Guest,
Ahhhhhhh! You changed the topic from sense perception to something else. What a human perceives from his senses cannot change. Like, would the wolf boy have a sharper sense of smell than other humans you’re telling me, just because the wolf do? That cannot be. That’s the only point I was trying to make. And as far as learning is concerned, you can be made to learn anything within your capabilities of course.
Pope Lanky Wanky KSC,
I never said that “what ever it is that remains exists outside the realm of perception.” What? Is that a joke? I said that the words that remain and the voice in them CAN be perceived still and that, that is only possible if the person’s spirit is in there still.
As to definitions of dimension, ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! DON’T give me the normal definition, this is a philosophy forum. I’ll give you the opposite definition of things and prove it to you if I can.
As for telepathy, are you telling me that you have never in your life guessed another’s thought ever? Just like a passing thought you know. I don’t have telepathy in the strict sense but all of us have little bit of it anyway, don’t we? Like when the phone rings and just rarely you can tell who it is.
The way you worded it, it sounded to me like you were saying that the remaining “spirit” in the person’s written words is something static, unalterable. But that person’s words, in which that “spirit” exists can be interpreted many different ways, so what we are left with isn’t actually a spirit of any sort but a collection of everyone’s perceptions and ideas about the meaning and motives behind the words, which are often in stark contrast. And the prevailing Ideas about that person’s writing might not represent the author in the least.
Natural Sciences forum, 'nuff said.
You can only call it telepathy in the past-tense. Until then it’s a guess.
Of course he would have a sharper sense of smell, he would be more used to using it and differentiating between different scents. Just like athletes develop almost a 6th sense when it come to their sport. For example martial artists become more sensitive to weight distribution, and are able to see weaknesses in peoples’ stance. Or food connoisseurs become able to distinguish between tastes and identify ingredients that would go unnoticed to most people.
I would love to be convinced that telepathy was possible, but I hold firm with the idea that these are coincidences, when one guesses who is on the 'phone. In a past life, there were times when I thought I was telepathic, as I kept bumping into people in the street about whom I was thinking at the time. This seemed much more than coincidence to me back then, but I’ve cleaned up my act now and I feel much better…
I firmly believe that thoughts must spacially reside inside of the brain.
Even if they do not, they must of course have some sort of connection TO that brain otherwise why doesnt joe on the otherside of the room pick up on my conciousness and i pick up on his?
Furthermore if it was the case that these thoughs indeed did not exist in my head and i am simply “recieving” them somehow due to the physical makeup of my brain then i think we would have to agree that i could build a machine that would pick up on ANYONES conciousness if i simply built it correctly. (note: when i say machine this could be a biological machine).
Does anyone disagree with any of these points?
Perhaps thoughts only exist in a virtual world that our brains create (our mind). Each individual creates their own personal virtual world, which cannot inter-link with each other because we are not hard-wired to each others’ brains? Thoughts also could be what is observed as electrical stimulation in the brain, but we could never get our brains close enough together for them to pick up each other’s electrical impulses. And what would the brain make of it if it did pick the signal up from one immediately adjacent? Surely it is not designed with that route of reception of data in ‘mind’?:roll:
I could be pursuaded to agree with the posibility of telepethy if there were some evidence that people’s brains radiated some sort of electromagnetic pulses/field as a result of the electro-chemical reactions in the brain. But I don’t have the time to do any research.
The question of “where do thoughts exist” sound to me like “where does sight exist”, does sight exist in the pupil, the optic nerves, somewhere in the brain or in the photons surrounding our eyes? And to me the best answer to this was stated by LostGuy:
The writer’s literary voice speaking from the text will always represent the writer, everybody knows that. I would even go so far as to say, don’t copyright anyone’s work in your name or steal it in other ways because it’s like stealing their spirit, you will pay for that I would say and heavily too.
As for natural sciences forum, what? Can’t you philosophize about natural sciences?
