Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
Blueogre2

The True Meaning of Life

252 posts in this topic

That was never my claim, even if it is your desire. I possess PERSONAL objective evidences for god/angels existence which are exactly the same as the personal objective evidences for all other things in my life.

Unless you are claiming that nothing in life has objective independent existence, then those claims stand. Touch, sight, smell, sound, and logical analysis of observation, are the senses and means by which we establish the onbjective existence of everything in our lives. And each thing we encounter from birth to death, must be subject to the same (not more and not less) proofs of physical existence to establish its independent existence. God requires only the same physical proofs as a butterfly to verify his existence outside one's mind.

I am not claiming anything just asking for your evidence but each time I ask you go off on one of your long discourses.that doesn't prove anything,

when proof is the thing that is wanted

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather, your inability to comrehend what I am treying to explain to you reflects your lack of personal experience with such things.

You just do not /can not accept that an angel or a manifestation of god can have the same material properties as other things like a dog or a woman or a man

Again, I apologise for interrupting. In contrast to your assertion, I CAN and DO accept that an angel or manifestation of God can have material properties. However, unless that can be studied by a third party without relying solely on your (or anyone else's) say so, then it is not objective. Even if someone was with you when you experienced what you did and claims exactly the same as you, all it does is provide another eye-witness account. Eye-witness accounts of events are NOT objective proof. The very fact that you are sharing an event with a third party excludes it from being objective.

Does that mean you are wrong? No. Does it mean what you saw was wrong, or perhaps an hallucination? No! You may very well be 100% right in everything you say. But it is NOT objective! Never will be. At least, not in the sense that 99.99999% of people think of when they ask someone for objective proof. And with respect to your experiences, I don't think it applicable to cater to that 0.00001% by accepting the way you use "objective" in the context of this discussion.

~ Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That was never my claim, even if it is your desire. I possess PERSONAL objective evidences for god/angels existence which are exactly the same as the personal objective evidences for all other things in my life.

Unless you are claiming that nothing in life has objective independent existence, then those claims stand. Touch, sight, smell, sound, and logical analysis of observation, are the senses and means by which we establish the onbjective existence of everything in our lives. And each thing we encounter from birth to death, must be subject to the same (not more and not less) proofs of physical existence to establish its independent existence. God requires only the same physical proofs as a butterfly to verify his existence outside one's mind.

Mw, you are correct, we do take in information via our senses, but it is subjective,(and filtered) to be able to say your personal experience is objective doesn't work here. You can say I have not had the experience and you would be correct, but this doesn't mean anything as far as establishing your angel hypothesis(If this ...then that). Having others verify for you isn't going to work either without evidence to support your findings, e.g. an experiment that can be reproduced and the same results can be concluded by anyone.

Does this mean I think you making this up, No, it doesn't, I think it is exactly in line with your shema's/ perspective that you would interpret your personal experience as an angel sighting. You would be correct to come back with a post that says I cannot understand this because I do not have your schema and perspective, you would be 100 percent on this, I don't and cannot your perspective is your own a unique reflection of the life and experiences of MW.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I apologise for interrupting. In contrast to your assertion, I CAN and DO accept that an angel or manifestation of God can have material properties. However, unless that can be studied by a third party without relying solely on your (or anyone else's) say so, then it is not objective. Even if someone was with you when you experienced what you did and claims exactly the same as you, all it does is provide another eye-witness account. Eye-witness accounts of events are NOT objective proof. The very fact that you are sharing an event with a third party excludes it from being objective.

Does that mean you are wrong? No. Does it mean what you saw was wrong, or perhaps an hallucination? No! You may very well be 100% right in everything you say. But it is NOT objective! Never will be. At least, not in the sense that 99.99999% of people think of when they ask someone for objective proof. And with respect to your experiences, I don't think it applicable to cater to that 0.00001% by accepting the way you use "objective" in the context of this discussion.

~ Regards, PA

Are you saying then, that every time I am alone, everything I see touch or smell etc is unverifiable and has no objective evidence for its existence?

Objective simply means that the object itself provides the evidences of its existence. Subjective means how the subject (who observes the object) interprets the object. Eg "A rose is a flower" is an objective statement and the rose has qualities which deonstrate that it is a rose. "A rose is beautiful" is a subjective statement and a rose can have no physical properties which prove beauty, because beauty is a subjective quality.

As i explained earlier the ocuurences on which i claim an objective appearance of god or an angel ARE witnesed or experienced by others This in itself does not establishsh their objective nature, and their subjective nature remains one of interpretaion as does their naming or categorisation. but in general if somethin has the physical properties of an object, and acts as an object acts, then it has objectice existence There is no need for other proofs of a scientific standard to establish its objective existence All natural things in the world had objective existence before science, and scientific thinking, was even developed.

A human being, living alone on an island, can establish, absolutely, the objective existence of everything on that island entirely by them selves, using the nature of their senses, their past knowledge and experience, and their mind. They have to be able to do this to survive and so it is an evolved property of human kind. They dont require a second observer to ensure the boat they build is made of real wood and will therefore cary them. Or that the breadfruit they eat is teal and will thus sustain them, or that the water they drink is fresh.

By your definition NOTHING is objectively real, and cannot be, because all our experiences of reality are obtained through our senses and our mind. That includes scientific proofs and everything we hgain as second/third hand knolwedge form books or other sources. That leads us up the false path of descartian logic and to a dead end. ie That only we can be established as having objective existence.

No; objective simply means that something has objective existence, and humans are quite capable of doing this and do it every second from birth, with increasing accuracy and efficiency.

We USE objective evidences held in common to convince third parties, but first they are entirely personal and singular. Otherwise no one could know that anything was real and physical. You only put your hand in a fire once if it has objective existence and the burns on your hand are objective proofs of its objective existence. If you put your hand in a fire and it is not hurt then several hypotheses/propositions arise immediately.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mw, you are correct, we do take in information via our senses, but it is subjective,(and filtered) to be able to say your personal experience is objective doesn't work here. You can say I have not had the experience and you would be correct, but this doesn't mean anything as far as establishing your angel hypothesis(If this ...then that). Having others verify for you isn't going to work either without evidence to support your findings, e.g. an experiment that can be reproduced and the same results can be concluded by anyone.

