Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Does Light Actually Illuminate?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SelfSim" data-source="post: 76422690" data-attributes="member: 354922"><p>The thing is, what's real for the healthy-minded outliers, (who perceive what's red (or real) for them differently from the general majority), is also persistent for them. So who is right about 'what persists' is the <em>actual</em> red (or reality) - the majority, or the outliers?</p><p></p><p>Are we to completely ignore the outliers and cast them away as though they don't possses what evolution also endowed them with - ie: active healthy (and unhealthy) human minds?</p><p></p><p>Generalising away from the example of 'what red is', the Philip K Dick argument that what persists must be <em>the</em> (physical) reality, is falsified when considering the full gamut of what human minds mean when they describe physical reality. (I mean some folk will point to something orange when asked to point to something red and orange still persists to them).</p><p>No .. the only testable in that instance, when it comes to querying the mysterious persistency, is the persisting presence an active shared human mind type doing the observing .. and never <em>'what exists in nature .. external to those minds', </em>(the latter of which is untestable because it takes a human mind to do the testing, an influencing factor which cannot be discounted from the test setup, or the conclusions).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SelfSim, post: 76422690, member: 354922"] The thing is, what's real for the healthy-minded outliers, (who perceive what's red (or real) for them differently from the general majority), is also persistent for them. So who is right about 'what persists' is the [I]actual[/I] red (or reality) - the majority, or the outliers? Are we to completely ignore the outliers and cast them away as though they don't possses what evolution also endowed them with - ie: active healthy (and unhealthy) human minds? Generalising away from the example of 'what red is', the Philip K Dick argument that what persists must be [I]the[/I] (physical) reality, is falsified when considering the full gamut of what human minds mean when they describe physical reality. (I mean some folk will point to something orange when asked to point to something red and orange still persists to them). No .. the only testable in that instance, when it comes to querying the mysterious persistency, is the persisting presence an active shared human mind type doing the observing .. and never [I]'what exists in nature .. external to those minds', [/I](the latter of which is untestable because it takes a human mind to do the testing, an influencing factor which cannot be discounted from the test setup, or the conclusions). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Does Light Actually Illuminate?
Top
Bottom