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.
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
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...
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...
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.
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?
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.
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..
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