Does this mean I think you making this up, No, it doesn't, I think it is exactly in line with your shema's/ perspective that you would interpret your personal experience as an angel sighting. You would be correct to come back with a post that says I cannot understand this because I do not have your schema and perspective, you would be 100 percent on this, I don't and cannot your perspective is your own a unique reflection of the life and experiences of MW.

See my other posts While we often interpret objective existence subjectively, the definitions are quite clear A human being can establish (quite alone and singularly) the objective existence of anything by studying the object and its properties then referring them to a data base of internal knowledge and exerience.

eg when i lift up the mattress to help my wife turn it over, the nature of its properties establishes its objective existence.

I was taught long ago and correctly, that humans can divide their observation and thinking into objective and subjective by using difernt processes definitions and understanings Some modern scientists emulate an old philosophic tradition that a person can not know anything objectively. This is clearly wrong in fact, and in principle, because if it was true human beings could not interact with, and survive within, the totally objective reality of our environment. If a person is not capable of thinking objectively it is because they have not been taught how to do so. This is also true for logical thinking, which is not an innate skill of the human way of thinking, but must be taught/learned to be used.

The other modern proposition is that our environment HAS no objective existence and only exists as a property of the human mind. tha tis as egocentric as believing god created the world for us to have as a possession Ie it presupposes that existence is dependent on, or somehow shaped by, the existence of our minds within it.

"Scientific" verification ie reproducible on demand in a laboratory Is not and never has been necessary for a person to establish the objective existence of something Other wise how did humans know anything was real before scientific method (a learned form of thinking) was established. And if witnesses are not enough to establish objectivity, then how is witnessing anything in a science laboratory any more convincing than witnessing the same thing in a street?

All scientific experimentation is based on data obtained, in the end, by human senses; and every result is subject to human senses even when collected and intepreted by computer or emote sensing. One has to believe, basically in faith, that the data is correct, and has been collected, collated, and interpreted, objectively.

And if a hundred different people seeing god independently, and consistently describing the same entity, is not "proof", then 100 different results displaying the same thing, in science, cannot be either. Science simply raises the statistical probabilty that something has objective existence.

Humans all had objective evidence for the existence of gravity, long before science proved its existence, and in reality, long before science was thought of.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It is interesting. No one argues that, when i see a dog i am seeing an objectively real entity, yet almost everyone wishes to argue that if i see an angel or god it CAN NOT have objective reailty. To me tha is totally illogical and inconsistent.

Reality exists objectively outside our minds. Our senses and our minds work exactly the same way in observing and intepreting either a dog or an angel. Why should i doubt my senses and intelligence in one case, and not in another?

Why should anyone else believe that while I can see touch and hear a dog physically, i cannot do so for an angel or for god? There are only two answers to that question. First a belief tha such entities do not exist and thus I must be mistaken. Second a belief that they do exist but cannot be perceived by man like a dog can be perceived, or interacted with in the same way. A third option is that the observations are of real objective entities, but that my naming and understanding of them is not correct. I accept that third argument, but refer back to a dog. If it walks, barks, and bites like a dog then most people refer to it as a dog. If it walks talks and looks like an angel the most people refer to it as an angel That is simply a taxonomic/classification system necessary for effective communication between people.

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Are you saying then, that every time I am alone, everything I see touch or smell etc is unverifiable and has no objective evidence for its existence?

By no means am I saying this. If you are alone then whatever you see or touch or smell is what you see and touch and smell. If you leave your house, and other people come in and they can also see what you see, or smell a flower to know what you smelled, then it is data that can be objectively verified. However, if something happens to you only in certain circumstances, and only where a very very limited number of people can corroborate, then no matter how real the event was it was not objective. Average Joe from down the road can't go and examine the data to make their own objective decision, they can only rely on your subjective interpretation and understanding.

That doesn't mean what you experienced didn't happen, or that it isn't an angel. It just means it's not objectively verifiable.

Objective simply means that the object itself provides the evidences of its existence. Subjective means how the subject (who observes the object) interprets the object. Eg "A rose is a flower" is an objective statement and the rose has qualities which deonstrate that it is a rose. "A rose is beautiful" is a subjective statement and a rose can have no physical properties which prove beauty, because beauty is a subjective quality.

As i explained earlier the ocuurences on which i claim an objective appearance of god or an angel ARE witnesed or experienced by others This in itself does not establishsh their objective nature, and their subjective nature remains one of interpretaion as does their naming or categorisation. but in general if somethin has the physical properties of an object, and acts as an object acts, then it has objectice existence There is no need for other proofs of a scientific standard to establish its objective existence All natural things in the world had objective existence before science, and scientific thinking, was even developed.

Taking your rose, for example, stating "a rose is a flower" is a statement, it is neither objective nor subjective. If I have a rose to examine, and other flowers to compare it to, then I can objectively verify whether a rose truly is a flower.

If I said that a burglesnuff was a flower but I haven't got that flower with me and it is very hard to come by and only flowers for brief moments and then withers away, you'll just have to take my word on it, then the burglesnuff flower might exist but no one can verify it objectively. Individuals throughout history might experience the flowering of the burglesnuff flower, but without the ability for others to study it, it is NOT objective.

A human being, living alone on an island, can establish, absolutely, the objective existence of everything on that island entirely by them selves, using the nature of their senses, their past knowledge and experience, and their mind. They have to be able to do this to survive and so it is an evolved property of human kind. They dont require a second observer to ensure the boat they build is made of real wood and will therefore cary them. Or that the breadfruit they eat is teal and will thus sustain them, or that the water they drink is fresh.

By your definition NOTHING is objectively real, and cannot be, because all our experiences of reality are obtained through our senses and our mind. That includes scientific proofs and everything we hgain as second/third hand knolwedge form books or other sources. That leads us up the false path of descartian logic and to a dead end. ie That only we can be established as having objective existence.

No; objective simply means that something has objective existence, and humans are quite capable of doing this and do it every second from birth, with increasing accuracy and efficiency.

We USE objective evidences held in common to convince third parties, but first they are entirely personal and singular. Otherwise no one could know that anything was real and physical. You only put your hand in a fire once if it has objective existence and the burns on your hand are objective proofs of its objective existence. If you put your hand in a fire and it is not hurt then several hypotheses/propositions arise immediately.

