# Let's talk about how we determine what is real.



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2013)

I like when things can be tested.

I like when they jive with things that I've experienced first hand. 

I like when they come from a reliable source and by reliable, I mean that they pass tests 1 and 2.

I like when they are readily observable.

I don't like when I have to take someone's word for it.

I don't like when I have to believe it FIRST to see it.


 Any others?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

Research
Facts
Evidence

I do not need 100% percent certainty just enough that leads to a more likely than not probability with the flexibility to change if more information is found.

But I hold everything to the same standards with no free passes because I want or need them to be true and I am long past "tradition" telling me to believe. If it holds up to scrutiny then I am more likely to believe it.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Research
> Facts
> Evidence
> 
> ...



Reasonable.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I like when things can be tested.
> 
> I like when they jive with things that I've experienced first hand.
> 
> ...



I agree with you completely.   It's nice when things are easy and clear.  The problem is that the very best things in life aren't that way.  

Love = messy

Relationships = often unreliable and messy

Relationships with family= often 
unreliable, messy and contentious

Peace= often elusive 

Happiness= can be unattainable even with unlimited resources and finances

Hope/Optimism= no rhyme or reason to it.  Some people have it, others don't, but everyone envies those who do.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

BTW Good subject for a thread.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree with you completely.   It's nice when things are easy and clear.  The problem is that the very best things in life aren't that way.
> 
> Love = messy
> 
> ...



All good examples of why not to take anything blindly and jump in with both feet without doing your homework first and using past experiences as lessons.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Nov 25, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I like when things can be tested.
> 
> I like when they jive with things that I've experienced first hand.
> 
> ...



Ambush, 
Like you, I love logic and it's application. Thats why I really believe that logic is how God will reveal himself to you one day. Don't know how, just think he will. Just my thoughts...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Nov 26, 2013)

The very best things??

BACON, MEATLOAF, BEER.... All pass the tests!!!



SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree with you completely.   It's nice when things are easy and clear.  The problem is that the very best things in life aren't that way.
> 
> Love = messy
> 
> ...


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 26, 2013)

Are we talking about our preferences as to what real would be, as in your "I like" list, or how we determine what real would be, as in you OP question?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 26, 2013)

I like this thread. 

I like when what we do know leads us to conclusions that we can then test, then adapt to fit the evidence, and have both theory and observation that are congruent.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 26, 2013)

I like a lot of things.  But, I also recognize that what I like has very little to do with what makes something real.

"Real" is what it is regardless of my opinion on the matter.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I like a lot of things.  But, I also recognize that what I like has very little to do with what makes something real.
> *
> "Real" is what it is regardless of my opinion on the matter*.



Now THAT'S troof.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Are we talking about our preferences as to what real would be, as in your "I like" list, or how we determine what real would be, as in you OP question?



I was just using casual language in hopes of inducing a casual atmosphere of discussion.  

I suppose what I meant by "like" is that they are sufficient basis for my determination of real.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree with you completely.   It's nice when things are easy and clear.  The problem is that the very best things in life aren't that way.
> 
> Love = messy
> 
> ...



Ahhh. Sweet little ancdotes.

You realize that often the exact opposite of what you said is claimed particularly by those influenced by Eastern Philosophy.  There's so much more than the King James Version of things.....  Why don't you give the other ways a try; honestly, with sincerity?

Love=Easy as falling off a log
Relationships= I just knew it was right
etc, etc, etc......


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I suppose what I meant by "like" is that they are sufficient basis for my determination of real.


Everybody gets to determine what that basis is, we're just arguing over who's basis is most reasonable.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Ahhh. Sweet little ancdotes.
> 
> You realize that often the exact opposite of what you said is claimed particularly by those influenced by Eastern Philosophy.  There's so much more than the King James Version of things.....  Why don't you give the other ways a try; honestly, with sincerity?
> 
> ...



I'm not big on Eastern philosophy, I like the law of non contradiction too much.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I like a lot of things.  But, I also recognize that what I like has very little to do with what makes something real.
> 
> "Real" is what it is regardless of my opinion on the matter.



A Physicist can explain dark matter to me.  They can even show me the equations that lead them to the conclusion that dark matter exists (provided that I am capable of understanding them).  They can show me the machines that show evidence of its existence and explain to me how to interpret the feedback.  But they won't ever say that it is definitively real.  But they have a good basis for their beliefs.  

All that hard work and they still won't say that's its for sure real.  

Why in the world would anyone read in a book (chock full of likewise fantastic claims)  that a burning bush talked and believe without question that it is true?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Everybody gets to determine what that basis is, we're just arguing over who's basis is most reasonable.



I suppose that's so.  

Explain why belief in a talking, burning bush is a reasonable position.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not big on Eastern philosophy, I like the law of non contradiction too much.



Non contradiction....And yet you subscribe to the Bible........

http://


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> A Physicist can explain dark matter to me.  They can even show me the equations that lead them to the conclusion that dark matter exists (provided that I am capable of understanding them).  They can show me the machines that show evidence of its existence and explain to me how to interpret the feedback. * But they won't ever say that it is definitively real.  But they have a good basis for their beliefs. *
> 
> All that hard work and they still won't say that's its for sure real.
> 
> Why in the world would anyone read in a book (chock full of likewise fantastic claims)  that a burning bush talked and believe without question that it is true?



