why not? Clearly the information necessary for the theory of curing the ailment was provided in the vision. Administering the herb provides confirmation/lack thereof of the hypothesis. But the hypothetical answer is already known. And, who is to say that the experimental results are beond challenge? What if the patient really would have recovered anyway, and the herb is superfluous? Two false positives.
furthermore, lets say the shaman decided to consult a shaman three villages over via smoke signals. He gets the same answer as he would have in the vision. Does he now “know” the cure, based on the other shaman’s experimental results?
if your theory considers the clock to define the time of day, then the clock is always right and the solar system is wrong except for two brief periods every day.
Call this basis whatever you want. Even if the basis was just a hint, a “feeling”, the fact that he’s here now should be pretty convincing evidence of his ability to know whether the cars barreling down a road he’s crossing are real or imaginary. The ones who fail to distinguish between the real and imaginary simply don’t manage to stick around long enough to argue the alternative hypothesis. They just get run over.
Again, you seem to insist that I accept reject some sensory data as false meaningless. What is your basis for excluding dreams? When I imagine something, I do not hallucinate it.
More like those who insist that some sensory data must be meaningless suffer the consequences from shutting off that world of perception. Right now, I am waiting for someone to give me a reason to discount dreams and visions as valid sensory data. So far it seems like pure dogma.
I don’t think there is anything in contention here. You’re simply defining “real” differently.
We tend to call sensory data “real” if we believe they give us reliable guidance on how to act to better our circumstances, that is, what results to expect if we perform various actions:
“I saw a real pillow flying at my head so I ducked.” (In calling the pillow “real,” you’re effectively judging, after the fact, that you avoided a soft blow to the head by ducking.)
“I drempt I cut my finger, but when I woke up I saw that the cut wasn’t real.” (So it’d be a waste of time and money to go buy a band-aid.)
“I thought the dream of my dog running away was just a dream, but I woke up and he was really gone.”* (So you would have done better to start hurrying to look for him before you ambled downstairs to check on him.)
“The glass looked like it was full of water, but it wasn’t really.” (The unreliable guidepost led you to refuse a refill even though you’re thirsty.)
“I imagined an apple on the table even though there wasn’t a real one there.” (Since you knew you were just imagining it, you didn’t waste time trying to grab it.)
*In this case we are forced, under this definition, to call the dream in some way real. But that is just as well, for if what happened in our dreams always came true, it would be natural to refer to the dreamworld as part of reality.
if by that, you mean that I refrain from eliminating data based on prior decisions about what is and is not real, then yes.
Do you guys regularly encounter what seems to be “unreal” sensory data? Could you perhaps give me a real world example of a person encountering such data?
my point here is that we disagreeing about the existence of meaningless sensory data. You seem to be trying to get me to admit to making the same prior distinction as yourselves, here. I see no basis to exclude sensory data in the above quote. If data seem to contradict data, that might be a clue that your theory is bunk.
Plenty of sensory data are “unreal” by that definition. You see glass that looks full, but it turns out to be empty. Then you judge (post hoc) that the initial sensory data was unreal by that definition, because it was not a reliable guidepost. I edited the post to make it clearer with a bunch of examples and distilled the definition to a single requirement.
That sounds like your interpretation of sensory data was flawed. Or are you suggesting that the photons entering your iris were false photons? I will address your edited post presently, assuming my guest does not arrive before I finish.
Thus leading to the dismissal of sensation that doesnt fit your theory, because you do not consider it “actionable intelligence” in a sense.
I find it hard to imagine someone qualifying a projectile as real in the absence of the local existence of illusory missiles. Is this the case anywhere that you know of?
You mean you had a dream in which you cut your finger, when you woke up and saw your intact finger you realized that interpreting dreamworld events as literal analogues to waking-world events might not be useful in this instance.
So you discovered that your theory discounting the information in dreams was incorrect. So much for “just a dream.”
Perhaps you should look more closely next time. The answer is the same, care and attention in collection and analysis of sensory data. Or do you argue that we should always ask for refills?
I have a particularly vivid imagination, and when I visualize an event or an object, My visual cortex doesnt get confused. So I understand this example, I just dont see how it is relevant.
what do you define as “came true”? My entire inquiry is specifically geared towards the basis for your distinction here. What happens in the dreamworld does come true, as it happens. This is part of reality. What don’t you get?
Do you mean how do I know if I’m awake instead of dreaming? Granted I have had vivid dreams, and I do know a trick I can use in a dream to determine I am dreaming. But I don’t recall ever being awake (i.e., consciously interacting with the real world environment), going about my day, and felt as if I were in a dream state.
Drugs are a different matter, but still not something I would confuse with the dream state, per se. About 10 years ago I had my wisdom teeth removed and took Vicodin for a few days afterward. I defintely felt a little “spacey” and would drift in and out of sleep at times, though I was pretty much lying down with ice on my face the whole time, so that was fine.
It isn’t “known” until it is tested. If I flip a coin to decide yes/no answers to questions I know nothing about, I can’t say that I “knew” the answers to the 50% of questions I will, statistically speaking, answer correctly.
A clock doesn’t define time, it measures time. If I could tell time with sufficient precision by looking at the solar system, what would I need the clock for?
Something is real if it is something you can know through experience. I am sorry, I am not God, I cannot step outside of myself to tell you what is “real” in an objective sense. Something is real insofar as it is extant. Some things are experienced, and other things are inferred. Most any complicated idea is the result of a theoretical interpretation that is a mixture of personally experienced events, personally selected ideology, and emotional detritus. If I experience something, I know it exists on some level. The significance I assign to the experience is largely a matter of where it fits in my theory. Your theory excludes dreams, I would like to know on what basis? I told you I do not exclude data. Data is real.
sensory data requires interpretation. A prophetic vision experienced during sleeping hours might be the easiest to interpret, but this doesnt mean all sensory data should conform to the same interpretation.
no, what is your basis for defining those categories. What is a “dream”? When you “imagine something” do you get sensory data? What is your basis for acceptance of some sensory data and dismissal of other data?
so if the test isnt performed, can we say anything about the efficacy of the cure?
and defining an experience as “not real” does not make it irrelevant to your life experience.
For me, the “dream state” is the period during which I experience touch, sounds, sights, emotions, etc. while my body is asleep. All of the things I encounter during that time are sometimes close simulations of experiences I could have while awake, however they are not occuring in “reality.” They things I see are not the result of my eyes detecting photons and transmitting the information to my brain, and likewise for the things I might hear, say, touch, and taste.
yet somehow you still have these experiences. And, on some arbitrary basis, you dismiss them from consideration. Is this why? Because you cannot explain from whence they come?