You are creating a false dichotomy here. A person on a deserted island may not have anyone else to objectively verify that what he sees or feels is real, but a person on a deserted island does not need to. And if a second or a third person were to be washed up on this deserted island then presumably the same details will be able to be seen and agreed upon. That is not the same as an event that happens and then told to other people and must be accepted or rejected without any available data except a personal testimony or two.

It is interesting. No one argues that, when i see a dog i am seeing an objectively real entity, yet almost everyone wishes to argue that if i see an angel or god it CAN NOT have objective reailty. To me tha is totally illogical and inconsistent.

Reality exists objectively outside our minds. Our senses and our minds work exactly the same way in observing and intepreting either a dog or an angel. Why should i doubt my senses and intelligence in one case, and not in another?

Why should anyone else believe that while I can see touch and hear a dog physically, i cannot do so for an angel or for god? There are only two answers to that question. First a belief tha such entities do not exist and thus I must be mistaken. Second a belief that they do exist but cannot be perceived by man like a dog can be perceived, or interacted with in the same way. A third option is that the observations are of real objective entities, but that my naming and understanding of them is not correct. I accept that third argument, but refer back to a dog. If it walks, barks, and bites like a dog then most people refer to it as a dog. If it walks talks and looks like an angel the most people refer to it as an angel That is simply a taxonomic/classification system necessary for effective communication between people.

Because not everyone has seen an angel. Most people have seen dogs, they can pat one, study one, even open one up and find out what's inside (hopefully in a scientific setting with a dead dog, not some morbid serial-killer fascination). Right now, I can go to a pet store and examine dogs to determine that dogs are real. From there, if you say you had experience of a dog, I have no reason to think that it was anything but a dog. *Note, your assertion that you have seen a dog is not an objective assertion - I can't know that you saw a dog, I can only analyse your assertion that you experienced one. The point is, I can analyse a dog and its properties and from that analysis arrive at a conclusion.

I cannot do the same with an angel. I cannot study one, I cannot talk to one, I cannot walk down to the local Angel club (unless it's Hell's Angels motorcycle club) to speak to angels and find out how they tick. I cannot perform an autopsy on an angel. I have absolutely nothing to inform me as to what an angel is. I must entirely and 100% take your word for it.

Does that make your experience invalid? No. I am not arguing that you didn't experience what you experienced. I am simply saying I cannot corroborate it, no one can. I cannot corroborate that you experienced a dog, either, but on the available evidence I can say a meeting with a dog is far more likely than a meeting with an angel. It doesn't mean you didn't experience something, but since I cannot study it then it cannot be objectively proven.

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By no means am I saying this. If you are alone then whatever you see or touch or smell is what you see and touch and smell. If you leave your house, and other people come in and they can also see what you see, or smell a flower to know what you smelled, then it is data that can be objectively verified. However, if something happens to you only in certain circumstances, and only where a very very limited number of people can corroborate, then no matter how real the event was it was not objective. Average Joe from down the road can't go and examine the data to make their own objective decision, they can only rely on your subjective interpretation and understanding.

That doesn't mean what you experienced didn't happen, or that it isn't an angel. It just means it's not objectively verifiable.

Taking your rose, for example, stating "a rose is a flower" is a statement, it is neither objective nor subjective. If I have a rose to examine, and other flowers to compare it to, then I can objectively verify whether a rose truly is a flower.

If I said that a burglesnuff was a flower but I haven't got that flower with me and it is very hard to come by and only flowers for brief moments and then withers away, you'll just have to take my word on it, then the burglesnuff flower might exist but no one can verify it objectively. Individuals throughout history might experience the flowering of the burglesnuff flower, but without the ability for others to study it, it is NOT objective.

You are creating a false dichotomy here. A person on a deserted island may not have anyone else to objectively verify that what he sees or feels is real, but a person on a deserted island does not need to. And if a second or a third person were to be washed up on this deserted island then presumably the same details will be able to be seen and agreed upon. That is not the same as an event that happens and then told to other people and must be accepted or rejected without any available data except a personal testimony or two.

Because not everyone has seen an angel. Most people have seen dogs, they can pat one, study one, even open one up and find out what's inside (hopefully in a scientific setting with a dead dog, not some morbid serial-killer fascination). Right now, I can go to a pet store and examine dogs to determine that dogs are real. From there, if you say you had experience of a dog, I have no reason to think that it was anything but a dog. *Note, your assertion that you have seen a dog is not an objective assertion - I can't know that you saw a dog, I can only analyse your assertion that you experienced one. The point is, I can analyse a dog and its properties and from that analysis arrive at a conclusion.

I cannot do the same with an angel. I cannot study one, I cannot talk to one, I cannot walk down to the local Angel club (unless it's Hell's Angels motorcycle club) to speak to angels and find out how they tick. I cannot perform an autopsy on an angel. I have absolutely nothing to inform me as to what an angel is. I must entirely and 100% take your word for it.

Does that make your experience invalid? No. I am not arguing that you didn't experience what you experienced. I am simply saying I cannot corroborate it, no one can. I cannot corroborate that you experienced a dog, either, but on the available evidence I can say a meeting with a dog is far more likely than a meeting with an angel. It doesn't mean you didn't experience something, but since I cannot study it then it cannot be objectively proven.

~ Regards, PA

With respect PA it is not I who is creating a false dichotomy. I am explaining that whether alone, or with other people, an individual can use objective evidences to know that an object has concrete existence. The addition of a second or a thousandth person does nothing to change either what is real or how a person perceives what is real.

Our minds are evolved to such a similar condition that what an individual sees another individual will see in exactly the same way The data will be stored on asingle neuron in each individuals brain and because this is so we can know tha twe are both talking about an aplle or paris hilton. becaue our brains hold almost images stored in the same way on neurons thus we can reas anothers writing build something from another's plan etc. To facilitate this process out brains allow a little leeway so that different photos of paris hilton or an apple can still berecognised as such by the brain. It is a biological image enhancement system in our brain involving pattern recognition and substitution for missing bits to allow recognition of slightly dissimilar images of the same object.

The objective existence of things does not require corroboration.

Actually they exist even when no human is present to view or perceive them. And when a human being sees them and uses his/her mind to investigate them, that individual can be 100% certain that the object has an indpendent objective existence, as long as it meets cetain parameters of behaviour and form/function..

I dont need corroboration to know from objective physical evidences that a flower is real. Nor do i require corroboration to know an angel is real. Why should one require more proof than the other?

