@john27

Would you say then that there is a means of detection that is different from the either aided or unaided sensory sort of detection?

I don't believe so... You can either be omnipotent, perceiving all without aid, or perceive all with aid...

Yeah I would say that no there is not a separate means of detection.

Well, one could consider the abstract or the realm of thought to be a mode of detection, but it is only a different mode of detection as long as it denies the possibility of sensory application. In other words, as long as it gives the possibility of a tool to be made to allow for sensory detection, it would fall under the category of aided detection.

@john27

So, the mathematics that allows us to know that there is a center of the universe—would you agree that it is not a different mode of detection, because, theoretically, we could stand at the universe’s center, and perceive by means of physical instruments that everything else lies apart from us —even though we could never practically do this?

I would agree.

@john27

You are the most agreeable person I think I have ever met in this forum, John...

...but let me ask you this: do you believe that there are certain concepts that exist? and I don’t mean things like the dragon of your previous analogy, but rather things like “the good” and “the better”, “the more” and “the most”; “the large” and “the small”, etc. Do you think these sorts of things exist and are real and detectable, or do you think they rather don’t exist, are not real and are undetectable?

Well, according to our previous agreement that deemed perception to be the how or the why of reality, if you could somehow demonstrate that it is possible to be perceived with a tool, I would be more inclined to agree that "good" and the "better" exist.

@john27

With what tool do we perceive a microorganism?

@john27

Isn’t it by means of the microscope?

Right.

And with what instrument do perceive celestial bodies too small to be seen by the unaided eye?

@john27

Sorry: I forgot to prompt you in the previous post.

@john27

Sorry, John: I am sloppy tonight. My belly is bloated with Thanksgiving dinner, and it oppresseth my mind. Let me ask my question again: with what instrument do we perceive celestial bodies too distant to be seen by the unaided eye?

By means the telescope, I would think.

@john27

Of course! By means of the telescope.

Now, let me ask you: by what instrument do we perceive two?

I'd say that our mode of natural perception; the eyes, could very well perceive a set of things.

I don't have any argument with you however if it has not already been introduced, I would like to say we are animals, and we all, including the animals, are equal under the sun. But obviously, a man is not a bull, and a woman is not a cat. There are different species and ours follows the line of apes. That means we are mammals and we are social animals, and such animals have different individual statuses. The most useful is the alpha male and the least valued members are pushed to the outside where they are most likely to be eaten by a preditor. So within equality, we have inequality.

We have learned animals teach each other culture and those that learn the culture best will have a favored position and others will want to be around them but not all will be allowed to come too close. Also in herd animals, we see a sign of democracy. Rather than one alpha male determining when the herd will move to the river, this is a group decision. With movement members of the herd will communicate a desire to move to the river and when enough agree it is time to move to the river, they start moving and everyone joins them. This is fine as long as the need to move is not a predator. In times of emergency, we might want an alpha male we trust, who can immediately call us to action. In an emergency, there isn't time for debate.

Bottom line, we are equal under the sun, but we exist in very different circumstances. The difference in circumstances will improve the survival of some, but not all. Our children need stability, security, and very good schools, and unfortunately, that is not our reality so some will be pushed out of mainstream society and will experience greater threats to their lives and sanity.

with what instrument do we perceive celestial bodies too distant to be seen by the unaided eye? — Leghorn

This list of space telescopes (astronomical space observatories) is grouped by major frequency ranges: gamma ray, x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwave and radio. Telescopes that work in multiple frequency bands are included in all of the appropriate sections. Space telescopes that collect particles, such as cosmic ray nuclei and/or electrons, as well as instruments that aim to detect gravitational waves, are also listed. Missions with specific targets within the Solar System (e.g. our Sun and its planets), are excluded; see List of Solar System probes for these, and List of Earth observation satellites for missions targeting our planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_telescopes — Wikipedia

Our intelligence is not just what we know, but also our ability to ask good questions. It also helps to know where to look for good answers. :lol: Wikipedia may not be the supreme authority but it is a good starting place.

I'd say that our mode of natural perception; the eyes, could very well perceive a set of things. — john27

What about a blind man: is he unable to “perceive a set of things”?

Well, I suggest that a blind man could still identify a set of things in relation to his other senses. For example, an identical sensation, or an identical sound.

Yet, if the blind man does not have these capacities to translate any sort of stimulus into something physically comprehensible, then he must be reliant on the mind. And if you are reliant on the mind, you cannot/could not verify the existence of things, for existence does not exist within thought (application of).

Therefore I would conclude that a man unable to perceive via any physical sense, could not assess a set of things. Only a set of things that would have no relation to our practical world.

Bottom line, we are equal under the sun, but we exist in very different circumstances. The difference in circumstances will improve the survival of some, but not all. Our children need stability, security, and very good schools, and unfortunately, that is not our reality so some will be pushed out of mainstream society and will experience greater threats to their lives and sanity. — Athena

I'd agree with you that it becomes increasingly difficult to assess equality when we live in generically different scenarios. I guess it depends on whether you look at humanity via a macro or micro lens.

@john27

Have you ever gone to a party entirely nude?

I have not. Not yet, at least.

@john27

Neither have I, and I think I’m too old to ever dare do so—unless it were a party of octogenarian women who had been drinking heavily...

...but on to a question more pertinent to our discussion: when I train my telescope toward the heavens and perceive two stars in its field of vision, is it the telescope that counts those stars as two?

I'd agree with you that it becomes increasingly difficult to assess equality when we live in generically different scenarios. I guess it depends on whether you look at humanity via a macro or micro lens. — john27

I think our consideration of equality is equal under that law, not equally beautiful, or equally talented, or equally motivated. As some businesses are discovering today, hiring practices that include those who have been marginalized, is kind of like finding diamonds in ugly stones.

I drive people nuts with my talk of education and values and the Military Industrial Complex but our only hope is becoming aware of how the 1958 National Defense Education Act changed education, and why this has huge, social, economic, and political ramifications.

Equal opportunity is a democratic principle and in a way, education for technology increases that equal opportunity, but in another way, it marginalizes people and destroys their equal opportunity.

When it comes to our voting system, as some are talking about, the education we once had, would prevent the effort to control the voting process that is happening today. This is only one of the political ramifications of the change in education. We now have the reactionary politics that put Hitler in power.

...but on to a question more pertinent to our discussion: when I train my telescope toward the heavens and perceive two stars in its field of vision, is it the telescope that counts those stars as two? — Leghorn

No, It is I who count two stars.

I'll be honest, I have next to zero knowledge on this topic so I'm going to save you from hearing my half-hashed opinion. I do agree with you though to some extent, despite myself, that education currently needs a serious reevaluation on whats important.

No, It is I who count two stars. — john27

I’m surprised you didn’t say, “No, it is my eye that counts two stars,” for you earlier said,

I'd say that our mode of natural perception; the eyes, could very well perceive a set of things. — john27

Well, I had believed they were the same thing, the body and me. In terms of linguistic description, it's hard to exactly describe the difference.

(If there was, a difference :wink: )

@john27

So do you recant your statement that it is your eyes that do the counting, and replace it now with the one that it is you that does the counting instead?

Hmm....Well In what way are the eyes different from I?