere imagination? Does he inhabit our world in the collective social space, and does that count as a type of existence?

party_pants said:

Does Homer Simpson exist?

We all know Homer Simpson is a fictional character and therefore does not exist in a physical flesh-and-blood body, but to what extent does he exist?

Is he merely a figment of the writers’ imagination, or does the fact that so many people have shared in the collective experience of watching Homer Simpson mean that he is elevated above mere imagination? Does he inhabit our world in the collective social space, and does that count as a type of existence?

He exists in the consciousness of individual humans so at the very least occupies the same collection of neurons as do real things like elephants and clouds. The question is does anything exist outside of human consciousness considering everything we call real is just an artifact of human cognition.

party_pants said:

Does Homer Simpson exist?

We all know Homer Simpson is a fictional character and therefore does not exist in a physical flesh-and-blood body, but to what extent does he exist?

Is he merely a figment of the writers’ imagination, or does the fact that so many people have shared in the collective experience of watching Homer Simpson mean that he is elevated above mere imagination? Does he inhabit our world in the collective social space, and does that count as a type of existence?

You could ask the same of any type of fiction, not just fictional characters. Would a work of fiction, such as a novel, when shared by many make that fiction real?

I want to know if Kermit the Frog is real though.

Speedy said:

party_pants said:

Does Homer Simpson exist?

We all know Homer Simpson is a fictional character and therefore does not exist in a physical flesh-and-blood body, but to what extent does he exist?

Is he merely a figment of the writers’ imagination, or does the fact that so many people have shared in the collective experience of watching Homer Simpson mean that he is elevated above mere imagination? Does he inhabit our world in the collective social space, and does that count as a type of existence?

You could ask the same of any type of fiction, not just fictional characters. Would a work of fiction, such as a novel, when shared by many make that fiction real?

I want to know if Kermit the Frog is real though.

Interesting queston. that raises another level. Kermit exists as a puppet.

>We all know Homer Simpson is a fictional character and therefore does not exist in a physical flesh-and-blood body, but to what extent does he exist?

most relationships involve imagining an other

in a moment i’m going to venture the TV room and confirm larry and the lady (still) exist

everything that anybody believes is true

Sounds like Heinlein’s “World as Myth”.

I don’t see any mystery or profundity here.

Cartoon characters exist in the forms that cartoon characters exist.

Glasgow University offers Homer Simpson philosophy class.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37999573

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Does Homer Simpson exist?

We all know Homer Simpson is a fictional character and therefore does not exist in a physical flesh-and-blood body, but to what extent does he exist?

Is he merely a figment of the writers’ imagination, or does the fact that so many people have shared in the collective experience of watching Homer Simpson mean that he is elevated above mere imagination? Does he inhabit our world in the collective social space, and does that count as a type of existence?

He exists in the consciousness of individual humans so at the very least occupies the same collection of neurons as do real things like elephants and clouds. The question is does anything exist outside of human consciousness considering everything we call real is just an artifact of human cognition.

by extension
the obvious question
would be does God exist?

We think, therefore HE exists…?

yes

fleshy reality, organic reality is smelly, it has odors

TV’s olfactory neutral, be large part why larry takes not much notice of it

so it could be TV and representational reality delivered that way, the olfactory derivation of the content, which to a pet dog reduces interest, of humans inclines more interest (of some people)

if you’re deprived a correspondence of sensory input, that could incline (unknowingly) persistence looking for confirmation, variously compensations, which are an investment of sorts

large part of why many people watch TV i’d guess is because they can’t smell anything or everything viewed, or heard, but the attraction may be some part in a contradiction, both the content detachment from that sense and simultaneously the wanting of it

I can smell pancakes at the moment, they were real, getting an acid bath now

cooking shows might be popular in part because the viewer can’t smell the food, which seems perhaps paradoxical, and maybe it is paradoxical, whatever the rev might be in tomorrow to fix that paradox, he chases them down and eliminates them at every opportunity

so, more to your point, the subject, is homer real, no I say, because I can’t smell anything of him or what he does, no possibility of

transition said:

fleshy reality, organic reality is smelly, it has odors

TV’s olfactory neutral, be large part why larry takes not much notice of it

so it could be TV and representational reality delivered that way, the olfactory derivation of the content, which to a pet dog reduces interest, of humans inclines more interest (of some people)

if you’re deprived a correspondence of sensory input, that could incline (unknowingly) persistence looking for confirmation, variously compensations, which are an investment of sorts

large part of why many people watch TV i’d guess is because they can’t smell anything or everything viewed, or heard, but the attraction may be some part in a contradiction, both the content detachment from that sense and simultaneously the wanting of it