I can't believe that anyone really believes that they are not entirely capable as an individual of using observation and method to determine the objective existence of anty entity or object. if the food you eat sustains you,and cuses you to put on weight, then it has independent objective existence outside of your mind, and so do the calories in it..

I dont believe that you or even fully wired ever doubts the reality of every thing in your day to day life or requires scientific proof of its existence, and you only have the same personal proofs and evidences for the existence of those things, as i have for god or angels.( and a number of other paranormal things.)

Your own personal experience with dogs has no relationship to my objective personal evidences for an angel. They just allow you to more easily BELIEVE that i own a dog. Your lack of a personal encounter with an angel allows you to doubt their existence, but this has no bearing on my personal experience with angels either. I cant predicate my experience with anything, be it dog or god, or what YOU have experienced. This is not about how I might convince you or fully wired about the existence of anything, but about how i can logically and rationallly be certain of somethings/anythings independent physical existence in the real and shared world outside my mind.

I can be as certain of an angel's existence in that world as i can of a dogs, because I have had similar encounters and experiences with both, and they both provide the exact same forms of proof of their independent and concrete existence TO ME. I dont need to believe in either because I know.

If i began to doubt the physical reality of an angel, for example, I would be forced, logically and rationally, to conclude that my dog did not have an objective indpendent existence either, as i only know them both through the same evidences; and if those evidences can't convince me absolutely of the physical existence of an angel then they cannot convince me absolutely of the physical existence of my dog, either. I can see my dog and an angel., Ii can hear my dog and an angel i can touch and be touched by my dog and an angel i can observe the tracks of both on wet grass or a sandy beach. Other independent witnesses can hear see and comment on both. Where is the difference in objective proofs of their existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We see not only with our eyes but also our brain. Our brain can create hullucinations, alter preceptions, change reality and trick the eyes.

Mainly you see with your eyes first then your brain creates meaning what you see.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for me the true meaning of life is being kind and compassionate towards others in the society. If an human being is optimistic in his life and in his vision he will attain happiness and will understand the true meaning of life because happiness is just not related to money, fame and power. These are the materialistic pleasures of life, the true meaning of life lies within us and can only be brought out through meditation and spirituality. They change the character of a person, cleansing their sins and making them into a better human being. There is always a beginning for stating something new, so in case you want to get into meditation, you must attend the celebration on the occasion of Mahashivratri organised by the Isha Foundation under the guidance of the Spiritual Sadhguru. mahashivratri.org is their website containing all the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Mr Walker, I give up. I cannot continue arguing around in circles. As Isee it, objective evidence requires other people to examine hard data and use that data for their conclusions. Without such hard data, it is not objective. It doesn't mean it is not real, but it is not objective. You disagree, so we are at an impasse.

Best wishes, I leave this discussion now :)

Edited by Paranoid Android
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Walker, I give up. I cannot continue arguing around in circles. As Isee it, objective evidence requires other people to examine hard data and use that data for their conclusions. Without such hard data, it is not objective. It doesn't mean it is not real, but it is not objective. You disagree, so we are at an impasse.

Best wishes, I leave this discussion now :)

Your rght of course but you will never convince MW or get him to admit he's wrong .,he will keep on about dogs and walls

fullywired :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect PA it is not I who is creating a false dichotomy. I am explaining that whether alone, or with other people, an individual can use objective evidences to know that an object has concrete existence. The addition of a second or a thousandth person does nothing to change either what is real or how a person perceives what is real.

Our minds are evolved to such a similar condition that what an individual sees another individual will see in exactly the same way The data will be stored on asingle neuron in each individuals brain and because this is so we can know tha twe are both talking about an aplle or paris hilton. becaue our brains hold almost images stored in the same way on neurons thus we can reas anothers writing build something from another's plan etc. To facilitate this process out brains allow a little leeway so that different photos of paris hilton or an apple can still berecognised as such by the brain. It is a biological image enhancement system in our brain involving pattern recognition and substitution for missing bits to allow recognition of slightly dissimilar images of the same object.

The objective existence of things does not require corroboration.

Actually they exist even when no human is present to view or perceive them. And when a human being sees them and uses his/her mind to investigate them, that individual can be 100% certain that the object has an indpendent objective existence, as long as it meets cetain parameters of behaviour and form/function..

I dont need corroboration to know from objective physical evidences that a flower is real. Nor do i require corroboration to know an angel is real. Why should one require more proof than the other?

I can't believe that anyone really believes that they are not entirely capable as an individual of using observation and method to determine the objective existence of anty entity or object. if the food you eat sustains you,and cuses you to put on weight, then it has independent objective existence outside of your mind, and so do the calories in it..

I dont believe that you or even fully wired ever doubts the reality of every thing in your day to day life or requires scientific proof of its existence, and you only have the same personal proofs and evidences for the existence of those things, as i have for god or angels.( and a number of other paranormal things.)

Your own personal experience with dogs has no relationship to my objective personal evidences for an angel. They just allow you to more easily BELIEVE that i own a dog. Your lack of a personal encounter with an angel allows you to doubt their existence, but this has no bearing on my personal experience with angels either. I cant predicate my experience with anything, be it dog or god, or what YOU have experienced. This is not about how I might convince you or fully wired about the existence of anything, but about how i can logically and rationallly be certain of somethings/anythings independent physical existence in the real and shared world outside my mind.

I can be as certain of an angel's existence in that world as i can of a dogs, because I have had similar encounters and experiences with both, and they both provide the exact same forms of proof of their independent and concrete existence TO ME. I dont need to believe in either because I know.

If i began to doubt the physical reality of an angel, for example, I would be forced, logically and rationally, to conclude that my dog did not have an objective indpendent existence either, as i only know them both through the same evidences; and if those evidences can't convince me absolutely of the physical existence of an angel then they cannot convince me absolutely of the physical existence of my dog, either. I can see my dog and an angel., Ii can hear my dog and an angel i can touch and be touched by my dog and an angel i can observe the tracks of both on wet grass or a sandy beach. Other independent witnesses can hear see and comment on both. Where is the difference in objective proofs of their existence?

When we talk of objective/subjective experiences we are referring to experiences that can either be corroborated or not. This is not to say that an experience is not real to the person having it but just because a person believes it to be objective does not automatically make it objective.