Not true. They will say it's real when it is predictable, and repeatable. 

They're laws. You are right about them up until that point, at least in so far as true scientists are concerned. 

There will always be the quacks like those that claim that human impact is causing global warming, despite no hard evidence to support it, but they are the exception rather than the rule themselves.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 26, 2013)

OK to the OP:

"How do we determine what is real?"

I would say we use all our faculties to include our senses, our past experiences, and our cognitive abilities to reach a perception then we determine what explanation not only correlates accurately with what we perceive but provides the most comprehensive explanation and THAT is what we deem real.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Not true. They will say it's real when it is predictable, and repeatable.
> 
> They're laws. You are right about them up until that point, at least in so far as true scientists are concerned.
> 
> There will always be the quacks like those that claim that human impact is causing global warming, despite no hard evidence to support it, but they are the exception rather than the rule themselves.




Yeah.  "Won't ever" wasn't accurate.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> OK to the OP:
> 
> "How do we determine what is real?"
> 
> I would say we use all our faculties to include our senses, our past experiences, and our cognitive abilities to reach a perception then we determine what explanation not only correlates accurately with what we perceive but provides the most comprehensive explanation and THAT is what we deem real.



Where does a talking burning bush fit in?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 26, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not big on Eastern philosophy, I like the law of non contradiction too much.



Yeah that "both/and" causes me problems too.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah.  "Won't ever" wasn't accurate.



I know you know that, but I couldn't let that go by when we're discussing why we subscribe to what we do and that's a core tenet of science.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah that "both/and" causes me problems too.



Because duality is not what you have observed happening in nature?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I know you know that, but I couldn't let that go by when we're discussing why we subscribe to what we do and that's a core tenet of science.




Just more of my attempt at creating a casual dialogue.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> A Physicist can explain dark matter to me.  They can even show me the equations that lead them to the conclusion that dark matter exists (provided that I am capable of understanding them).  They can show me the machines that show evidence of its existence and explain to me how to interpret the feedback.  But they won't ever say that it is definitively real.  But they have a good basis for their beliefs.
> 
> All that hard work and they still won't say that's its for sure real.



Did you follow my conversation a few days ago with Bulletthead about my conculsions of him as a person based on the evidence at hand?

Heck, Ambush, if we want to dig into some really goofy philosophical perspectives, maybe we can discuss whether or not my thoughts are real......




ambush80 said:


> Why in the world would anyone read in a book (chock full of likewise fantastic claims)  that a burning bush talked and believe without question that it is true?



Oh.....this is about the Bible.......


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Did you follow my conversation a few days ago with Bulletthead about my conculsions of him as a person based on the evidence at hand?
> 
> Heck, Ambush, if we want to dig into some really goofy philosophical perspectives, maybe we can discuss whether or not my thoughts are real......



I wouldn't mind that discussion.



JB0704 said:


> Oh.....this is about the Bible.......



No. It's about things that people believe are real and what evidence they use to determine it.  We can talk about ghosts or Bigfoot if you don't like the Bible.  Heck, we can even talk about String Theory.  Any believers?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Just more of my attempt at creating a casual dialogue.



Oh, then I'll take my leave. That should help it remain somewhat causal.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Oh, then I'll take my leave. That should help it remain somewhat causal.




Don't go.  Stay and chat.  I'll be more careful with my language.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Don't go.  Stay and chat.  I'll be more careful with my language.



You're fine. It was a little self-deprecation.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> It's about things that people believe are real and what evidence they use to determine it.



I am not sure that many people ahve a set system in place.  Many of us go with our "instinct."  Others seem to require concrete proof of anything.

Let's talk about trust.  On what basis is it given?  Can it ever be proven to be deserved?  I can have an entire history with another human being which indicates that they are trustworthy, but there is never a guarantee of future behavior.....they could have a bad day, or, they could evolve emotionally.  

Is my basis for trusting somebody ever really real?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I am not sure that many people ahve a set system in place.  Many of us go with our "instinct."  Others seem to require concrete proof of anything.
> 
> Let's talk about trust.  On what basis is it given?  Can it ever be proven to be deserved?  I can have an entire history with another human being which indicates that they are trustworthy, but there is never a guarantee of future behavior.....they could have a bad day, or, they could evolve emotionally.
> 
> Is my basis for trusting somebody ever really real?


To you, yes.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> A Physicist can explain dark matter to me.  They can even show me the equations that lead them to the conclusion that dark matter exists (provided that I am capable of understanding them).  They can show me the machines that show evidence of its existence and explain to me how to interpret the feedback.  But they won't ever say that it is definitively real.  But they have a good basis for their beliefs.
> 
> All that hard work and they still won't say that's its for sure real.




That's a very good question.  It really is.

