The simplest definition of objectivist philosophy
Buck The Wonder Dog
J(ens)
with touching it - it is "real" ? with smelling it - it is "real" ? with
seeing it - it is "real" ? with feeling it - it is "real" ? no tell me how
do you do that ?
J(ens)
"Buck The Wonder Dog" <bd...@ruff.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ycuU8.221477$R61....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Buck The Wonder Dog
instruments, such as electron microscope.
"J(ens)" <je...@slipknot.de> wrote in message
news:aftu19$llv$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
J(ens)
it (e.g. a fata-morgana) or when u hear it (some noise maybe)... cant we say
its "real" when we can proof it with every sense or is one sense enough for
proof ?
well and another question : what is reality ? so we aren't sure who to
define something as something else,where we dont know about both factors...
J(ens)
"Buck The Wonder Dog" <bd...@ruff.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:gbvU8.225090$nZ3.105555@rwcrnsc53...
Buck The Wonder Dog
simply say that anything that a person can detect with their 5 senses or
scientific instruments is real.
"J(ens)" <je...@slipknot.de> wrote in message
news:aftvd7$mg8$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
Patrick Crosby
dave odden
> It's real if you can test that it's real and do it over and over again.
It's real if it's real, and if it's real they you can probably test for its
existence, and even repeat the test and get the same results.
"Testing" is what scientists (including ordinary citizens) do, and certain
results lead one to conclude that the thing exists and has specific
properties. "Observing" something, in the other hand, is direct and doesn't
involve inference (although sometimes people use "observe" metaphorically
for indirect inferences, like seeing a shadow and saying that they observed
Bob). The problem with "testing" is the added inferential steps, which have
to be filled in by applying some kind of law, and specifically whether the
law is correct. You can perform a test, get a result, and yet the putative
object might not be real, because your laws are wrong. Fortunately, this
fact occurs to people who think about these things, and they set about
devising ways to test the validity of those laws, by pitting them against
more certain laws.
Over and over... well, that depends on the specific thing and question. If
you have to destroy the object in order to detect it, then you can only
perform the test on that object once. But I don't think anyone cares about
the existenec of one specific token of a particle, so it would suffice to
test for multiple occurrences of the type.
J(ens)
objectivist philosophy" and maybe its right i just tried to go a step
further and make a "advanced definition" i dont know whats real - maybe just
the things u can smell,see,touch and hear or maybe much more we dont know
about. I think a big part of philosophy is the thing of making a questition
out of everything "why that ?" "what is that ?" "true or not true ?" so its
a neverending game :)
and sorry for playing games ;)
J(ens)
"Patrick Crosby" <pcr...@ieee.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3D22A030...@ieee.org...
Eudaimonus
"Buck The Wonder Dog" <bd...@ruff.com> wrote in message
news:ycuU8.221477$R61....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> It's real if you can test that it's real and do it over and over again.
It would be clearer if you said it like this : "To be real, is to be
percieved to be real", or, more simply, "to be is to be percieved". But
then, Bishop Berkley beat you to that one.
David Schwartz
>
> ok but let us think u have to proof its real do u know its real when you see
> it (e.g. a fata-morgana) or when u hear it (some noise maybe)... cant we say
> its "real" when we can proof it with every sense or is one sense enough for
> proof ?
> well and another question : what is reality ? so we aren't sure who to
> define something as something else,where we dont know about both factors...
One sense is sufficient to establish that something real is responsible
for the sensation. Of course, that doesn't ensure that we'll correctly
identify what it is that is responsible for that sensation.
DS
Buck The Wonder Dog
"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:3D261D58...@webmaster.com...
J(ens)
> Look we all know what's real and what isn't. Leave the games to Jen(s).
>
ok but what is a game ???
well enough "games" or how u want to call my normal discussion about
something called "philosophy"...
i think u dont like "games" or stuff so we leave it and i play em for my own
with my books and stuff *aw*
J(ens)
Daniel T.
>since I am not interested in playing philosophical games with you, I will
>simply say that anything that a person can detect with their 5 senses or
>scientific instruments is real.
When you say "a person" do you mean any one person, or must it be more
than one person, or must it be all people? If "a person" says they can
"detect" God with their "5 senses or scientific instruments", would that
make God real for you?
dave odden
> >anything that a person can detect with their 5 senses or
> >scientific instruments is real.
>
> When you say "a person" do you mean any one person, or must it be more
> than one person, or must it be all people? If "a person" says they can
> "detect" God with their "5 senses or scientific instruments", would that
> make God real for you?
Buck's out chasing cats. In the meantime, yes (to the latter question), with
the right additional qualifiers. First, it is not necessary for anyone to
actually detect the thing (a thing that actually exists but is not detected
by a human exists nonetheless). Second, there can't be a requirement that
all people can detect the thing (some humans may have defective sensory
organs, e.g. may be blind, some humans are insane and have no clue at all,
and some are infants and similarly have no clue).
Assuming that a person has the properly functioning means for detecting the
thing in question, then the test would be "could anyone detect the entity,
under the appropriate objective conditions". God fails this test, because he
cannot be heard, seen, felt or smelt by randomly selected people. A
religious zealot might claim to have heard God, but is not actually hearing
because hearing incolves acoustic waveforms, which are not produced when god
speaks. Furthermore, the voice of god cannot be heard by randomly selected
people under the same conditions: thus in a room of 200 people, 30 religious
zealots can claim to hear god, and the reast hear nothing. Compare that to
what happens when an actual existent makes a noise in the room: most or all
of the people will hear the noise, and where will be a clear physical reason
why the others don't hear (either they have bad hearing, or they are in an
acoustically disfavored spot in the room).
Forget god, let's focus on a unicorn. If I directly witness it, and have had
suitable opportunity to test what it is (i.e. not just a pony with a glue
job horn), I would therefore have some reason to believe that unicorns exist
(or, at least one does). That's the better way to put it, rather than saying
that "it's real for me". Reality is what it is (also, it is "what is"), and
existence isn't defined relative to me: thus, it doesn't make much sense to
say that it's "real to me", and it makes more sense to say "I have good
reason to believe that it is real".
The question is under what circumstance someone else's perception could
count as grounds for believing that something exists. A good rule of thumb
is, the more outlandish the claim, the less credence should be given to
someone else's testimony. So if I were to say "Alhamdu l'illahi! I have seen
the face of god", Buck should not believe me. He shouldn't evn believe me if
I take a picture, because I might have been mistaken and confused my drunken
old neighbor with god.
robert parker
Obliviously not since many "people" claim to
experience a personal relationship with god.
However if I could detect god then I would
consider god to be real. I doubt that I would
demand that others accept my knowing god as proof
of his existence.
XZan
Everything people/"persons" detect does not mean it is absolutely from
one of their senses. People do hallucinate and imagine things afterall.