To determine whether an experience is objective we need to examine the evidence. If the examination shows that it does support the experience, then we can say it was an objective experience but if it doesn't then the experience is subjective and remains as such unless new evidence comes to light to support the experience.

Your flower and angel analogy can be a good example. The flower, can be seen touched, and smelled by others and it can be photographed so there is corroboration that it exists so it is an objective experience. The Angel may not be able to be seen or interacted with by others and perhaps recording devices such as cameras record nothing. In that case the experience is subjective (real to the person having the experience but not to others).

The mind is a wonderful thing but it can be fooled. Take for example a hot summer day and in the distance you see water on the sidewalk. If you examine the location up close you find no water there. This is a major reason whay experiences need corroboration to be certain they are objective and not subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we talk of objective/subjective experiences we are referring to experiences that can either be corroborated or not. This is not to say that an experience is not real to the person having it but just because a person believes it to be objective does not automatically make it objective.

To determine whether an experience is objective we need to examine the evidence. If the examination shows that it does support the experience, then we can say it was an objective experience but if it doesn't then the experience is subjective and remains as such unless new evidence comes to light to support the experience.

Your flower and angel analogy can be a good example. The flower, can be seen touched, and smelled by others and it can be photographed so there is corroboration that it exists so it is an objective experience. The Angel may not be able to be seen or interacted with by others and perhaps recording devices such as cameras record nothing. In that case the experience is subjective (real to the person having the experience but not to others).

The mind is a wonderful thing but it can be fooled. Take for example a hot summer day and in the distance you see water on the sidewalk. If you examine the location up close you find no water there. This is a major reason whay experiences need corroboration to be certain they are objective and not subjective.

Using the flower analogy, if you are not one of the ones who gets to touch, see, and smell the flower, do the fact that five, ten, two hundred other people say they saw it, smelled it, and touched it then make it objective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

See my other posts While we often interpret objective existence subjectively, the definitions are quite clear A human being can establish (quite alone and singularly) the objective existence of anything by studying the object and its properties then referring them to a data base of internal knowledge and exerience.

eg when i lift up the mattress to help my wife turn it over, the nature of its properties establishes its objective existence.

I was taught long ago and correctly, that humans can divide their observation and thinking into objective and subjective by using difernt processes definitions and understanings Some modern scientists emulate an old philosophic tradition that a person can not know anything objectively. This is clearly wrong in fact, and in principle, because if it was true human beings could not interact with, and survive within, the totally objective reality of our environment. If a person is not capable of thinking objectively it is because they have not been taught how to do so. This is also true for logical thinking, which is not an innate skill of the human way of thinking, but must be taught/learned to be used.

The other modern proposition is that our environment HAS no objective existence and only exists as a property of the human mind. tha tis as egocentric as believing god created the world for us to have as a possession Ie it presupposes that existence is dependent on, or somehow shaped by, the existence of our minds within it.

"Scientific" verification ie reproducible on demand in a laboratory Is not and never has been necessary for a person to establish the objective existence of something Other wise how did humans know anything was real before scientific method (a learned form of thinking) was established. And if witnesses are not enough to establish objectivity, then how is witnessing anything in a science laboratory any more convincing than witnessing the same thing in a street?

All scientific experimentation is based on data obtained, in the end, by human senses; and every result is subject to human senses even when collected and intepreted by computer or emote sensing. One has to believe, basically in faith, that the data is correct, and has been collected, collated, and interpreted, objectively.

And if a hundred different people seeing god independently, and consistently describing the same entity, is not "proof", then 100 different results displaying the same thing, in science, cannot be either. Science simply raises the statistical probabilty that something has objective existence.

Humans all had objective evidence for the existence of gravity, long before science proved its existence, and in reality, long before science was thought of.

Without a way for me to observe something via an experiment, one that I can conclude with your results it is not classified as objective.Taking your word for it or taking another persons word for it is not objective.

If I tell my kid that an objective reality of angels live in the world, he is going to expect to be able to observe evidence of this in reality, if he cannot it is not an objective reality(one we all can share in). He is going to be with in sound logic to ask me how do I know that there are angels. If I say you have to take my word for it or this is how it is, or you do not believe hard enough, or some such silliness as that. Eventually,he will conclude that I am in error about my understanding of objective reality and be on his way.

I can see you have a hard time with this one and I am not seeing any evidence this is going to change. So we will have to agree to disagree.

On a lighter side, if you talk to angels and it brings you peace and companionship-- I actually think based on how you relate to your angel-- it is nothing but positive for you. I really think by now Um accepts you have a great imagination; in truth, it is what makes you the unique MW. It just isn't objective.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

With respect PA it is not I who is creating a false dichotomy. I am explaining that whether alone, or with other people, an individual can use objective evidences to know that an object has concrete existence. The addition of a second or a thousandth person does nothing to change either what is real or how a person perceives what is real.

Our minds are evolved to such a similar condition that what an individual sees another individual will see in exactly the same way The data will be stored on asingle neuron in each individuals brain and because this is so we can know tha twe are both talking about an aplle or paris hilton. becaue our brains hold almost images stored in the same way on neurons thus we can reas anothers writing build something from another's plan etc. To facilitate this process out brains allow a little leeway so that different photos of paris hilton or an apple can still berecognised as such by the brain. It is a biological image enhancement system in our brain involving pattern recognition and substitution for missing bits to allow recognition of slightly dissimilar images of the same object.

The objective existence of things does not require corroboration.

Actually they exist even when no human is present to view or perceive them. And when a human being sees them and uses his/her mind to investigate them, that individual can be 100% certain that the object has an indpendent objective existence, as long as it meets cetain parameters of behaviour and form/function..

I dont need corroboration to know from objective physical evidences that a flower is real. Nor do i require corroboration to know an angel is real. Why should one require more proof than the other?

I can't believe that anyone really believes that they are not entirely capable as an individual of using observation and method to determine the objective existence of anty entity or object. if the food you eat sustains you,and cuses you to put on weight, then it has independent objective existence outside of your mind, and so do the calories in it..

I dont believe that you or even fully wired ever doubts the reality of every thing in your day to day life or requires scientific proof of its existence, and you only have the same personal proofs and evidences for the existence of those things, as i have for god or angels.( and a number of other paranormal things.)