On an individual level we often have to personally experience something before we can accept it as real.  Whether it be a baby trusting his legs to take those first steps or the builders of the first nuclear bomb.  We test things first and once they "pass" for lack of a better term then that individual personal experience becomes a foundation for trust in a certain reality.   Once those physicist are able to find some instrument to sense, describe or quantify dark matter, it's gonna provide them with that personal trust/conviction and at that point they will say its a for sure thing.  They just haven't reached that point yet.  They are still like that baby finding its legs.




ambush80 said:


> Why in the world would anyone read in a book (chock full of likewise fantastic claims)  that a burning bush talked and believe without question that it is true?



Because for me personally, I have experienced enough to know and trust that those "fantastic claims" are not really that fantastic for the one who is credited with them.  It's based on my personal experience.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I suppose that's so.
> 
> Explain why belief in a talking, burning bush is a reasonable position.



Because I believe in God, and I think He can make a bush talk.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> To you, yes.



According to my personal basis, which is not concrete, or testable to the point of certainty.  It is usually only a "best guess."

I got married and divorced in my younger years.....I had complete trust based on the best evidence at hand which passed my personal tests.  I was wrong.

My testing evolved with age/wisdom/cynicism.....and I got remarried.  While I believe my tests are now more effective, I cannot prove such a thing.

I still trust my current wife.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 26, 2013)

I want to be able to verify things for myself before I believe.  I rely on myself for answers. 

And Google.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I am not sure that many people ahve a set system in place.  Many of us go with our "instinct."  Others seem to require concrete proof of anything.
> 
> Let's talk about trust.  On what basis is it given?  Can it ever be proven to be deserved?  I can have an entire history with another human being which indicates that they are trustworthy, but there is never a guarantee of future behavior.....they could have a bad day, or, they could evolve emotionally.
> 
> Is my basis for trusting somebody ever really real?




People are tricky as you described but I think empirical evidence goes along way.  References are good too.  I have an acquaintance who has never let me down but he is known a shifty by other people.  Heck, I originally wrote  "friend" but changed it to "acquaintance" based on his character references.  That's a pretty good illustration of how my trust is allotted.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I am not sure that many people ahve a set system in place.  Many of us go with our "instinct."  Others seem to require concrete proof of anything.
> 
> Let's talk about trust.  On what basis is it given?  Can it ever be proven to be deserved?  I can have an entire history with another human being which indicates that they are trustworthy, but there is never a guarantee of future behavior.....they could have a bad day, or, they could evolve emotionally.
> 
> *Is my basis for trusting somebody ever really real*?





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> To you, yes.





JB0704 said:


> According to my personal basis, which is not concrete, or testable to the point of certainty.  It is usually only a "best guess."
> 
> I got married and divorced in my younger years.....I had complete trust based on the best evidence at hand which passed my personal tests.  I was wrong.
> 
> ...



That's why I left it as relative to you, yes it is real. 

It's the same take I have with faith. I recognize that, relative to each believer, their faith and belief in God is real. 

It breaks down the instant you try to translate it to someone else, though. 

It's also the same take I have with testimony. There's what person A says happened, that is colored by their experience with it; there's what person B says happened, also colored by their experience, and there's what actually happened. Since we are all human observers, and our perceptions and experiences cloud our interpretation of events, then there is no way for a human to truly express to another what anything truly is, without an objective, read : mechanical, witness. 

Cameras, scales, and a whole host of other physical recording and measuring instruments can be thought of as objective, since they have no consciousness by which to color their measures.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Nov 26, 2013)

I had a dream last night.  At the time, I knew it was real but after waking up, I knew it was just a dream.........


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Because for me personally, I have experienced enough to know and trust that those "fantastic claims" are not really that fantastic for the one who is credited with them.  It's based on my personal experience.






stringmusic said:


> Because I believe in God, and I think He can make a bush talk.



Is that good methodology?  Would you apply that to anything else, say buying a car or believing in Bigfoot?  

"I think He can make a bush talk"........Listen to yourself....


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> "I think He can make a bush talk"........Listen to yourself....



You have to dig into the statement a little deeper, and first answer the question: "who is he?"


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's why I left it as relative to you, yes it is real.



As is the case with many of life's "intangibles."  We each have a different system for determining the value or validity of the information and conclusions.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It breaks down the instant you try to translate it to someone else, though.



Yes.  I believe faith is personal.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Cameras, scales, and a whole host of other physical recording and measuring instruments can be thought of as objective, since they have no consciousness by which to color their measures.



Yes, but we are discussing tangibles.  Not those things we exist, but have no objective means of measuring.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> You have to dig into the statement a little deeper, and first answer the question: "who is he?"



OK fine.  If God exists He could make a bush talk.   

If Vishnu exists he has eight arms, blue, skin and an elephant head.  And on and on and on.....

Do you believe in Vishnu?  

Is it likely?  Is it reasonable?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> As is the case with many of life's "intangibles."  We each have a different system for determining the value or validity of the information and conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We couldn't measure the speed of light, until we could. 

Perhaps the measuring device hasn't been invented, yet, rather than the measurement impossible.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Because duality is not what you have observed happening in nature?



No, because I have a problem with skirting the law of non contradiction, but that's another topic.  Don't want to derail this thread.  It's a good topic and I hope we can keep it tween the ditches.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Is that good methodology?  Would you apply that to anything else, say buying a car or believing in Bigfoot?
> 
> "I think He can make a bush talk"........Listen to yourself....



