Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[Thumpalumpacus]

If what we perceived didn't comport with an objective reality, do you think for a moment natural selection would've let that slide for 250,000 years? How is it that millions of people all see the same tower in the middle of Paris? Do you think the ground at the foot of the cliff gives a shit about your perceptions?

Be it known, I reject solipsism as internally contradictory. If you're going to make an argument for it, you'd best not use the Argument from Ignorance, as well.

Given that we experience illusions on a regular basis, then I don't see why natural selection had to let our perceptions accurately reflect reality. If accuracy was so important, then why didn't natural selection over all these millennia equip us with more error-free ways to observe "objective reality"?  As long as it's practical, that's really what matters.

Because at a certain point, it makes little difference. If the cliff is an eighty-three- or eighty-four-foot drop doesn't matter. The fact that we cannot get a measurement exact enough to convince you doesn't mean that the cliff is created in our minds. This is a strawman argument, and you need to abandon it. You aren't answering my point, but rather, one you're imputing to me. Please stop it.

Additionally, the fact that humans have illusions doesn't mean perceptions are inaccurate. A change of perspective reveals the illusion, and that is powerful evidence against your argument. In other words, an illusion is reportage from one angle, but when you move, the view changes, and the illusion is given away ... as we would expect, knowing that rabbits don't live in tophats and disappear up sleeves.

Do you literally see atoms by the way? That's what "objective reality" would probably be like. Instead, we see objects that are arrangements of these atoms, but that the forms we perceive might slightly differ from one individual to another, and even more from one species to another. Many dog species see things in limited colors compared to us, and bees see colors we can't. Sure, being of the same species, we observe common things, but this doesn't absolutely confirm that our common perceptions accurately reflect what "objective reality" is like.

Again, I'm not arguing that our perceptions are perfect. This is a strawman built by you. I'm arguing that they comport with reality. That is a different statement, and one you have not addressed

Objects that you see of the color red may be seen as some different color by those who have a form of color-blindness. Whose observation would be more in line with objective reality in this case?

Define red.

Hint: you're going to have to appeal to objectivity in order to do so.

Putting aside colors, how about something like the Muller-Lyer illusion? Did you know in a few cultures, this illusion is not experienced? Whereas among us, the illusion is hard to even resist experiencing when looking at the lines. Perhaps you'll respond by saying this is a flaw in our mental perceptual system, but if so, then isn't that the point?

And again. I've never argued that our perceptual systems are perfect measuring systems. What I've argued is that the comport with reality.

We see what we see because of how our brains are wired, but that does not mean our brains have been made perfect via evolution in making our subjective reality be in harmony with objective reality.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

You're belaboring the obvious, and taking issue with an argument I haven't presented.