Your own personal experience with dogs has no relationship to my objective personal evidences for an angel. They just allow you to more easily BELIEVE that i own a dog. Your lack of a personal encounter with an angel allows you to doubt their existence, but this has no bearing on my personal experience with angels either. I cant predicate my experience with anything, be it dog or god, or what YOU have experienced. This is not about how I might convince you or fully wired about the existence of anything, but about how i can logically and rationallly be certain of somethings/anythings independent physical existence in the real and shared world outside my mind.

I can be as certain of an angel's existence in that world as i can of a dogs, because I have had similar encounters and experiences with both, and they both provide the exact same forms of proof of their independent and concrete existence TO ME. I dont need to believe in either because I know.

If i began to doubt the physical reality of an angel, for example, I would be forced, logically and rationally, to conclude that my dog did not have an objective indpendent existence either, as i only know them both through the same evidences; and if those evidences can't convince me absolutely of the physical existence of an angel then they cannot convince me absolutely of the physical existence of my dog, either. I can see my dog and an angel., Ii can hear my dog and an angel i can touch and be touched by my dog and an angel i can observe the tracks of both on wet grass or a sandy beach. Other independent witnesses can hear see and comment on both. Where is the difference in objective proofs of their existence?

MW-- IMO, on this argument you are simply trying to squeeze in angels on an inaccurate understanding, but you are leaving out that the reason a rose wouldn't require proof of an objective reality is because it has one and this is easily verified by anyone.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your rght of course but you will never convince MW .

fullywired :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we talk of objective/subjective experiences we are referring to experiences that can either be corroborated or not. This is not to say that an experience is not real to the person having it but just because a person believes it to be objective does not automatically make it objective.

To determine whether an experience is objective we need to examine the evidence. If the examination shows that it does support the experience, then we can say it was an objective experience but if it doesn't then the experience is subjective and remains as such unless new evidence comes to light to support the experience.

Your flower and angel analogy can be a good example. The flower, can be seen touched, and smelled by others and it can be photographed so there is corroboration that it exists so it is an objective experience. The Angel may not be able to be seen or interacted with by others and perhaps recording devices such as cameras record nothing. In that case the experience is subjective (real to the person having the experience but not to others).

The mind is a wonderful thing but it can be fooled. Take for example a hot summer day and in the distance you see water on the sidewalk. If you examine the location up close you find no water there. This is a major reason whay experiences need corroboration to be certain they are objective and not subjective.

You and others seem to feel that objective experience necessarily requires corroboration. In fact it does not. You've just explained this your self. The individual seeing a mirage can corroborate its status by ongoing observation and contextual logic. Having someone with them wouldn't help at all. Both would initially see a mirage, But closer observation and investifgation would show if it was a mirage or a real body of waterwhehter one person was present, or 100.

Two people do not provide material corroboration, any more than one person. Neither do one thousand. Each individual's eyes and minds see independently. but equally. Thus whether I see something in crowd of others or entirely by myself, the same proofs of objective existence must exsist for each and every individual. Other wise it can be a mass hallucination. Simply because one thousand can see it does not create objective existence.

Objective existence simply IS the physical existence of a object outside an observers mind. Subjective existence simply IS the existence of something within a subjects mind.

An individual must use evidences, experience, context, and logic, to determine what things in their life have objective existence and which have "only" subjective existence.

A million people might see god in their mind but that remains a subjective experiee However one person who sees god (or an angel) in the same way they see a dog or a cat, is seeing an objectively existent god, just as the cat and dog have objective existence.

The only way to deny this is to simply deny that gods and angels CAN exist physically as objects.

There is no doubt about any of this POV in English definitions, philosophy, logic, or even in science, except where some believe nothing has objective existence outside of human observation and perception

Science IN ADDITION requires the existence of transferrable objective proofs to establish scientifically the existence of anything, but humans only require individual objective proofs to know absolutely that something exists.Iit is a part of how we are evolved and hardwired into our environment And it is how we survive within a objectively existent environment.

And science has always accepted this, as part of the process of observation recording and experimentation. It is how scientists began and how they still learn. A scientist accepts individually, the objective reality of their test results gained through observation and experimentaion, but then compares them with the results of other scientists obtained in the same way, to confirm them. Both results are objective. and comparing them even a hundred times and ways cannot improve the objectivity of either the individual or the collective results.

I've made clear that the angels I am talking about were seen heard etc by others; but that is NOT how to determine their objective existence because it is not fool proof.

That is done by applying a number of physical and logical reality checkers to determine how solid and physical they are. Eg, do they leave measureable and observable traces of their interaction with the rest of the environment in permanent observable form?

So if an angel walks in the snow or wet concrete and leaves tracks, those tracks ARE objective evidences of its physicality to an observer. They are not evidence that it is necessarily an angel, which may be determined by other observations and evidences but they do confirm its objective existence to a lone observer.

Just as, watching a bird eat grain you have put out confirms the objective exsitence of the bird and the grain, as the grain disappears within it. If some one else comes along and also notes the grain has gone this can confirm your own observation but the observation of the grains physical disappearance alone is enough to establish the bird's objective existence (Unless you are so unsure of your sanity or eyesight that you dont believe your eyes and mind) Who needs to check with someone else to ascertain the reality of anything that they observe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MW-- IMO, on this argument you are simply trying to squeeze in angels on an inaccurate understanding, but you are leaving out that the reason a rose wouldn't require proof of an objective reality is because it has one and this is easily verified by anyone.

How does an individaul verify the physiccal and independet existence of a rose when they encounter it? Eg if you touch it and you bleed or get satins on your fingers or you smell its scent it is probably objectively existent.

Well, an inidvidual MUST use the same physical forms of verification to confirm the physical existence of an angel or god or a ghost or anything. Otherwise they cannot claim to have encountered a physical manifestion of such an entity but only a subjective inner experirnce.

We do not normally have subjective inner experinces of cats and dogs. Why assume an angel or a god is any less real than the individual dogs and cats we encounter in life? Use the SAME processes and evidences to verify them ALL. Dont just assume.

Of course a rose requires verification of its existence. Imagine putting a beatufil roes on your dinner table and telling others how beautiful it was only to have them reply "What rose?"

Techniclly it could just as easliy be an hallucination to an individual as an angel. My mother in law regularly hallucinated ocean liners sailing past our front gate in great detail. My grand mother hallucinated rabbits running around the ceiling.

