• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

what?

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Must be detectable with all Five main senses.If it is a Gas it must be compressable to a liquid or solid.

Terry____________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Terrywoodenpic said:
Must be detectable with all Five main senses.If it is a Gas it must be compressable to a liquid or solid.

Terry____________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.
Surely, there are real things that are not detectable with ALL five senses??? :confused:
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
nutshell said:
Surely, there are real things that are not detectable with ALL five senses??? :confused:
Yes, there are. I tend to agree with Aqualung.;)
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
nutshell said:
Surely, there are real things that are not detectable with ALL five senses??? :confused:
I agree, when was the last time you heard or smelt the moon for instance?

I'd like to agree with Aqualung, but i can't because its Aqualung ;)

You can never know if anything is actually real. Why? Because everything you perceive with your senses is first processed in your brain, during that processing mistakes are made, eg. seeing things, paranoia etc. The world is all your mind's interpretation of the limited information it receives via quite limited sensory organs. No-one can ever know what the world is really like. Real is only an illusion.

How philosophical was that?:cool:
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Actually, the first step would be to define exactly what "real" means in the context of the question.
 

ChrisP

Veteran Member
The element that decides whether something is real or not, is my experience with it. If I have not experienced it, it remains in the "i don't know" basket.
 

ChrisP

Veteran Member
SnaleSpace said:
The element that decides whether something is real or not, is my experience with it. If I have not experienced it, it remains in the "i don't know" basket.
Fascist Christ said:
Reality is perception.
Or to Paraphrase. Frubals to the dictator.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Halcyon said:
I'd like to agree with Aqualung, but i can't because its Aqualung ;)
too bad there isn't the punching icon like in the chat rooms...

victor said:
As long as it's rational. Things can be rational without any evidence.

~Victor

Things can be irrational but still be true.
 

robtex

Veteran Member
Various ways:

As others say, that which is detectable by the 5 senses. The more senses that could detect it the more validity it would achieve and the longer the detection the more validity it would achieve.

Deduction would be the second componet. The deduction taken from what is known and can be verified. It would have to fit within the context of that which was already known. Non validaded deductions would be speculation which may or may not have validity but could not be escalated to the notion of "real" until which time the deduction could be verified.

For instance,

Buddy my poodle is real because I can see smell and hear him sleeping under my chair (he snores). Skippy his brother is dead. Skippy's death is real because he was found on a highway (years ago) crushed and not breathing. I know from deduction that animals on a road crushed and not breathing are likly hit by a car. A deduction. His breathing never resumed and thus I am deducitng he died based on the past information that living animals (including humans) need to breathe to live.

Deduction I can see a watertower from my window. I don't see the water but can deduce it is a water tower since I understand what the blueprint for one looks like and the tower outside my window matches the blueprint.

Deduction People in Germany live in Europe. From maps made out of observation in the world the majority of people have agreed that the land below poland and next to france is germany. The people who live there agree it is Germany and the majority of the world through personal observation and deliberation have decided it is Germany.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
robtex said:
Various ways:

As others say, that which is detectable by the 5 senses. The more senses that could detect it the more validity it would achieve and the longer the detection the more validity it would achieve.

Deduction would be the second componet. The deduction taken from what is known and can be verified. It would have to fit within the context of that which was already known. Non validaded deductions would be speculation which may or may not have validity but could not be escalated to the notion of "real" until which time the deduction could be verified.

For instance,

Buddy my poodle is real because I can see smell and hear him sleeping under my chair (he snores). Skippy his brother is dead. Skippy's death is real because he was found on a highway (years ago) crushed and not breathing. I know from deduction that animals on a road crushed and not breathing are likly hit by a car. A deduction. His breathing never resumed and thus I am deducitng he died based on the past information that living animals (including humans) need to breathe to live.

Deduction I can see a watertower from my window. I don't see the water but can deduce it is a water tower since I understand what the blueprint for one looks like and the tower outside my window matches the blueprint.

Deduction People in Germany live in Europe. From maps made out of observation in the world the majority of people have agreed that the land below poland and next to france is germany. The people who live there agree it is Germany and the majority of the world through personal observation and deliberation have decided it is Germany.
So you are prepared to accept another's testimony that something is real, without your having seen it ?
 

ChrisP

Veteran Member
michel said:
So you are prepared to accept another's testimony that something is real, without your having seen it ?
Hi Michel,

Isn't that then a matter of who you trust?
 

mr.guy

crapsack
robtex...

Most of your examples are a little too empirical to deal with reality at large. I understand you're mostly explaining deduction (and induction), but they seem best for qualitative attributes of something already hinting at reality. The notion that everything more or less exists as it is or at all is the first presupposition. Everything else as you've listed can follow, though absurd.

Alternatively, one could also toss Berkley around and see what sticks....
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
SnaleSpace said:
Hi Michel,

Isn't that then a matter of who you trust?
Perhaps; since Rob is now offline, and you have made a pertinent point, perhaps you would answer the following question which I would have asked Rob;

Do you trust N.A,S.A ?
Do you trust all who use MRI scanning machines, and decide on the state of your health as results of the scan ? (There are many more examples, of course)
 
Top