As to telepathy, whether it’s a potential guess it matters not because as soon as it is true it becomes telepathy.
And no, the wolf boy would not have a sharper sense of smell because our sense of smell dulls with either excessive use or if we strain it. Take for example Beethoven’s hearing that went away and how our hearing can lessen if the volume is too loud. But mostly because, a sense is sharp only because another is dull. Therefore, since the wolf boy’s other senses are like the humans so his sense of smell would not increase.
The words, or more practically what order they are in, themselves will definitely represent the author, but how people decode the words, and their order, into ideas will not.
And yes, the wolf boy’s sense of smell would not be able to surpass the extent of his human body, and would not be anywhere near the level of his wolf guardians’ sense of smell. But the wolf-boy’s sense of smell would be more refined than the average human’s because it was used more often and would be able to differentiate between smells, just as a musician is able to recognize different notes and whether or not an instrument is in tune, whereas the layman would not.
Pope Lanky Wanky KSC you say,
“But the wolf-boy’s sense of smell would be more refined than the average human’s because it was used more often and would be able to differentiate between smells, just as a musician is able to recognize different notes and whether or not an instrument is in tune, whereas the layman would not.”
Ah! Ha! When the musician distinguishes between different notes and if the instrument is fine tuned or not, it’s essentially because of conditioning or learned stuff, that is why the layman cannot differentiate as precisely because he didn’t learn. BUT, when the wolves go hunting for food, the wolves use their sharp sense of smell, but how will the wolf boy do that? His sense of smell is like a human’s and he can only use it like that unless some wolf can teach him to use it more somehow and please could you tell how some wolf could do that? I mean teach the wolf boy to use the sense of smell differently or at a higher level like theirs? You know that is not possible, the wolf boy can only learn the behaviour in which the wolves essentially behave, but senses are specific, humans to humans and wolves to wolves.
BeenaJain wrote:
Ehhhhhhh, I would have to agree with Pope Lanky Wanky. Does not the blind man have an increased perception of hearing? When some sense is debilitated does not another or all the others strive to make up for the lost sense? In the case of the wolf boy, considering some Darwinistic views, would not the lack of introduction into our world leave a void left to be filled? The question should be, If he was raised by the wolves to be able to sniff out his food, how could this come about? Well, think about it for a moment. If he sees the wolves licking their captured prey, then he will mimic the wolves and also lick the prey. He obtains a taste for the prey. Would it not then be possible that this taste he has obtained be related to the smell of the prey. Now that he has this smell of the prey, is it not possible that he could identify it later? Okay we all know this is true, because we do it. But whats important to note here is that he could indeed have a heightened sense of smell, only because this is what he has to rely on in order to survive. Survival of the fittest. Natural selection says we endure variations, to say the least, to accomodate to our environment in order to survive. Would this not be considered one? If we all lived in the woods and were raised by wolves, would not you agree in order to survive we would slowly become more and more like the wolves? I tend to believe in human potential, and that there are no limits to it, only the ones our society places around them.
BeenaJain wrote:
Ehhhhhhh, I would have to agree with Pope Lanky Wanky. Does not the blind man have an increased perception of hearing? When some sense is debilitated does not another or all the others strive to make up for the lost sense? In the case of the wolf boy, considering some Darwinistic views, would not the lack of introduction into our world leave a void left to be filled? The question should be, If he was raised by the wolves to be able to sniff out his food, how could this come about? Well, think about it for a moment. If he sees the wolves licking their captured prey, then he will mimic the wolves and also lick the prey. He obtains a taste for the prey. Would it not then be possible that this taste he has obtained be related to the smell of the prey. Now that he has this smell of the prey, is it not possible that he could identify it later? Okay we all know this is true, because we do it. But whats important to note here is that he could indeed have a heightened sense of smell, only because this is what he has to rely on in order to survive. Survival of the fittest. Natural selection says we endure variations, to say the least, to accomodate to our environment in order to survive. Would this not be considered one? If we all lived in the woods and were raised by wolves, would not you agree in order to survive we would slowly become more and more like the wolves? I tend to believe in human potential, and that there are no limits to it, only the ones our society places around them.