Going back to post 35, It's a personal trust based on my experience.  I think the process is the same no matter what is being discussed.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 26, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Do you believe in Vishnu?



Is Vishnu another name for God, as in "the big dude who created everything?"   Or is Vishnu an ellaborate work of art?



ambush80 said:


> Is it likely?  Is it reasonable?



.....that God exists, oh, absolutely


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 26, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Perhaps the measuring device hasn't been invented, yet, rather than the measurement impossible.



May daughter will reach her arms out as wide as she can and tell say "I love Daddy Thiiiiiiiiis Much!"

Does that make love tangible?


----------



## HawgJawl (Nov 26, 2013)

I had a lucky rabbit's foot when I was a child.  Did the rabbit's foot produce good luck?  

In order to be effective, it did not have to produce good luck all the time, just more times than not.  The result of the good luck would have to be something tangible or a situation that could be articulated as better than normal for me or better than most folks without the rabbit's foot.  

Once the existence of better luck than normal has been established, I still need to make certain that I am correct in attributing it to the rabbit's foot.  I need to compare not only myself against other people who do not have a rabbit's foot, but also the result of similar situation I find myself in with and without the rabbit's foot.

I believe in observable and measurable differences in the things reasonably expected (or promised) between groups with and groups without the required means to receive those things.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 26, 2013)

Chance favors the prepared mind.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Is Vishnu another name for God, as in "the big dude who created everything?"   Or is Vishnu an ellaborate work of art?



If a god exists that created everything it might fit on the head of a pin.
If a god is responsible for creation it may not be anything like anyone has imagined or how any religion portrays it. The whole "made in his image" thing loses something when he is bigger than a mountain and floats above the sky as a discernible spirit.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If a god exists that created everything it might fit on the head of a pin.
> If a god is responsible for creation it may not be anything like anyone has imagined or how any religion portrays it. The whole "made in his image" thing loses something when he is bigger than a mountain and floats above the sky as a discernible spirit.



Everything might already fit on the head of a pin for all we know.....this whole thread is an exercise in what we "really know," right?

How do you know his "image" wasn't a spiritual reference?


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> May daughter will reach her arms out as wide as she can and tell say "I love Daddy Thiiiiiiiiis Much!"
> 
> Does that make love tangible?



If you were hooked up to the right equipment when your daughter tells you she loves you, the amount of dopamine released in your brain could be measured. Does that count?


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 26, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> If you were hooked up to the right equipment when your daughter tells you she loves you, the amount of dopamine released in your brain could be measured. Does that count?



Is that what she is discussing?


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 26, 2013)

Aren't you asking if love is tangible?


----------



## fireman32 (Nov 26, 2013)

Real to each person comes from what we've been taught, felt, and seen.  What or how would we think and feel about things if there was no one else to shape our mind?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Going back to post 35, It's a personal trust based on my experience.  I think the process is the same no matter what is being discussed.



I assume you've had miracles happen in your life that you attribute to God.  Miracles of such magnitude that they rival a talking bush.  Like Hawgjawl's example, how would you know that they were caused by god?  How do you know they were miracles?  Surely you understand that being able to quit some vice or unexplained recovery from illness is no indication of supernatural intervention.

Maybe you don't.......


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> Real to each person comes from what we've been taught, felt, and seen.  What or how would we think and feel about things if there was no one else to shape our mind?



I don't know.  Unless someone's wiring is wrong I'm sure they will react to painful stimulus without being told about pain.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 26, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Aren't you asking if love is tangible?



I am saying it is intangible, primarily because you and I have zero clue what she is actually conveying relevant to our own perception of the word.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 26, 2013)

This is why I don't do well in these discussions.  When my daughters tell me they love me, I know exactly what they mean because my wife and I taught them. Things are or are not. Why is so much time wasted on these sub forums discussing the meaning of "IS"??

I say love IS tangible.  Everything we experience can be broken down to chemical reactions.  We feel love, hate, anxiety, fear, sympathy, empathy. If I can feel it, it is real.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I am saying it is intangible, primarily because you and I have zero clue what she is actually conveying relevant to our own perception of the word.





drippin' rock said:


> This is why I don't do well in these discussions.  When my daughters tell me they love me, I know exactly what they mean because my wife and I taught them. Things are or are not. Why is so much time wasted on these sub forums discussing the meaning of "IS"??
> 
> I say love IS tangible.  Everything we experience can be broken down to chemical reactions.  We feel love, hate, anxiety, fear, sympathy, empathy. If I can feel it, it is real.



I have been interested in how my daughter has developed her idea of what love is.  I recognized how it was formed and reinforced daily by actions and repetition.  I told her I loved her when I hugged and kissed her.  She saw me and mommy say it to each other followed by hugs and kisses.  She learned to repeat it and initiate it.  Still, when I ask her "What does love mean" she has a hard time articulating it.  

The family culture I grew up in in different than the one she is growing up in.  My family had different ways of expressing love.  As far as I can tell, my daughter associates love with some kind of affection.  When she gets old enough I'm sure she will read the definition of love or hear some other descriptions of what love is and she may incorporate them into her psyche.

