(July 25, 2012 at 4:17 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: If you don't know all of what reality is or how it began, you're not in a position to make assessments about what it is not.
Your comparisons really need work to be effective. Science is science, reality and what it is is heavily debated.
Maybe wikipedia will help you learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
How ironic. After making a statement about the need for knowing all of reality to assess what it is and what it is not, you link to an article that assesses what it is and what it is not without knowing all of it. Talk about a self-defeating proposition.
(July 25, 2012 at 4:17 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: I'm unsure if you purposely miss the point or not. My point is whether the 'reality' each living sees is perceived in the same way, and if so, how do you know this to be actual reality as opposed to a limitation of the observer?
No, actually, I made the point. The perception of reality and reality itself are two different things and you are trying to conflate them. Every living thing does not necessarily see reality in the same way - nevertheless, they would be seeing the same reality. And even if they see it differently, the fact that they are all seeing the same reality gives them a common ground to eliminate subjective biases.
(July 25, 2012 at 4:17 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: I understand the statement, just not the logic or explanation provided.
If you understood the statement, you wouldn't be talking about "measuring" reality.
(July 25, 2012 at 4:17 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: You said:
"Given that science has pointed out many things that it places beyond its limits, I'd say that the proposition is already established. as you struggled to scroll up.
What exactly are you asking here?
(July 25, 2012 at 4:17 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: That was terrible. You didn't deny, justify, you may as well not have said anything.
I've already denied making or implying the statement you accuse me of. I cannot justify something I did not say or intended. And I stated what I actually do say.