The Order of Things......

[worm]

They are sensors*, and those five 'standard' sensors give five different sensations, each somewhere along a scale of the sensation each detects.

[worm]

with of course those crude analogies including the whole idea of conciousness.

[feral chile]

What if they're hallicinations too? Whose verification do I seek then?

Agreed. But all you're doing is repressing certain people, probably once considered mystics and sooth sayers, by calling them deluded on the basis of objective verification.

[worm]

But other true senses have been discovered too - such as, fairly recently, a 'proper' internal sense of direction (tho it needs to be 'trained' to give a person an awareness of it). I'm not talking about the more normal intuitive sense of direction that we all have, but something much more substantial and real than that - something perhaps more similar to the sense of direction that migrating animals have that take them thousands of miles away but then bring them back to an exact point.

Edited March 31, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Sensation then sense

Thinking then thought

Being then logic

Having then had

Doing then done

In short:

Experience then knowledge

So we call these things sensors entirely because we experienced a sensation. No sensation, no sensors, because we wouldn't have anything to look for.

[eFestivals]

We have a sense of direction anyway. You don't need to find an internal mechanism to prove it.

Belonging, home, yearning etc......

These are all things that we've sensed that relate to your internal mechanism thingy, though the five senses will tell you that they don't exist because there is no sensor for them. You've done nothing by finding a sensor other than allow us to manipulate it, enabling us to sense other things.

complete bollocks, as ever. It would help you make a worthwhile comment if you had the faintest idea of what I was referring to.

Worm the wing-nut, that's you.

[worm]

It would help you make a worthwhile comment if you had the faintest idea of what I was referring to.

[eFestivals]

Do you follow this so far?

Yes. You don't have the first clue what I'm talking about.

Worm the wing-nut.

[worm]

Yes. You don't have the first clue what I'm talking about.

[eFestivals]

You're on about the identification of a new sensor in the human brain.

I'll say it again. You don't have the first clue what I'm talking about.

Worm the wing-nut.

[worm]

I'll say it again. You don't have the first clue what I'm talking about.

[eFestivals]

This sense has been spoken about for millenia. So what makes it a 'new sense' from a scientific perspective? What has made this a sixth sense? Because the category of scientific language needs to identify a sensor.

If you knew what you were talking about rather than winging it with ignorance as you so often do, then you'd know, wouldn't you?

[worm]

If you knew what you were talking about

[eFestivals]

I'm talking bollocks about this:

Corrected for worm the wing-nut. Clarified for worm the wing-nut.

Why do you need me to tell you about it? The way you present it, you know everything about everything.

[worm]

Why do you need me to tell you about it?

Edited April 1, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

Dialogue's a two way street.

that's the second time recently you've said that. I'd have thought that someone who considers themselves so well read would know that it's not necessarily. Worm wrong again? Who'd have thought it.

[worm]

that's the second time recently you've said that. I'd have thought that someone who considers themselves so well read would know that it's not necessarily. Worm wrong again? Who'd have thought it.

Edited April 1, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

If it was only a one way street it'd be a monologue.

Trolling today are we?

Just for a change, you're speaking of things of which you clearly know nothing. One day you'll get to realise that the made-up dictionary you use shows you as an ignorant twat.

Because your brain is so empty, I'll let you into a secret. If it was a one way street, it can still be a dialogue.

[worm]

If it was a one way street, it can still be a dialogue.

[worm]

Just for a change, you're speaking of things of which you clearly know nothing. One day you'll get to realise that the made-up dictionary you use shows you as an ignorant twat. Because your brain is so empty, I'll let you into a secret.

[eFestivals]

Jesus christ Neil. You're undermining yourself again. No it most certainly cannot.

A dialogue is a conversation between two or more people. A monologue is someone speaking out aloud.

You are wrong. As happens so often you think you're right because you're winging it.

[worm]

You are wrong.

[eFestivals]

Dialogue means a conversation between two people Neil. Dia refers to two. Monologue means one person talking Neil. Mono refers to one. You're welcome.

I understand that you feel suitably embarrassed, but you needn't apologise to me.

PMSL. You really are an arrogant arse. It is a common misconception that it means between two, but your arrogance has you thinking you couldn't possibly be wrong. The embarressment is all yours.

"dia" is Greek for "across" or "through", not "two". A dialogue can be one person speaking.

[worm]

It is a common misconception that it means between two

Edited April 1, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]