I know that there are regions of the brain and associated chemicals that in conjunction can produce the sensation of love.  It is a romantic and sentimental notion to think that sensations produced in a lab setting are not love.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 27, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I assume you've had miracles happen in your life that you attribute to God.  Miracles of such magnitude that they rival a talking bush.  Like Hawgjawl's example, how would you know that they were caused by god?  How do you know they were miracles?  Surely you understand that being able to quit some vice or unexplained recovery from illness is no indication of supernatural intervention.
> 
> Maybe you don't.......




OK, up until now I have been talking about how I think we determine how ANYTHING is real.  Now you are asking specifically about my personal experiences.  Before we go there, are you sure you want to?  I think you already know where I'm going to go with this,and it has the potential to change the course of this thread?  It's your thread, that's why I ask.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 27, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Everything we experience can be broken down to chemical reactions.



I would have to disagree.  Those neurotransmitter you speak of only carry the message much as a series of letters forming a word carries meaning.  In the same way, the word is not the meaning, only a vehicle for conferring the information or concept.  Dopamine and the hundreds, if not thousands of other neurotransmitter are not the concept, only a vehicle for describing/sensing it.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would have to disagree.  Those neurotransmitter you speak of only carry the message much as a series of letters forming a word carries meaning.  In the same way, the word is not the meaning, only a vehicle for conferring the information or concept.  Dopamine and the hundreds, if not thousands of other neurotransmitter are not the concept, only a vehicle for describing/sensing it.


Beat me to it.

You're absolutely right.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 27, 2013)

Next step is to continue your replies and tell us where the message initially comes from in order for the neurotransmitters to carry it and dopamine to sense it.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> OK, up until now I have been talking about how I think we determine how ANYTHING is real.  Now you are asking specifically about my personal experiences.  Before we go there, are you sure you want to?  I think you already know where I'm going to go with this,and it has the potential to change the course of this thread?  It's your thread, that's why I ask.



You're absolutely right. lets just talk about the broader concept.

I do know where this line of thought will end up and I'm tired of it.  

Let's talk about Hawgjawl's rabbits foot.



SemperFiDawg said:


> I would have to disagree.  Those neurotransmitter you speak of only carry the message much as a series of letters forming a word carries meaning.  In the same way, the word is not the meaning, only a vehicle for conferring the information or concept.  Dopamine and the hundreds, if not thousands of other neurotransmitter are not the concept, only a vehicle for describing/sensing it.



We give meaning and purpose to what's happening with those chemicals and neurotransmitters.  What's going on in them is real.  The meaning we give it is a construct.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Next step is to continue your replies and tell us where the message initially comes from in order for the neurotransmitters to carry it and dopamine to sense it.



That would all depend on the type of message; cognitive, sensory, etc.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 27, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> We give meaning and purpose to what's happening with those chemicals and neurotransmitters.  What's going on in them is real.  The meaning we give it is a construct.



 You are correct in everything you say, and yes, absolutely, those neurotransmitters are real, measurable, and even reproducible in a lab.  The transmission process itself can be measured via electrodes and other processes, however the message/concept/information/meaning they carry is not tangible.  Not only are they not tangible, they are not meaningful unless two things are present:  the message must be coherent/intelligible in the first place, and the one receiving it must possess the intelligence to interpret its meaning.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are correct in everything you say, and yes, absolutely, those neurotransmitters are real, measurable, and even reproducible in a lab.  The transmission process itself can be measured via electrodes and other processes, however the message/concept/information/meaning they carry is not tangible.  Not only are they not tangible, they are meaningful unless two things are present:  the message must be coherent/intelligible in the first place, and the one receiving it must possess the intelligence to interpret its meaning.




Responding to pain doesn't require intelligence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 27, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Responding to pain doesn't require intelligence.



Everything above the level of reflex withdrawal does.  That response is on a short circuit loop/arc/pathway.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are correct in everything you say, and yes, absolutely, those neurotransmitters are real, measurable, and even reproducible in a lab.  The transmission process itself can be measured via electrodes and other processes, however the message/concept/information/meaning they carry is not tangible.  Not only are they not tangible, they are not meaningful unless two things are present:  the message must be coherent/intelligible in the first place, and the one receiving it must possess the intelligence to interpret its meaning.



So it is a physical process that produces a result that is relative to the individual. No universal application.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So it is a physical process that produces a result that is relative to the individual. No universal application.



Not sure I get what you're saying.  The process is physical. Yes. The results are relative to the individual.  Yes.  The application would be universal to everyone who understands it. I think you are reading more into this than what I'm attempting to convey.  

The only point I was trying to make is that no matter whether it's by words or neurotransmitters, they themselves only serve as vehicles to convey a message.  They are NOT the message.  The message itself is cognitive, but for it to be cognitive it must first be intelligible and the one receiving the message must intelligent enough to interpret it.

For instance if I sent you a pm saying "Hope you have a great Thanksgiving." You would know exactly what I meant, because the message is cognitive/intelligible and you are capable of cognition and possess intelligence enough to understand it.   Hence, both conditions are met.  

