- #1
Martini
- 13
- 0
Would you say the things a person perceives on a drug like LSD are "real"?
Martini said:Would you say the things a person perceives on a drug like LSD are "real"?
That is not a good example. If you have a physical problem internally, then it's real, it doesn't matter that someone else can't feel your pain. If you don't have a physical problem, and it's imagined, then it's not physically real.drankin said:Everything a person experiences is real. If it weren't, you wouldn't have the experience.
If "realness" required outside validation then most things a person experiences are not real because they cannot be witnessed by an outside observer.
Your doctor would say, "I don't feel that sore stomach you are talking about, don't worry, it's must not real".
Evo said:That is not a good example. If you have a physical problem internally, then it's real, it doesn't matter that someone else can't feel your pain. If you don't have a physical problem, and it's imagined, then it's not physically real.
In order to have any discussion "real" needs to be defined. Real as in the "physical" world, or as in a brain function, in which case I will move this to medical science and it can be discussed under the scientific guidelines.
Are you saying if someone has a cancerous tumor that it's not real until it's found? A tumor is physically real.Sorry! said:All I got out of your post was 'I don't believe what you said is a good example because I don't believe it.'
No one else can jump inside you and perceive using your sensory devices.
Evo said:That is not a good example. If you have a physical problem internally, then it's real, it doesn't matter that someone else can't feel your pain. If you don't have a physical problem, and it's imagined, then it's not physically real.
In order to have any discussion "real" needs to be defined. Real as in the "physical" world, or as in a brain function, in which case I will move this to medical science and it can be discussed under the scientific guidelines.
Evo said:Are you saying if someone has a cancerous tumor that it's not real until it's found? A tumor is physically real.
This is in medical sciences now. We will stick to medical definitions of drug induced hallucinations from this point on.
None of this makes sense. Pseudotumor Cerebri is a physical problem.Sorry! said:Pseudo Tumor Cerebra
And that's without drugs there also exists people who miraculously get pregnant, when they really aren't etc. etc.
Of course the fact that you're describing it as a cancerous tumor implies that it's already been discovered. How would I know I have a cancerous tumor exactly? Does it feel different?
Evo;2331192 Are you saying cancerous tumors don't exist until they are diagnosed? .[/QUOTE said:Well, it's not that they don't exist, it's just that you don't know.
It's like going to someone's house when they aren't home. You knock on the door, they don't awnser, so you assume that they are in the shower or sleeping. There is no way that you know whether they are there or not.
The point is that the tumor *IS* there and not imagninary. My response was to thisMartini said:Well, it's not that they don't exist, it's just that you don't know.
It's like going to someone's house when they aren't home. You knock on the door, they don't awnser, so you assume that they are in the shower or sleeping. There is no way that you know whether they are there or not.
If his stomach is sore due to a physical illness, it's not imaginary.drankin said:Your doctor would say, "I don't feel that sore stomach you are talking about, don't worry, it's must not real".
No, it does not meet the criteria. Most people that post in philosophy have never read the guidelines.madness said:My mistake I didn't realized it was moved here. I think the original question was much more suited to the philosophy forum.
It meets none. Please read the guidelines, I'm not posting them here in this thread. The OP failed to meet even the most basic criteria for a philosophical discussion.madness said:Which criteria does it not meet?
Just for starters. If you'd like, I can move this back to philosophy and lock it.explicitly defining key terms;
* justifying why this is a valid issue or problem in the first place;
* explicitly stating starting premises or assumptions;
* providing logical or empirical support for such premises or assumptions;
* making subtle logical steps more explicit;
* summarizing previous arguments made on the topic and explaining how they are relevant to your argument;
* etc.
Then it would be a discussion of sensory misinterpretations caused in the brain of that individual, not that color itself is different.madness said:A more realistic example of what someone on drugs might experience is synasthesia. So if I was to hear a colour, is this real or not? Why is it less real than seeing one?