Is the water live?

You can perceive a surface by touch. You can perceive by heat-sensitive cells that the surface is hot, if it is. You cannot perceive the hotness by touch-sensitive cells. Different senses. Sorry. Maybe pick up a basic anatomy book for 7^th graders next time before arguing this...

sorry but I dont have to sit inside of a camp fire to know its hot. not sure what your even talking about with touch sensitive cells. every cell on the body is touch sensitive. I can feel when things touch me or I touch them. sounds like touch sensitiveity to me. I know heat because I can feel heat. I know the sun is hot because I can feel the heat. pretty simple actually.

Only nerve cells can sense anything at all. And far from all of them react to external stimuli, like touch, or temperature. And far from all sensory neurons can pick up touch. Far from all can pick up heat, too. I know that you are not sure what I'm talking about, because you are a know-it-all who has all the wisdom of the world without having visited one class in anything. "Every cell on the body is touch sensitive", are you kidding me! Most cells on the skin of your back are not even touch sensitive, and you can find that out with a banal household experiment involving a partner, two pencils, and - if you don't trust the partner's word alone - a mirror or two.

And, by the way, you cannot touch how hot the sun is. You feel radiation from it, picked up by - granted - the same heat-sensitive cells, but only after the radiation was stored as heat in the surrounding skin tissue. What feels hot about the sun is actually your own body.

Touch sensitive cells are called mechanoreceptors. Heat sensitive ones are thermoreceptors. Alas, mammals do not have dedicated infrared receptors, but those exist in nature, too. Heat is sensed by heat-sensing, at any rate, not by touch.

gee that was a neat lesson. How does it refute the fact that I can feel heat again? oh it actually confirms that we can feel heat so its tangeable! Thanks Gist.

Fyxe, I never set out to refute that you can feel heat. All I said was that it was not tangible. Because tangibility is exclusive to touch-sensing. We cannot pick up heat with touch sensors. It is, by definition, not tangible. That is why I keep saying that tangibility is a very silly criterion to distinguish physical from non-physical, or objective from subjective, or real from esoteric, or which ever dichotomy of the day it shall be. There is any number of things that cannot be touched, that are non-tangible, but that are still every bit as physical, intersubjective, and real, as we would say the tangible things are. Pay attention to the argument. It wasn't long enough ago to already have lost all track of it...

Gisteron wrote: Fyxe, I never set out to refute that you can feel heat. All I said was that it was not tangible. Because tangibility is exclusive to touch-sensing. We cannot pick up heat with touch sensors. It is, by definition, not tangible. That is why I keep saying that tangibility is a very silly criterion to distinguish physical from non-physical, or objective from subjective, or real from esoteric, or which ever dichotomy of the day it shall be. There is any number of things that cannot be touched, that are non-tangible, but that are still every bit as physical, intersubjective, and real, as we would say the tangible things are. Pay attention to the argument. It wasn't long enough ago to already have lost all track of it...

Tangeable is a form of perceptible. What you are talking about is tactile. I mean you can perceive heat. you can touch something and tell how much heat is in it. you dont even have to touch something just hold your hand close to see if its warm. It is perceptible because it exists objectivley.

Fyxe wrote: I dont get it. This place is a spiritual place right? A temple dedicated to pursuit of the mystical qualities of life? So why is science elevated to godlike status here and philosophy is a bad word?

Spirituality isn't mysticism.

People often confuse these things.

People want magic to exist. It is a belief. That doesn't mean other people have to accept that belief. The problem with some beliefs is that people start treating them like they're true and then they start building on them to the point in which there's a whole system built on top an idea that has never been proven.

And if we're just going to pretend and if truth doesn't matter then why not go all the way and pretend we can force choke each other?

I actually like the fact that can (even though it agitates some people) talk about the movies. However, it agitates me when people try to merge in every other belief as if it doesn't matter what's true and what isn't. With science, we can say "these things are objectively true and these things are just theories". But with beliefs... Everyone tends to want you to accept their belief as fact because of something they experienced but cannot necessarily duplicate or prove scientifically.

The truth is that the same powerful mind that could create a galaxy far far away is the same mind that can produce a vision of a scary old woman pushing down on your chest if you have night terrors. The same mind that thought of "jedi mind tricks" is the same mind that can trick you into thinking something's real when it isn't.

I'd like to stay grounded in reality. If you can prove something else beyond that then... prove it. But why should we accept it on faith?

Fyxe wrote: Tangeable is a form of perceptible. What you are talking about is tactile. I mean you can perceive heat. you can touch something and tell how much heat is in it. you dont even have to touch something just hold your hand close to see if its warm. It is perceptible because it exists objectivley.

Fair enough. Perceptible has enough wiggle room to it to where measurement by aid of dedicated instruments can also be said to count as perception. My only point was that tangibility, i.e. touchability was not a mark of reality because, frankly, a lot of what we'd otherwise call real also happens to be intangible. One may of course also dispute whether reality only consists of what can be perceived (or detected, by extension), but that is more of a philosophical question to which I don't think we'd find an answer, and I for one don't even have a position on. I think you do adopt a burden of proof if you wish to say that reality consists only of the detectable, but on a practical level the correctness of that statement is indistinguishable from its incorrectness and only an appeal to parsimony would seem to give any push either direction on pragmatic grounds.

Fyxe wrote: What are you finding dramtic or or emotionally suffering? Its a simple conversation that is civil and I think quite on topic given the unusual nature of the question?

I felt it that way, it seemed to me aggressive when I read your conversations, though it wasn´t directed at me.

Erinis wrote:

Fyxe wrote: What are you finding dramtic or or emotionally suffering? Its a simple conversation that is civil and I think quite on topic given the unusual nature of the question?

I felt it that way, it seemed to me aggressive when I read your conversations, though it wasn´t directed at me.

oh sorry about that. It was never my intent at least. I cant speak for anyone else though but I dont think anyone is too aggressive in their replies. i think it might be hard to see intent in text sometimes so its good to ask. Thanks for that so we have no misunderstandings!