Whereas if I sent you a pm stating "cytzzlm immhg trdwqas oc vvy ghgaazmuyt".  You would have no idea what that meant, if anything, at all, because even though you possess cognitive ability and intelligence, the message is unintelligible.   

Hence  it takes intelligence on both ends.  It takes intelligence to input a cognitive message and intelligence to receive/sense and interpret it.

The point I was making above was that the letters themselves (or neurotransmitters) are not the message, but only the vehicle by which it is conveyed.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not sure I get what you're saying



Basically if your daughter/son gives each of us a hug, or gives you a hug and gives a close friend of your family a hug, the second "the hug" is felt all those neurotransmitters send the signal and the dopamine levels rise and all of that info is sent to a part of our brains and is "translated" into a feeling.
Each of those feelings can and will be different to each recipient of "the hug".
The feeling will be relative to each individual and not the same for each individual, IE: not universal. The hug will mean whatever the interpretation of the brain makes it out to mean.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 27, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> I had a lucky rabbit's foot when I was a child.  Did the rabbit's foot produce good luck?
> 
> In order to be effective, it did not have to produce good luck all the time, just more times than not.  The result of the good luck would have to be something tangible or a situation that could be articulated as better than normal for me or better than most folks without the rabbit's foot.
> 
> ...



I think that's fair.  What you are describing is a single blind study, correct?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 27, 2013)

Sorry Bullet, I went back edited my post, taking a stab at clarifying it, while undoubtedly you were responding to my initial one.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 27, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Basically if your daughter/son gives each of us a hug, or gives you a hug and gives a close friend of your family a hug, the second "the hug" is felt all those neurotransmitters send the signal and the dopamine levels rise and all of that info is sent to a part of our brains and is "translated" into a feeling.
> Each of those feelings can and will be different to each recipient of "the hug".
> The feeling will be relative to each individual and not the same for each individual, IE: not universal. The hug will mean whatever the interpretation of the brain makes it out to mean.



Yes.  The only thing I would add to that is along with the feelings, there is a cognitive understanding that each individual would form as to what message is being conveyed by the act.   Again though the message is not in the dopamine, nor the dopamine itself.  It is only a medium/part of the process through which the message is conveyed.


----------



## HawgJawl (Nov 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think that's fair.  What you are describing is a single blind study, correct?



The most important aspect, in my opinion, is to clearly identify specifically what thing or type of thing is being measured, so that it can be accurately compared between groups.  

In this case, I must define "good luck" by classifying the specific type of events or situations that I attribute to the rabbit's foot.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes.  The only thing I would add to that is along with the feelings, there is a cognitive understanding that each individual would form as to what message is being conveyed by the act.   Again though the message is not in the dopamine, nor the dopamine itself.  It is only a medium/part of the process through which the message is conveyed.



I agree on how the message is conveyed....not being the message itself.
Would you agree that the messages, especially messages that are not typed out with clear letters...more like messages that are left to interpretation like love, peace, happiness, hope, beliefs, etc are unique to individuals and there really are no absolutes?


----------



## hummdaddy (Nov 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> OK to the OP:
> 
> "How do we determine what is real?"
> 
> I would say we use all our faculties to include our senses, our past experiences, and our cognitive abilities to reach a perception then we determine what explanation not only correlates accurately with what we perceive but provides the most comprehensive explanation and THAT is what we deem real.



that would not be what your using towards your god of abraham


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> OK to the OP:
> 
> "How do we determine what is real?"
> 
> I would say we use all our faculties to include our senses, our past experiences, and our cognitive abilities to reach a perception then we determine what explanation not only correlates accurately with what we perceive but provides the most comprehensive explanation and THAT is what we deem real.





hummdaddy said:


> that would not be what your using towards your god of abraham




I would say that he is exactly using those things to establish his belief in the God of Abraham.  Believers in Bigfoot do the same thing.  It's all subjective.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 27, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> that would not be what your using towards your god of abraham



Ahh.  The first insult.  Well I guess it was only a matter of time.  I'll bow out now.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 27, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Ahh.  The first insult.  Well I guess it was only a matter of time.  I'll bow out now.



That didn't sound like an insult. Your reaction is a great example of perception being reality though.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 28, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> When my daughters tell me they love me, I know exactly what they mean because my wife and I taught them. Things are or are not.




Well, I tend to think I had an extremely skewed perception of the word until I had children of my own.  So, the definition varied greatly in my experience.  My daughter is 4, and I highly doubt she can conceptualize love on the same level that I can.



drippin' rock said:


> I say love IS tangible.  Everything we experience can be broken down to chemical reactions.  We feel love, hate, anxiety, fear, sympathy, empathy. If I can feel it, it is real.



The chemical reactions can be measured, but what I mean when I say it, and what my daughter means can be two very different things.  So which version would be the basis for measurement?



drippin' rock said:


> Why is so much time wasted on these sub forums discussing the meaning of "IS"??



I think that's just how it rolls around here.  What else do atheists, agnostics, and Christians have in common spiritually speaking outside debating the theoretical?


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 28, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> It is a romantic and sentimental notion to think that sensations produced in a lab setting are not love.



The word is a feeling and an action.  It incorporates a lot more than dopamine.  I Cor. 13 sums it up pretty good (for those of us who like to read that sort of thing).

