Actually, I wasn’t trying to “support a position” so much as “present a viewpoint” (or “frame of reference”). The very viewpoint itself is somewhat anethema to “supporting a position”. By it’s very nature it says that all positions are just as valid as all other positions because “validity” itself is dependent on a frame of reference.

… if YOU are not perceiving something directly – it no longer exists. As you turn away from you’re vehicle, for example, it dissolves as if it were an illusion that only YOU could create.

This suggests that nothing exists outside a subjective “mental” state. … If this is truly what you believe, then there can be no “others” because if you perceive others then you are creating the illusion of ‘others’ from a subjective state of mind.

…If objectivity is a subjective construct then all methodologies have to be subjective. If all methodologies are subjective then we would not be able to use heuristics, or make predictions that would allow us to competently and confidently interact with the material world.

Also, according to the statement above you are not granting existence to any OTHER thing so there is no agreement to be had, there is simply your subjective state of mind.

Agreement between subject (yourself) and what?

OBJECT, in this discussion, is something that exists without your conceiving it in your mind, and without your having to perceive it.

It exists without you permission or without your agreement that it should exist. OBJECT has qualities and properties that are independent of mind.

If an object has known attributes of properties and qualities then no amount of thought will change its inherent/intrinsic nature and that nature will not change if you disagree with another about it.

Taking subjective feeling/emotions, prejudices, and interpretations out of an evaluation is the goal of scientific methodology. You insist that it can’t be done, but you do so under the influence of a subjective interpretation that does not allow for objects to exist or interact with the our physical realm apart from you agreement that it can.

Agreement about the nature of an object holds no validity beyond the subjective -- unless qualities or properties of what is being assessed can be quantitatively applied to consistent and relevant predictions. That is objective evidence - unaffected by subjective interpretation.

I think your "frame of reference" fluctuates because you cannot exist in this physical realm without accepting your inability to control objective features within it.

Agreement about anything without objective evidence is simply a meeting of minds, an agreement of opinion. To validate the opinion there must be something OUTSIDE the mind (objective and independent of mind) that can be used as evidence to support your opinion.

You can only do this if you agree that you exist in this physical realm that is not created by you, not controlled by you and is independent of your state of mind.

If you disagree with that, then your 'frame of reference' is skewed and inconsistent (fluctuates) probably based on your need to interact with the objective world, like everyone else, and your desire to believe you are not part of it or that you, in some manner, control it beyond normally accepted abilities.

The duality of your philosophical ideology (of existence) is so subjectively constructed that it cannot pertain to the reality of the physical world.

I think that is why you insist on redefining words, on reframing arguments, and continue to support that only a subjective view of reality can exist.

That is the only way you can maintain (support) your philosophical ideology. But this ideology is of your construct and insisting on redefining words and concepts in support of it does not change the nature of objective reality any more than agreement with another mind validates an opinion.

Di wrote:

I think your "frame of reference" fluctuates because you cannot exist in this physical realm without accepting your inability to control objective features within it.

Abra responds:

Do we have any evidence for that?

Creative wrote:

Actuality does not care how one feels about it.

Yeah. It is commonly called... science?

Abra:

First off, how do you know that this is true?

Wish in one hand...

This discussion is concerning evidence Abra. I gave evidence to answer your question. That was all that was needed to logically show that actuality does not care how one feels about it, assuming one knows what that redneck colloquialism means. It means that one can wish in one hand while doing nothing else, and see what affect you'll have on actuality.

One can want something more than anything, and that alone does not affect what exists outside of that want. I will be however tall I am, regardless of how I feel about it. How I feel does not matter when assessing that objective situation.

The same holds true of objective evidence, it is independently verifiable without being contingent upon personal grounds for it's existence.

It's my understanding that the empirical evidence discovered by science reveals just the opposite, that we cannot even observe this universe without directly affecting it.

Surely you must think people fools to believe that they aren't aware of the obvious.

Oh by the way, I'm fully aware of what you meant by your "redneck colloquialism". Don't kid yourself on that one.

Abra answers:

I don't ever recall claiming any such ridiculous things.

Like I say, you must think people fools if you think they are suggesting something that impractical. Or perhaps you have met a lot of fools in your life who have suggested such impractical things and that's where you get that attitude from.

In any case, good luck in your search for evidence. I've already found mine.

It's my understanding that the empirical evidence discovered by science reveals just the opposite, that we cannot even observe this universe without directly affecting it.

Sky:

Very good question.

I didn’t really have a particular idea in mind that I was trying to support other than something along the lines of “To each his own”.

Or maybe to align it with the thread topic, “Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.”

Actually, I wasn’t trying to “support a position” so much as “present a viewpoint” (or “frame of reference”). The very viewpoint itself is somewhat anethema to “supporting a position”. By it’s very nature it says that all positions are just as valid as all other positions because “validity” itself is dependent on a frame of reference.

And that’s not to deny that I ever get involved in “supporting a position”. It is blatantly obvious, from many of my posts in these forums, that I do. But in my own mind, that is more of an “exercise in honing my communication skills” than anything else.

This suggests that nothing exists outside a subjective “mental” state. In other words, if YOU are not perceiving something directly – it no longer exists. As you turn away from you’re vehicle, for example, it dissolves as if it were an illusion that only YOU could create.

If this is truly what you believe, then there can be no “others” because if you perceive others then you are creating the illusion of ‘others’ from a subjective state of mind.




This is not a logical conclusion to your statement above. If objectivity is a subjective construct then all methodologies have to be subjective. If all methodologies are subjective then we would not be able to use hueristics, or make predictions that would allow us to competantly and confidently interact with the material world.

Also, according to the statement above you are not granting existence to any OTHER thing so there is no agreement to be had, there is simply your subjective state of mind.



Agreement between subject (yourself) and what?

OBJECT, in this discussion, is something that exists without your conceiving it in your mind, and without your having to perceive it.

It exists without you permission or without your agreement that it should exist. OBJECT has qualities and properties that are independent of mind.

If an object has known attributes of properties and qualities then no amount of thought will change its inherent/intrinsic nature and that nature will not change if you disagree with another about it.



Taking subjective feeling/emotions, prejudices, and interpretations out of an evaluation is the goal of scientific methodology. You insist that it can’t be done, but you do so under the influence of a subjective interpretation that does not allow for objects to exist or interact with the our physical realm apart from you agreement that it can.



Agreement about the nature of an object holds no validity beyond the subjective -- unless qualities or properties of what is being assessed can be quantitatively applied to consistent and relevant predictions. That is objective evidence - unaffected by subjective interpretation.