Hubster has told me of his adventures with acid. He became convinced he could swim across Lake Michigan, and one time he wandered the woods after leaving the car he was riding in (he wasn’t driving) for hours. He did that all night and ended up miles from where he started. Both times he was very lucky.
I have to agree that tripping may be “real” in that, why yes it really happens. For me though, philosophically, I’m a pragmatist: the table is a table. An acid trip is a break with reality. The other drugs you mention are different. This is an apples to broccoli comparison. Whataboutism is you like. Hubster was indeed tripping when he imagined he could swim the Lake, however the reality was that he could not, and would have drowned if someone hadn’t stopped him.
No, there isn’t. “Real” is not a synonym for material or empirical or whatever you seem to be mistaking it for. But it is a close synonym for “existing”.
What I love most about this board is that anywhere else on the internet a discussion of Huckleberry Finn or ontology can easily devolve into profanity and insults, but only here does it happen the other way around.
Ha, good observation, well put. I’ve always thought we should have thread titles that change to match the current discussion: What Were You THINKING? [But this week, it’s “Beck’s Not A Bigot!”]
How’s 'Bout Dat Elmo? [Though posts 8429-8666 are “Sage Rat LSD” (and “Noisy Tires”)]
The fact that it has one definition doesn’t make every other one wrong. I’m not sure what you think you’re proving here. It’s like you’re saying that Diet Coke can’t exist because Coca-Cola does.
My point was that you can draw a distinction between existence and reality, things can exist that aren’t real. I proved that. You can’t disprove it by saying there’s another meaning of “reality” which means “existence”.
I really don’t know what you’re trying to do here.
I was pushing back on the idea that because someone had an experience, that experience must be “real”. It depends on what you mean by “real” because it doesn’t just mean one thing.
What it does do is make my statement not “bullshit”.
Idiocy. I’m saying no such thing. Diet Coke is just as real as Regular Coke. That’s my point.
And my point is that you’re using two synonyms. Existence is reality. You want a different word than “existence” here. Or “reality”, I’m not exactly sure which side of the line your malfunction lies.
Nothing in the definition you used says any different.
Trying to get you to use better language. Or pissing in the wind, I’m not really telling a difference.
And I’m pushing back at your pushback. All experiences are real. Like I said, their referents may not be, but the experiences all are. Just like all dreams are real things.
The statement that “real” isn’t a synonym for “material” is bullshit. It can be, I showed that.
It isn’t necessarily, again I showed that. Something can exist without being “real”. You’re digging in your heels and denying what I showed. Not sure what your issue is here. You just won’t admit that there is another meaning for the term.
I’m not even sure y’all disagree. Consider these propositions:
People sometimes take LSD.
Sometimes people who’ve taken LSD see things they wouldn’t see otherwise.
Some of those things they see don’t have objective external referents. That is, they might see a bird that’s speaking English where there is in actuality no bird speaking English.
Does anyone here disagree with any of these propositions?
LSD” (and “Noisy Tires”)]