However, I can say I love baseball, and mean something totally different than when I say I love my daughter.  Ultimately, we all perceive things differently.

Like you, Ambush, my kids see love very differently than I did growing up.  I am guessing they will grow to see it differently as adults than I did.  I believe it is measured in action, more than words.  Not sure how romantic that is, but it is how I would believe it.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 28, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The word is a feeling and an action.  It incorporates a lot more than dopamine.  I Cor. 13 sums it up pretty good (for those of us who like to read that sort of thing).
> 
> However, I can say I love baseball, and mean something totally different than when I say I love my daughter.  Ultimately, we all perceive things differently.
> 
> Like you, Ambush, my kids see love very differently than I did growing up.  I am guessing they will grow to see it differently as adults than I did.  I believe it is measured in action, more than words.  Not sure how romantic that is, but it is how I would believe it.



I've got one buddy that is a "hitter" and one buddy that is a "hugger".  I wish they'd figure out another way of expressing affection.  Maybe a pat on the back.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 28, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I've got one buddy that is a "hitter" and one buddy that is a "hugger".  I wish they'd figure out another way of expressing affection.  Maybe a pat on the back.



Not really talking about the type of affection.  Also, are you sure they are expressing love when they hit or hug?

More like......"bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."


----------



## bullethead (Nov 28, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The word is a feeling and an action.  It incorporates a lot more than dopamine.  I Cor. 13 sums it up pretty good (for those of us who like to read that sort of thing).
> 
> However, I can say I love baseball, and mean something totally different than when I say I love my daughter.  Ultimately, we all perceive things differently.
> 
> Like you, Ambush, my kids see love very differently than I did growing up.  I am guessing they will grow to see it differently as adults than I did.  I believe it is measured in action, more than words.  Not sure how romantic that is, but it is how I would believe it.



Sounds like it is all relative. No "ultimate" love?


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 29, 2013)

The feeling is not love. Love is an action. It is a conscious decision to act in a loving manner towards another person or thing. The "feeling" is a byproduct of the action. Love is a verb.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 29, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> The feeling is not love. Love is an action. It is a conscious decision to act in a loving manner towards another person or thing. The "feeling" is a byproduct of the action. Love is a verb.





> Love is a verb


Love
n.noun
1.
A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness



> The "feeling" is a byproduct of the action.


The action is a byproduct of the feeling. To show love you must feel love first. Otherwise you are showing something else (kindness, goodness, empathy etc.)


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Sounds like it is all relative. No "ultimate" love?



Yes.  Love is a relative condition.

I have done a lot of volunteer work with a local children's home over the last 15+ years.  Some of these kids are great people, who want to do the right thing, be good to others, live by the golden rule.  However, some of them, based on childhood trauma, experiences, or in utero drug/alcohol use lack empathy and act impulsively.  What that means is that they have zero "no" function, regardless of the consequences of their actions to themselves or their "loved ones."

One of these girls, after she grew up and was an adult, told me the women in her family (referencing her and her sisters) were not capable of being faithful.  This was an extremely well adjusted, kind, decent citizen......she just had nothing in her which would prevent her from acting impulsively, same with her sisters.  

Based on my assessment of the word, I might determine they are not capable of "love."  However, these people truly mean it when they say it according to their understanding of the word.  Who is right?  I don't think a person can love their spouse and cheat on them because love is "selfless."  Am I wrong.....

.....or is it a relative term to the individual?  If it is relative, then it cannot be measured with certainty.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2013)

With no clear line in the sand....I'd say relative.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Not really talking about the type of affection.  Also, are you sure they are expressing love when they hit or hug?
> 
> More like......"bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."



I have seen a beaten spouse staying with their abuser because of the line "bears all things".  The words and language of that text, even those lovely ones that are read at weddings can lead people out of their minds, particularly because of all the other language in there that vilifies intellect and contradicts reason.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I have seen a beaten spouse staying with their abuser because of the line "bears all things".  The words and language of that text, even those lovely ones that are read at weddings can lead people out of their minds, particularly because of all the other language in there that vilifies intellect and contradicts reason.



Ok......you don't like my definition......anything on the point at hand?


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 29, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Love
> n.noun
> 1.
> A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness
> ...



2love
 verb \ˈləv\  

: to feel great affection for (someone) : to feel love for (someone)

: to feel sexual or romantic love for (someone)

: to like or desire (something) very much : to take great pleasure in (something)

Merriam Webster has the noun definition too, and the transitive verb.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Ok......you don't like my definition......anything on the point at hand?




Yeah.  Lets stick with Webster.  I think relative as well; like: pain, joy, yummy, pretty........


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah.  Lets stick with Webster.  I think relative as well; like: pain, joy, yummy, pretty........



Then we can all, well most of us, agree that love is something that is not concrete?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Then we can all, well most of us, agree that love is something that is not concrete?



I think so.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I think so.



Cool.

In your life, then, how do you determine somebody's love is real?

For me, it's through actions, but it is ever certain, but, at some point, I will place trust in my conclusions.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 29, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> 2love
> verb \ˈləv\
> 
> : to feel great affection for (someone) : to feel love for (someone)
> ...