Hallucinations come in all shapes and forms Life requires constant reality checking to ensure the objective existence of walls, food, motor cars, etc. That is "why" we evolved touch sight and other senses to interact physically with the things around us all. They establish, clearly and effectively, what has objective existence and what does not, unless we are in some way dysfunctional..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a way for me to observe something via an experiment, one that I can conclude with your results it is not classified as objective.Taking your word for it or taking another persons word for it is not objective.

If I tell my kid that an objective reality of angels live in the world, he is going to expect to be able to observe evidence of this in reality, if he cannot it is not an objective reality(one we all can share in). He is going to be with in sound logic to ask me how do I know that there are angels. If I say you have to take my word for it or this is how it is, or you do not believe hard enough, or some such silliness as that. Eventually,he will conclude that I am in error about my understanding of objective reality and be on his way.

I can see you have a hard time with this one and I am not seeing any evidence this is going to change. So we will have to agree to disagree.

On a lighter side, if you talk to angels and it brings you peace and companionship-- I actually think based on how you relate to your angel-- it is nothing but positive for you. I really think by now Um accepts you have a great imagination; in truth, it is what makes you the unique MW. It just isn't objective.

All my life experiences are objective and have independent objective existence, except those i have in my dreamscapes, which are entirely internal. This is true for you and your son as well, and you DO NOT require independent confirmation to know the objective existence and reality of all things. Otherwise you could ever survive alone.. If you ever encounter an angel, you will have to use processes and evidences to determine for yourself if it has only internal subjective existence or if it exists externally as an object with its own objective existence,

It's interesting. Most peole would not believ the true and ordinary stories of my mundane childhood and adolescence because they would simply seem unbelivable (i know this from telling them to modern children) But they were real and objective, whatever anyone else thinks. The same is true for my personal encounters with angels and god, and ghosts among other things.

I appreciate that my great imagination makes it harder for some to believe me but it is an additional aspect to my character not the only side to me. It does allow me to keep a more open mind on all things, as does the very extensive reading i do of other peoples lives times experinces etc. I have written and published both fiction and non fiction books. The difference is very clear and significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does an individaul verify the physiccal and independet existence of a rose when they encounter it? Eg if you touch it and you bleed or get satins on your fingers or you smell its scent it is probably objectively existent.

Well, an inidvidual MUST use the same physical forms of verification to confirm the physical existence of an angel or god or a ghost or anything. Otherwise they cannot claim to have encountered a physical manifestion of such an entity but only a subjective inner experirnce.

We do not normally have subjective inner experinces of cats and dogs. Why assume an angel or a god is any less real than the individual dogs and cats we encounter in life? Use the SAME processes and evidences to verify them ALL. Dont just assume.

Of course a rose requires verification of its existence. Imagine putting a beatufil roes on your dinner table and telling others how beautiful it was only to have them reply "What rose?"

Techniclly it could just as easliy be an hallucination to an individual as an angel. My mother in law regularly hallucinated ocean liners sailing past our front gate in great detail. My grand mother hallucinated rabbits running around the ceiling.

Hallucinations come in all shapes and forms Life requires constant reality checking to ensure the objective existence of walls, food, motor cars, etc. That is "why" we evolved touch sight and other senses to interact physically with the things around us all. They establish, clearly and effectively, what has objective existence and what does not, unless we are in some way dysfunctional..

Perception is a construct MW. It is internal and a product of your beliefs. What ever comes in via your senses is modified and altered according to your world view, it does not make sense to argue that our senses are reliable, they are not. They are spun/filtered to fit our internal reality. Your perception is not reliable anymore then mine is therefore-- it cannot be used as evidence for external reality.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perception is a construct MW. It is internal and a product of your beliefs. What ever comes in via your senses is modified and altered according to your world view, it does not make sense to argue that our senses are reliable, they are not. They are spun/filtered to fit our internal reality. Your perception is not reliable anymore then mine is therefore-- it cannot be used as evidence for external reality.

This is incorrect.

Our eyes see what is there. Our fingers touch what is physical. Other wise a wall would not stop us and we could not sit down on a chair

Are you suggesting that, given the fact that a chair only exists in my perception, I should not sit down on it? My senses are perfectly reliable in regard to connecting with the external environment around me. What my mind makes of that reality depends on its health, education, experience and skills.

For example transport me 200 years into the future. I enter a room with no furniture but many beautiful blue holographic appearing constructs. I walk over to one and touch it. It feels solid, so i sit on it and it holds me perfectly Turns out it is an energy field construct which 100 years ago replaced physical furniture.

Take me back 2000 years and I would have to rely on my historical knowedge and high school latin. to live safely and to interact effectively with my environment. So our minds help us interpret and make sense of, as well as best utilise, the physical reality around us.

The real problem here is that every one accepts the physical reality of a chair via experiential knolwedge, but not everyone accepts the physical reality of an angel or of god. One must apply the same senses, the same evidences, and the same logic in ones encounter with ALL external realities, and not allow ones beliefs or preconceptions to colour what one senses. My mother taught me that as a pre schooler. and my further education, including university psychology, only confirmed its importance.

So, our SENSES are almost entirely reliable or we could not survive. Our MIND may play all sorts of tricks on us , but a mind is teachable/ disciplinable and capable of learning how to make sense of its surroundings, using experience, data, scientific thought and logic.

It is NOT true or inevitable that a human mind is always decieved or prey to its biases and preconceptions. If it is deceived it is /must be, "complicit" in deceiving itself. And it can be trained out of that complicity, to recognise the input of physical receptors like eyes and skin very accurately. It can also be trained to modify the inputs of all those receptors for constructive purpose eg to stop feeling pain or hunger, or to regulate body temperature, breathing and pulse rate and other biological aspects of our physiology.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is incorrect.

Our eyes see what is there. Our fingers touch what is physical. Other wise a wall would not stop us and we could not sit down on a chair

Ah but it is correct; you are participating in a massive illusion. That you "see" and what you "feel" and so on are all "qualia" (look it up) that occur entirely in your brain. They are illusions, not delusions, meaning that there is something in the outside world that stimulates it, but your brain is where it happens. That chair is really just a mass of atoms, and the "hardness" your brain tells you keeps you off the floor is really just the repulsion of the electrons on the surface of the chair and the electrons on the surface of your butt.

