Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Infrared and ultraviolet are types of 'invisible light'. And yes, we can see things with them that we can't see using visible light.
are the things we can't see by visible light, or the invisible light things, insights?
out of darkness a light appears?
welcome back but didn't it take insight to realize that there might be somethings that aren't easily, readily observable and through insight are realized?
Just flip a coin.No clue what you are trying to say.
welcome back but didn't it take insight to realize that there might be somethings that aren't easily, readily observable and through insight are realized?
Enter the amazing field of Optics.Infrared and ultraviolet are types of 'invisible light'. And yes, we can see things with them that we can't see using visible light.
Huh? I don't understand what you are trying to say.
without imagination, there can be nothing new discovered, observed outside the sense of sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing because it's outside of mind?
so you don't think abstract thinking is necessary to discover those things that aren't readily, or easily observable with the 5 senses?I don't know why you think that it takes imagination to discover. It does take observation.
For example, infrared light was discovered by someone studying the spectrum produced from a prism. He looked at how much each type of light heated up a background. He found a nice progression in temperatures, but that progression continued past the red end of the spectrum.
So he realized there was a type of 'light' just past red that we do not see.
Similar things happen with sound. The point is that 'invisible' things produce effects that we can see and measure and thereby know they are there and what their properties are.
so you don't think abstract thinking is necessary to discover those things that aren't readily, or easily observable with the 5 senses?
so the observer of the prism recognized that something was occurring that went past what the red end of the spectrum, had they stopped at what they knew, would we discover what we don't know?
when you don't have knowledge of something, what do you have?
other great apes have minds that can observe phenomena; so what separates their minds from human minds? why can't they understand theoretical things? or things they can't observe?
why did humans 1000 yrs ago not know the things they know now? does reality change? or does the observer change?
you're making a subjective statement about abstract thinking. i didn't imply that abstract thinking didn't need to be supported without observation. i'm stating that there are observations that can't be made without abstract thinking.I am leery of the use of abstract thinking that isn't supported by observations.
trying to find boundaries; requires pathfinders. those who become conditioned to knowledge known and maintaining those learned boundaries does not equate to moving beyond those limitations. not searching beyond those boundaries won't lead to new discoveries. you have to think in the abstract to overcome limitations; conditioned by knowledge of something doesn't lead to knowledge of everything.But is that an act of imagination or simply trying to find boundaries?
so the knowledgeable has to use what they do know about reality to navigate it but they also can realize they don't know what lies beyond the reality that they do understand. thus we have innovators who create things out of the raw material nature provides. that being goes from a reaction to it's environment to a creator of it's environment.Ignorance?
yepIt doesn't appear that they have the ability to formulate abstract rules and test them. Their usage of tools is also minimal, which limits their ability to explore more.
we start with an idea and then..............We build on the discoveries of those who came before us. The reality is the same, but we started out with superstitions and it took a lot of time to show those were wrong and find the right path. Nobody 1000 years ago seems to have thought to do the experiments of Galileo on falling objects. Nobody 1000 years ago seems to have thought about how to make lenses and put them together into a telescope or microscope. Nobody 1000 years ago seems to have noticed that light things and heavy things actually fall at the same rate (and easy thing to test).
Why not? Culture, education, incorrect assumptions, fear of ridicule, etc.
you're making a subjective statement about abstract thinking. i didn't imply that abstract thinking didn't need to be supported without observation. i'm stating that there are observations that can't be made without abstract thinking.
trying to find boundaries; requires pathfinders. those who become conditioned to knowledge known and maintaining those learned boundaries does not equate to moving beyond those limitations. not searching beyond those boundaries won't lead to new discoveries. you have to think in the abstract to overcome limitations; conditioned by knowledge of something doesn't lead to knowledge of everything.
so the knowledgeable has to use what they do know about reality to navigate it but they also can realize they don't know what lies beyond the reality that they do understand. thus we have innovators who create things out of the raw material nature provides. that being goes from a reaction to it's environment to a creator of it's environment.
yep
we start with an idea and then..............
that without imagination exploration would stop. the scientific method uses hypothesis, or educated guess, is what imagination is.OK, with that I disagree. There are observations that can't be *understood* without abstract thinking.
Yes, imagination is required to push into new areas of thought. I'm still failing to see your point.
Explore its consequences, see what other ideas it challenges, and then test it to see if it works in practice.