Really? Putting the 2 in front of the love?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Cool.
> 
> In your life, then, how do you determine somebody's love is real?
> 
> For me, it's through actions, but it is ever certain, but, at some point, I will place trust in my conclusions.



Sure.  When it seems that all parties are in agreement about what love is, meaning they have a similar definition, I guess you take them at their word.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Really? Putting the 2 in front of the love?



Scroll down on the Webster site.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 29, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Scroll down on the Webster site.


I get that. What makes it a verb is when you add "to". To love is taking love an applying that love to something. An action of applying it. Now don't ask me to explain how you could just have love without applying it to something 
So Ted we'll go with 50/50 on this one!


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 29, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Then we can all, well most of us, agree that love is something that is not concrete?


Just to be a problem child I think the word love has a specific definition. What is not agreed on is how that love is supposed to be shown, what is acceptable or not etc. I think that is what is not concrete.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Just to be a problem child I think the word love has a specific definition. What is not agreed on is how that love is supposed to be shown, what is acceptable or not etc. I think that is what is not concrete.



WE can have a specific definition, but each individual will have a certain criteria which they understand to be love, and expressed in individual ways.

That's why I am saying it can't be measured.  See the example I gave above regarding the folks with troubled pasts having difficulty with relationships.  They will experience love in a very different way than I might.  Who's parameters will be the basis for measurement?


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 29, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Really? Putting the 2 in front of the love?



Sorry, direct copy and paste, the 2 stands for the second definition.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 29, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I get that. What makes it a verb is when you add "to". To love is taking love an applying that love to something. An action of applying it. Now don't ask me to explain how you could just have love without applying it to something
> So Ted we'll go with 50/50 on this one!



Yes, sounds sensible.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> WE can have a specific definition, but each individual will have a certain criteria which they understand to be love, and expressed in individual ways.
> 
> That's why I am saying it can't be measured.  See the example I gave above regarding the folks with troubled pasts having difficulty with relationships.  They will experience love in a very different way than I might.  Who's parameters will be the basis for measurement?




So, in terms of the OP, the term "Real Love" is a bit of a misnomer.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 29, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> WE can have a specific definition, but each individual will have a certain criteria which they understand to be love, and expressed in individual ways.
> 
> That's why I am saying it can't be measured.  See the example I gave above regarding the folks with troubled pasts having difficulty with relationships.  They will experience love in a very different way than I might.  Who's parameters will be the basis for measurement?


I think we are arriving at the same destination but taking different paths to get there. I agree love cant be measured because its a "thing" unto itself. Chemical reactions etc. There is nothing to measure other than maybe the amount of chemicals required to produce love that one has in their brain.. 
Do I believe you can actually love somebody and also cheat on them? Yes. Is that an accepted/moral/honest/respectful way to show your love? No. 
The issues those kids have with relationships have nothing to do with love itself. It has everything to do with the actions of someone who supposedly loved them.
And I applaud, shake your hand, pat your back, buy you a beer, and I have much respect that you volunteer your time to those kids. Whether you have actually seen the results of your efforts or not there is no question that you made a positive impact on at least some of those kids lives whether they show it yet or not


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I think we are arriving at the same destination but taking different paths to get there. I agree love cant be measured because its a "thing" unto itself. Chemical reactions etc. There is nothing to measure other than maybe the amount of chemicals required to produce love that one has in their brain..
> Do I believe you can actually love somebody and also cheat on them? Yes. Is that an accepted/moral/honest/respectful way to show your love? No.
> The issues those kids have with relationships have nothing to do with love itself. It has everything to do with the actions of someone who supposedly loved them.



I agree with you on why those kids have issues with love itself.  I was just using it as a way of demonstrating that it is experienced individually.

As far as being able to love somebody that you cheat on, I personally could not, because I put such a high premium on loyalty with my personal relationships.  But, as we are discussing, everybody is wired differently based on their experiences in life.



WaltL1 said:


> And I applaud, shake your hand, pat your back, buy you a beer, and I have much respect that you volunteer your time to those kids. Whether you have actually seen the results of your efforts or not there is no question that you made a positive impact on at least some of those kids lives whether they show it yet or not



I appreciate it Walt.  I enjoyed the time I spent taking the kids hunting and fishing and going to ball games, etc.  They are good people, they just got dealt a bad hand in life.  What I tried to do was be a good "big brother" for them. It was extremely rewarding.  Nothing like taking a kid fishing or hunting and helping them get their first deer, or catch.  Myself and some others would organize a couple deep sea fishing trips with several of them every year, and that was always a blast! Taking them hunting was fun as well.  It was good to open up positive avenues for them, as many had only ever seen drug use as a primary means of recreation.

Once my son got a little older I had to shift my focus to him, and my daughter.  So I don't help out over there as much as I used too.  I still help with the fishing trips every year.  I was able to develop some positive relationships with some of the guys, and I do find it rewarding when I can see them take positive steps to change their own personal history for the better.  I guess it also helped me too in that I was able to get an awful lot of perspective on life.  Those kids had been through he11 in many cases, and I had no right to ever feel sorry for myself.


----------

