Your examples were poor as I explained. People can perceive that they are sick. Just because they didn't completely understand micro organisms doesn't mean they didn't perceive them. I also stated that dictionary definitions only explain how the weird is generally used. Are you saying you can't perceive betting sick unless you draw blood and look at it under a microscope? Because if that's the case, I must be some super intelligent being. I was sick this morning, and I never looked at my blood under the microscope. Hum, how did I know I was sick. I even knew what I was sick with. It was a migraine. I perceived constructing blood vessels in my head but I didn't see touch, taste, smell, or hear them.
I'm still lost as to what kind of point you hope to make. The only point I see is that you believe someone granted you permission to define and redefine words as you please. The problem with that concept is communicating with other intelligent beings. In order to do that, we have to all be using the same definitions.
I've never said that something has to be seen to be perceived. It does have to be realized through our senses. That's the definition. That's what the word means.
You can't touch hunger, you can't see it, hear it, taste it, or smell it. So do people just not perceive hunger?
I've already told you, it falls under sense of touch. You feel hunger pains. That's our perception of hunger. Of course, hunger is not pain, and hunger pains are only a symptom of what is actually happening. Your body is not obtaining the nutritional resources to thrive as an organism. Interestingly enough, your hunger pains will subside after several days of hunger and you have no perception your body is starving. Dehydration is closely associated to hunger and people often become dehydrated without any perception of it whatsoever.
I've never touched hunger. I've felt it, but feeling isn't touch. Touch is how you tell if something is hot...
Do you not understand how treacherously stupid you sound?
Love is something beyond our ability to perceive.
Not beyond my perception.
It is an intuition based on our emotions.
Its not instituted. If so what institutes it?
Are you drunk or fucked up on meth? Or is this just normal retard thinking for you?
I didn't say "institute" regarding anything. Love is an emotional
intuition, not a perception. Again, this stems back to your stubborn refusal to accept the definition of words and insist on creating your own as you go.
intuition: A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
Now we can perceive love in a cartoon character, they have little hearts floating out of their head and their eyes turn into hearts. We don't have this perception in real life, at least, most of us don't... you may be different.
I didn't say I could prove it. I can perceive it though. Perception isn't proof kiddo.
Even retards understand the difference between proof and perception.
No, you really can't perceive it. You can have intuition of it and believe you perceive it. Lots of people do this every day, it's why there is so much heartbreak.
And why can't perception be proof? If dictionaries are only general ideas of words and we can redefine them to mean whatever we please. then I can make perception mean proof. (tongue in cheek, of course.)
Our prevailing perceptions have often caused us to balk at scientific evidence. For instance, Aristotle's perception of gravity and levity was the prevailing "science" for over 2,000 years. Our perceptions told us that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. But Calculus was beyond our perception at the time, it had not yet been invented by Newton and there wasn't Newtonian physics and Laws of Motion. .....Pay close attention because I know you're retarded.... that doesn't mean that Newtonian physics weren't happening in the universe around us before he discovered it. Newton's discoveries opened a new perspective, and we gained a new perception.