Some musicians have an amazing, enviable talent called perfect pitch. With a tiny amount of training they can perfectly identify (b-flat) every note that they hear. Some musicians will never be able to identify a note with such speed and precision no matter how much they train or learn.
There is a rough map of which area of the brain handles incoming information from the body. Each part of the boy thus corresponds to a part of the brain. If a person loses a limb then the region that used to correspond to that limb will get divided among all of the surrounding regions. Each of them will take over part of the brain space that used to correspond to the missing limb. So none of the space in the brain gets wasted. Waste not, want for not.
I have an interesting story that pertains to that interpretation of reality. My girlfriend had a grandma that died, but before she died, she knew that she was going to die, and she made all these tapes of her speaking and singing that were intended to be played at her funeral. On top of this, she saved a certain portion of money, and bought gifts so that she would have gifts for everyone in the family for five years after she died. As you can imagine, this was quite unnerving for her family, and my gf says she did it mainly to fuck with people. Could you imagine getting presents from your grandma that died 5 years ago? Quite an interesting story.
Is there some sort of article on this. I find it hard to believe that dogs could successfully raise a human being, or that they would even were they able to. Especially wild dogs, they’d probably just eat the kid. It reminds me of Kung Pao Enter the Fist, where “the chosen one” was raised by various rodents.
Alien Corpsucle Bath wrote:
How long did she know she was going to die before she died? I mean I know im going to die. How are you for sure she didn’t do these things years before she died. Many people prepare for their death, maybe she just did it in a way to make people think she was in on something about her life and when she would die. Whatever the case might be, I am not dispelling the fact that she knew she was going to die. I have a similar story but seemingly different. The night my grandmother died, she called all of my Aunts, including my mother. Asking for at least one of them to stay with her the night. She kept complaining and saying that it was important for them to come that night, after each Aunt replied with a “maybe tommorow” answer. I’m not for sure, but I think she knew she was going to die. At the funeral, more people told about how they had recieved calls from her that night, just to talk. People she had not talked to in years. Also, a similar situation happened with one of my Aunts. Once again, while at her funeral, it was amazing to hear how she had spoken with almost everyone in the room within like a weeks time. I think that often we do realize when we are going to die, when the time is near.
You’re wrong! That could not happen even in a very long run. In thousands or millions of years the change might be just perceptible 'cause it would only be in accordance to what we would need to survive out in the wild. So for example we could develop coarse hair all over our body rather than superflous, to protect us from the natural forces but our sense of smell may not heighten to the degree of the wolves. To say that the change would be dramatic and we could become like wolves,no, I would not think so or we would not see THIS variety of life in the wild. If you were right then almost every specie would be like another, but it’s not! Therefore change is not dramatic even in the long run. And therefore I should not believe what Darwin says that we evolved and that we were not initially formed or created or whatever quite the way we are now. The way we are now is precisely because we were initially also like this with only faintly perceptible differences and that is why there is something called the DNA and not just mutations. Did I just prove Darwin wrong here? Whatever… 
Anyway, we were not discussing about the long run, only in the short run and in that time, senses would remain specific and not change for the wolf boy.
BeenaJain wrote:
Ummmm, you obviously took what I said out of context. I did not say anywhere that the change would be dramatic. Simply that our sense of smell would heighten, not to the extent of the wolves, but closer. I should have worded what I said differently. Forget the wolves, just realize that our smell would get better. And no I dont believe you proved Darwin wrong. Sorry. 
No, I did not take it out of context. You can’t deny that you say that, “we would slowly become more and more like wolves?” I quoted you above. So are you suggesting that to become like wolves is not an extreme? Ha!
And I have this faint suspicion that I did prove Darwin wrong if only in a minute way, your not admitting so doesn’t over-ride it