I can smell pancakes at the moment, they were real, getting an acid bath now

cooking shows might be popular in part because the viewer can’t smell the food, which seems perhaps paradoxical, and maybe it is paradoxical, whatever the rev might be in tomorrow to fix that paradox, he chases them down and eliminates them at every opportunity

so, more to your point, the subject, is homer real, no I say, because I can’t smell anything of him or what he does, no possibility of

derivation should have been writ deprivation

Wouldn’t existence be related to belief and as such does not apply to all. To some religion exists because they believe it, whereas non-believers don’t and to them it does not exist.

PermeateFree said:

Wouldn’t existence be related to belief and as such does not apply to all. To some religion exists because they believe it, whereas non-believers don’t and to them it does not exist.

So for some, there really exist yellow people in Springfield?

Fictional characters can often seem more “real” to people than real people.

Take the soap-opera’s, Home and Away and Neighbours for example. Those who watch these shows regularly get to know the characters on the show better than they know their own family and friends. The audience gets to see these characters at their best and their worst, gets to see behind the scenes to all the little private conversations / big arguments that constitute the characters interpersonal relations with each other. The audience gets to see how the characters react to situations (often fairly extreme situations at that) and how they live their life day-to-day. In other words, the audience gets a far more comprehensive understanding of the “person” than they often (maybe usually?) do with friends or family.

There’s a soft-science hypothesis known as Dunbar’s Number, “a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.” (wikipedia). Fictional characters can and do occupy some of that cognitive space, and there is aspects of our cognitive functions which do not distinguish between fictional people we know and real people we know. If a favorite character dies, for example, we may experience some degree of mourning.

For many of us, Homer Simpson has been a regular feature of our lives for decades. We know him well, and at least part of our brain considers him as “real”, or maybe more “real” than actual people that we know.

esselte said:

Fictional characters can often seem more “real” to people than real people.

Take the soap-opera’s, Home and Away and Neighbours for example. Those who watch these shows regularly get to know the characters on the show better than they know their own family and friends. The audience gets to see these characters at their best and their worst, gets to see behind the scenes to all the little private conversations / big arguments that constitute the characters interpersonal relations with each other. The audience gets to see how the characters react to situations (often fairly extreme situations at that) and how they live their life day-to-day. In other words, the audience gets a far more comprehensive understanding of the “person” than they often (maybe usually?) do with friends or family.

There’s a soft-science hypothesis known as Dunbar’s Number, “a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.” (wikipedia). Fictional characters can and do occupy some of that cognitive space, and there is aspects of our cognitive functions which do not distinguish between fictional people we know and real people we know. If a favorite character dies, for example, we may experience some degree of mourning.

For many of us, Homer Simpson has been a regular feature of our lives for decades. We know him well, and at least part of our brain considers him as “real”, or maybe more “real” than actual people that we know.

If your world revolves around the TV, Joyce Meyer may appear real.

roughbarked said:

esselte said:

Fictional characters can often seem more “real” to people than real people. We know him well, and at least part of our brain considers him as “real”, or maybe more “real” than actual people that we know.

If your world revolves around the TV, Joyce Meyer may appear real.

fictional characters like God indeed

roughbarked said:

esselte said:

Fictional characters can often seem more “real” to people than real people. We know him well, and at least part of our brain considers him as “real”, or maybe more “real” than actual people that we know.

If your world revolves around the TV, Joyce Meyer may appear real.

fictional characters like God indeed

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

esselte said:

Fictional characters can often seem more “real” to people than real people. We know him well, and at least part of our brain considers him as “real”, or maybe more “real” than actual people that we know.

If your world revolves around the TV, Joyce Meyer may appear real.

fictional characters like God indeed

Do they?

What, all of them?

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

If your world revolves around the TV, Joyce Meyer may appear real.

fictional characters like God indeed

Do they?

What, all of them?

all of them can seem real, sometimes all it takes is a little 4-hydroxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

fictional characters like God indeed

Do they?