Things like color and odor and pitch and feel (and even internal things like pain and nausea), as well as emotions, are all illusions. There are no such things "out there" in the physical world. They are entirly in our heads.

Edited by Frank Merton
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah but it is correct; you are participating in a massive illusion. That you "see" and what you "feel" and so on are all "qualia" (look it up) that occur entirely in your brain. They are illusions, not delusions, meaning that there is something in the outside world that stimulates it, but your brain is where it happens. That chair is really just a mass of atoms, and the "hardness" your brain tells you keeps you off the floor is really just the repulsion of the electrons on the surface of the chair and the electrons on the surface of your butt.

Things like color and odor and pitch and feel (and even internal things like pain and nausea), as well as emotions, are all illusions. There are no such things "out there" in the physical world. They are entirly in our heads.

No this is descartian rubbish.The real world is there. It is what we evolved from, and within, and so we are adapted to sense it and respond/ connect to it. ANd our senses, detect the physicality of that world because they are adapted to it just as any oraganism's senses are adapted to detect its surrounding physical environment, so that a flower opens in the morning as the sun hits it, and closes at night as the sun sets.

It is our mind which adds layers and confuses us. Watch a wolf. It has no human sense of perception to cloud its sensory inputs. It is not confused about objective and subjective states. It merges, and interacts, with the rest of its environment. Watch a snow flake fall and stop when it hits the ground. Watch it melt. It responds to the physical realites of the environment around it. These things would happen if humans had never evolved. Our minds are irrelevant to the nature of reality except in how they help us adjust to it To believe otherwise is akin to a creationist form of belief which denies all observed reality and accumulated knowledge.

A chair is a mass of atoms (or in the future an energy field) to which EVERY human bottom and mind reacts in the same way. I can recognise a chair from a picture, or from a real article, or from its function "in the field" , and i can extrapolate or reverse engineer chairs from the past or the distant future. I can sit on a chair made 300 years ago and a person in the future can sit on a chair I make today. If these things were illusons or delusions this would not be possible. Perhaps other words would be better i understand wha toyu are saying but not only is it irrelevant it is a dead end For us all that is important is our interaction with the universe around us and how we can do this most beneficially and effectively, maximising both of these. So in all practical and useful senses the world around us is physical and indpenedent of our senses and perceptions. Our senses allow us to recognise this reality surrounding us and our perceptions to best utilise it. Eg to make a softer and more comfortable bed.

Everything real and physical exists outside our mind and is not dependent on our mind for it existence, or for its form and function. It would remain exactly the same if every human disappeared form the universe in one instant of time, but our mind is capapble of creating constructs and symbolic meanings which have only an internal reality. Even these things like love and hate or altruism can be physically manifested through us into the physical world, but they (the constructs and symbolisms) would physically disappear if every human was removed from existence. because they exist only within us.

Ps qualia is more of a philosophic construct than a scientific one and its very existence is problematical I am not sure thas a qualia can even be properly applied to something as solid as a rock And the theory of qualia presupposes that human consciousness is entirely subjective which modern neurology and theories of cognitive devlopment do not support.

In Consciousness Explained (1991) and "Quining Qualia" (1988),[14] Daniel Dennett offers an argument against qualia that attempts to show that the above definition breaks down when one tries to make a practical application of it. In a series of thought experiments, which he calls "intuition pumps," he brings qualia into the world of neurosurgery, clinical psychology, and psychological experimentation. His argument attempts to show that, once the concept of qualia is so imported, it turns out that we can either make no use of it in the situation in question, or that the questions posed by the introduction of qualia are unanswerable precisely because of the special properties defined for qualia.

And basically that is my pov An interesting philosophical theory, but a dead end in practical reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is incorrect.

Our eyes see what is there. Our fingers touch what is physical. Other wise a wall would not stop us and we could not sit down on a chair

Are you suggesting that, given the fact that a chair only exists in my perception, I should not sit down on it? My senses are perfectly reliable in regard to connecting with the external environment around me. What my mind makes of that reality depends on its health, education, experience and skills.

For example transport me 200 years into the future. I enter a room with no furniture but many beautiful blue holographic appearing constructs. I walk over to one and touch it. It feels solid, so i sit on it and it holds me perfectly Turns out it is an energy field construct which 100 years ago replaced physical furniture.

Take me back 2000 years and I would have to rely on my historical knowedge and high school latin. to live safely and to interact effectively with my environment. So our minds help us interpret and make sense of, as well as best utilise, the physical reality around us.

The real problem here is that every one accepts the physical reality of a chair via experiential knolwedge, but not everyone accepts the physical reality of an angel or of god. One must apply the same senses, the same evidences, and the same logic in ones encounter with ALL external realities, and not allow ones beliefs or preconceptions to colour what one senses. My mother taught me that as a pre schooler. and my further education, including university psychology, only confirmed its importance.

So, our SENSES are almost entirely reliable or we could not survive. Our MIND may play all sorts of tricks on us , but a mind is teachable/ disciplinable and capable of learning how to make sense of its surroundings, using experience, data, scientific thought and logic.

It is NOT true or inevitable that a human mind is always decieved or prey to its biases and preconceptions. If it is deceived it is /must be, "complicit" in deceiving itself. And it can be trained out of that complicity, to recognise the input of physical receptors like eyes and skin very accurately. It can also be trained to modify the inputs of all those receptors for constructive purpose eg to stop feeling pain or hunger, or to regulate body temperature, breathing and pulse rate and other biological aspects of our physiology.

No, MW, I am not only arguing that a chair exists only in 'your' internal reality, I am arguing that it exists objectively too; therefore, making your senses more reliable in the case of sitting in a chair.

Where your sense perception fails for me is using your own internal subjective reality as the only way to verify objective reality. Namely, your angel construct. Basically, I wish we could use your internal schema but we just cannot verify your angel pal objectively using your internal subjective reality. There is no way for us to do so.

Other then to take your word as evidence and on one hand I do think it is highly likely that you have constructed a world view that includes angels. On that note-- I think, 'you think' you have an angel friend. I am fine with that --where it gets sticky for me is when you insist your perception is the only correct/possible one; therefore, can substitute as objective evidence for me. Where it is possible to think you have an angel-- it is not likely objectively because we would all be able to verify the evidence of angels, like we can with a chair.

You are so close to getting this, you are literally 9 toes in.

Edited by Sherapy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.