Scientist retract 50 year old paper

[heidegger]

Quote from stu:

... please explain what that "truth" will be supported on if not logic or material evidence Illogical and insubstantial makebelieve is about all you will have left.

Insubstantial makebelieve is real as insubstantial makebelieve; that is, as a mental experience.

All that's required for a thing to be 'real' is that it exists.

A nine-million ton chicken doesn't exist and is therefore not real, but the concept of a nine-million ton chicken is real in that it exists in the mind of the person who conceives it.

 

[Turok]

hans:

>Collins: hunger 1. a feeling of pain, emptiness, or
>weakness induced by lack of food. 2) an appetite,
>need, desire, or craving.

>According to the above definitions hunger is capable
>of being a subjective experience ( a feeling ) without
>there necessarily being physical evidence thereof.

Yes there is such a subjective experience and in a previous post I acknowledged such, but *real* hunger isn't such an experience -- if you are *really* hungry, it can be materially observed.

Hans (previously)
> ... there is such a state as being really hungry. You
>know that this is so from your own subjective experience
>and don't arrive at this knowledge by way of either logic
>or material observation.

As I'm running out of time for this exchange, I will leave you with my simple stand -- the above may be true for you, but not for me nor millions of others who apply logic and material observation.

Peace.

JB

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from heidegger:

Let's say that you're hallucinating and your hallucination causes you to see a unicorn (that isn't really there). If you were to say "Over there is a unicorn." you'd be speaking an untruth because there is no correspondence between your statement and the facts. If, however, you said "I see a unicorn." and in fact, by way of hallucination, you do see a unicorn, there is a correspondence between what you are saying and what you are seeing. Your statement is true and your experience is real (true) in that it exists even if it exists only in your mind.

Hallucination is not seeing. If you hallucinate that you see a unicorn, you are not seeing a unicorn. Your brain cells are misfiring making you think that you see a unicorn. The statement "I see a unicorn" is untrue. The statement "I am hallucinating" is true. But that is beyond your understanding...

And your moniker is an insult to Heidegger.

 

[heidegger]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Hallucination is not seeing. If you hallucinate that you see a unicorn, you are not seeing a unicorn. Your brain cells are misfiring making you think that you see a unicorn. The statement "I see a unicorn" is untrue. The statement "I am hallucinating" is true. But that is beyond your understanding...

And your moniker is an insult to Heidegger.

Both statements, "I see a unicorn." and "I am hallucinating." are true. You are arbitrarily restricting "seeing" to receiving images through the eye. Without the mind there is no seeing. In fact, seeing can be a purely mental phenomenon. Seeing is having a visual image in the mind, regardless of the means by which that image is created.

I doubt that you're capable of construing any argument that's beyond my understanding. And speaking of unjustified monikers...

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from heidegger:

Both statements, "I see a unicorn." and "I am hallucinating." are true. You are arbitrarily restricting "seeing" to receiving images through the eye. Without the mind there is no seeing. In fact, seeing can be a purely mental phenomenon. Seeing is having a visual image in the mind, regardless of the means by which that image is created.

I doubt that you're capable of construing any argument that's beyond my understanding. And speaking of unjustified monikers...

Although the English word "see" can mean "understand," the context of speaking "I see a unicorn" is clear. The word is used to mean "seeing through the eyes." It cannot possibly mean "I understand a unicorn" (as in "I see your point"). If you equate seeing with hallucinating, you need to seek mental help.

BTW, a bee, by all human standards, does not have a mind. Yet a bee sees, too.

And I'm sure all this goes right over your head...

 

[heidegger]

Quote from Turok:

hans:

>Collins: hunger 1. a feeling of pain, emptiness, or
>weakness induced by lack of food. 2) an appetite,
>need, desire, or craving.

>According to the above definitions hunger is capable
>of being a subjective experience ( a feeling ) without
>there necessarily being physical evidence thereof.

Yes there is such a subjective experience and in a previous post I acknowledged such, but *real* hunger isn't such an experience -- if you are *really* hungry, it can be materially observed.

Hans (previously)
> ... there is such a state as being really hungry. You
>know that this is so from your own subjective experience
>and don't arrive at this knowledge by way of either logic
>or material observation.

As I'm running out of time for this exchange, I will leave you with my simple stand -- the above may be true for you, but not for me nor millions of others who apply logic and material observation.

Peace.

JB

Whatever. A thing need not be substantive to be real. Thoughts, perceptions, feelings, ideas - all real. Anything that exists is real. Anything that does not exist is unreal.

You are arbitrarily defining "real hunger" as only that which can be physically manifested. You are being disingenuous in refusing to recognize my alternative, legitimate definition.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from heidegger:

Whatever. A thing need not be substantive to be real. Thoughts, perceptions, feelings, ideas - all real. Anything that exists is real. Anything that does not exist is unreal.

It's hilarious that you don't see (no pun intended) the fallacy of this. Without logic and material observations, what (or who) decides what exists and what doesn't? Is it everything that you can imagine? Is a unicorn real?

What about "nothing?" Does "nothing" exist? Is "nothing" real?

 

[heidegger]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Although the English word "see" can mean "understand," the context of speaking "I see a unicorn" is clear. The word is used to mean "seeing through the eyes." It cannot possibly mean "I understand a unicorn" (as in "I see your point"). If you equate seeing with hallucinating, you need to seek mental help.

BTW, a bee, by all human standards, does not have a mind. Yet a bee sees, too.

And I'm sure all this goes right over your head...

When you conjure up a mental visual image do you not see it with the 'mind's eye'? You don't hear it or touch it; you see it. Is this not a kind of seeing?


"A bee, by all human standards, does not have a mind." How are you using the phrase "by all human standards" here? Perhaps a bee has no mind 'by human standards' but it may have a mind in that it might have consciousness. This point of yours directs us to a need to understand the nature of mind and consciousness - a task beyond even your vast intellect.

 

[Supermax]

i'm putting all my $ in unicorn meat. think it's going to be huge...! it's the other other white meat. and the ivory from the tusk is just gravy..

 

[Turok]

Hans:
>You are arbitrarily defining "real hunger" as only
>that which can be physically manifested. You are
>being disingenuous in refusing to recognize my
>alternative, legitimate definition.

Why am I being "disingenuous"? Because you say so?. You have presented no evidence as to why your position is any better than mine -- Let me guess, you "feel" that your position is right and there is no need for the application of logic or material observation.

As you say... "whatever"

JB