I always thought it was attributed to Confucius or around that era anyway - not that I've ever looked into its origin too deeply lol

Also interesting from that link is this:
'This riddle illustrates John Locke's famous distinction between primary and secondary qualities. This distinction outlines which qualities are actually in an object, and which qualities are not. That is, a red thing is not really red, a sweet thing is not really sweet, a sound does not actually sound like anything, but a round object is actually round (this later an illustration of a tautology).'
It is interesting that the world we live in is probably significantly different (or possibly not at all like) what we perceive it to be. And everyone's realities could be different.

Do not disturb: already disturbed.

Also, we're talking about the human senses. But what if there are other ways of interacting with the environment to perceive information? What if extraterrestrials land on Earth, and it turns out they have additional senses? What if aliens from the Pleiades have an organ called a "snoxbrty" that picks up "snixxy waves" and perceives "snortxsb"? Does the fact that humans don't have the mechanism for perceiving "snortxsb" mean that it doesn't exist?

Inquiring minds (mine) need to know this ....


Yep, the human species does that very well.


And whom better to quote?

I think you may be thinking of Zen koans, which are questions posed by spiritual teachers (gurus) to their students as a spiritual exercise. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" is an example. I'm not sure if the question about the tree in the forest is an actual classical koan or not.

The wikipedia page you linked to seems to be focused on Western philosophy, rather than Eastern, and there are differences between the two.


Definitely. Of course, that raises the question, what qualities are "actually in" a given object? And how is that question to be answered?

"Set a new course. There's coffee in that nebula." -- Capt. Janeway, Star Trek: Voyager

Well, I don't think that question can reliably be answered. I am an atheist and believe in science, but if you really look at it, science could be called a faith too. Science is based purely in what humans can study and perceive. This requires a faith in our (limited) senses. Although it can be argued it is more trustworthy and evidence-based than traditional religions, what we know and can know is greatly limited.

Do not disturb: already disturbed.

Science is a belief system. It is a way of conceptualizing the world, of organizing it and then interacting with it. The emphasis in the preceding sentence is on "a" way ... there are many ways to conceptualize and interact with the world, and they're not mutually exclusive. There is such a thing as scientific fundamentalism, and that's when people utilize the scientific worldview to the exclusion of everything else. For example, "The only things that are real are those I can perceive using my physical senses."

That kind of thinking has gotten us into real trouble. We don't pay attention to the potential consequences of our actions, using the lack of current scientific evidence as an excuse, and then we act shocked later on when problems arise. "But we didn't have scientific proof that genetically modifying our food would cause that to happen!"

My response to that is, "But we should have realized that there might be consequences, and not just pretended that because we had not determined the consequences using the scientific method, they did not exist."

"Set a new course. There's coffee in that nebula." -- Capt. Janeway, Star Trek: Voyager

Yup, you're probably all just figments of my imagination....

Science, unlike religion, at least recognises that, in its method of progressing ideas through hypothesis and theory and subjecting them to review and testing. At the end of it the best science can say is "based on present information..." and maybe think about finding new information. I have not noticed religion to be that inquisitive.

Even "soft" sciences like psychology or sociology often modestly declare themselves to not be "real" science but merely providers of models and tools to handle concepts.

The comment about "If a woman was in the forest" didn't seem to pick up in the Mquote manouver but it's probable that if a woman was present the man would not get a word in edgewise, and a wise man would remain silent.
From which it would be fair to propose that there are no wise men on this forum because we won't shut up. In Hollywoodese, "We are either very brave, or very foolish".

Ah! Feral Socks! My own socks seem to come in groups of one to three.

You can hear sounds in my sock drawer as they respond to the presence of the single stray sock out in the street whose origin is unknown. One night they will kick the drawer open in a desperate bid for freedom.

I have noticed there's always a single black sock in the gutter wherever I go, probably they are stocking me. I know about them, you see. They are deadly foes capable of swallowing a whole foot. The nasty ones have holes to choke big toes, and are so worn that they become the socks without soles - the socks from hell!

I could go on but if the socks knew I'd told you everything your toes would be in danger.

(Strange that this comes up under "Religion and Philosophy".)

Science itself may recognize it, but a great many individuals who adhere to the scientific worldview do not. If something does not measure up scientifically, then in their view, it's wrong, and the person who is asserting it is ignorant or misguided.

Some religions and religious people are inquisitive and seeking more knowledge, and some aren't. However, I think one thing religion and science have in common is that when they do inquire, they tend to do it according to the rules and parameters of their particular belief system. Science does it by means of the scientific method. Religion does it by studying the object of inquiry according to their philosophical tenets and/or religious practices, or perhaps by mystical inquiry.

None of these methods leads to a result that's necessarily either invalid or valid. It's like that old "six blind men and the elephant" story. One man feels the trunk and says, "aha! an elephant is like a rope." Another one feels the elephant's leg and says, "you're way off base. An elephant is like a tree." And so on.

At the same time as they're struggling like hell to prove that "we are too!" scientific. I wish they could be comfortable with what they are and not try to fit themselves into a mold made for a different purpose.

I was going to say that in my previous post, but thought I'd let a man say it. (Didn't want to be a traitor to my sex, you know. )

Or just good forum community members . If you shut up, you wouldn't be posting.


I am convinced there is a big island out in the middle of the ocean that consists of nothing but orphan socks. They get sucked into the washing machine drain, proceed through the sewer system, and eventually make their way out to sea, where they meet up with all the other socks.

"Set a new course. There's coffee in that nebula." -- Capt. Janeway, Star Trek: Voyager

Alright... Let me put all this to rest.

EVERYTHING exsists... except you!

aaargh! You're freaking me out, man!

Do not disturb: already disturbed.