What, all of them?

all of them can seem real, sometimes all it takes is a little 4-hydroxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine

More fun guys.

transition said:

fleshy reality, organic reality is smelly, it has odors

TV’s olfactory neutral, be large part why larry takes not much notice of it

so it could be TV and representational reality delivered that way, the olfactory derivation of the content, which to a pet dog reduces interest, of humans inclines more interest (of some people)

if you’re deprived a correspondence of sensory input, that could incline (unknowingly) persistence looking for confirmation, variously compensations, which are an investment of sorts

large part of why many people watch TV i’d guess is because they can’t smell anything or everything viewed, or heard, but the attraction may be some part in a contradiction, both the content detachment from that sense and simultaneously the wanting of it

I can smell pancakes at the moment, they were real, getting an acid bath now

cooking shows might be popular in part because the viewer can’t smell the food, which seems perhaps paradoxical, and maybe it is paradoxical, whatever the rev might be in tomorrow to fix that paradox, he chases them down and eliminates them at every opportunity

so, more to your point, the subject, is homer real, no I say, because I can’t smell anything of him or what he does, no possibility of

then there’s ‘ME’… /-:

I have Phantosmia

the first time I became aware of it
was while sitting across the street from a by-passer who was smoking a cigarette.
I assumed that it was a trick of wind and weather conditions that carried the smell.
but then I became aware that I smelled smoke while watching people smoke on TV.
in fact, I smell smoke now just by talking/thinking about smelling cigarettes.

I was listening to an old Loudon Wainwright III song on the radio:
Dead Skunk In the Middle of the Road

The up-side is that I can also smell the cool, fresh, sweet aroma from my silk roses :)

anyway,
brings us back to what is real
and the fact that it’s a matter of perception

Ogmog said:

transition said:

fleshy reality, organic reality is smelly, it has odors

TV’s olfactory neutral, be large part why larry takes not much notice of it

so it could be TV and representational reality delivered that way, the olfactory derivation of the content, which to a pet dog reduces interest, of humans inclines more interest (of some people)

if you’re deprived a correspondence of sensory input, that could incline (unknowingly) persistence looking for confirmation, variously compensations, which are an investment of sorts

large part of why many people watch TV i’d guess is because they can’t smell anything or everything viewed, or heard, but the attraction may be some part in a contradiction, both the content detachment from that sense and simultaneously the wanting of it

I can smell pancakes at the moment, they were real, getting an acid bath now

cooking shows might be popular in part because the viewer can’t smell the food, which seems perhaps paradoxical, and maybe it is paradoxical, whatever the rev might be in tomorrow to fix that paradox, he chases them down and eliminates them at every opportunity

so, more to your point, the subject, is homer real, no I say, because I can’t smell anything of him or what he does, no possibility of

then there’s ‘ME’… /-:

I have Phantosmia

the first time I became aware of it
was while sitting across the street from a by-passer who was smoking a cigarette.
I assumed that it was a trick of wind and weather conditions that carried the smell.
but then I became aware that I smelled smoke while watching people smoke on TV.
in fact, I smell smoke now just by talking/thinking about smelling cigarettes.

I was listening to an old Loudon Wainwright III song on the radio:
Dead Skunk In the Middle of the Road

The up-side is that I can also smell the cool, fresh, sweet aroma from my silk roses :)

anyway,
brings us back to what is real
and the fact that it’s a matter of perception

The brain, like God, is a many splendoured thing.

party_pants said:

Does Homer Simpson exist?

We all know Homer Simpson is a fictional character and therefore does not exist in a physical flesh-and-blood body, but to what extent does he exist?

Is he merely a figment of the writers’ imagination, or does the fact that so many people have shared in the collective experience of watching Homer Simpson mean that he is elevated above mere imagination? Does he inhabit our world in the collective social space, and does that count as a type of existence?

Only if “culture” exists.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

Does Homer Simpson exist?

We all know Homer Simpson is a fictional character and therefore does not exist in a physical flesh-and-blood body, but to what extent does he exist?

Is he merely a figment of the writers’ imagination, or does the fact that so many people have shared in the collective experience of watching Homer Simpson mean that he is elevated above mere imagination? Does he inhabit our world in the collective social space, and does that count as a type of existence?

Only if “culture” exists.

I wondered that type of thing myself, many people believe deity’s from books are real with sketchy information about them but the human race has created characters like the above who are more fleshed out