Toosh! ("Touche!"? would be a better spelling, nespas?) You got me there, skye. Fair and square, right where it counts the most. That being my being wrong.

I'm so happy! I always get happy when someone proves me wrong in a way that I can accept. Call it weird -- I think it's due to its novelty value. And because I yearn so much to be that little kid again I once was who had the whole world to look up to and be bewondered by the wisdom and smarts of others. This is a confessional, not a bitter joke or sarcasm. I became more ad more morose as I got fewer and fewer people in my life to look up to. Blessed are those who believe in god.

Blessed are those who believe in themselves, for thou art God.

Michael Valentine Smith woulda like that one.

I think it's interesting to note that there has yet to be put forth a purely objective means of determmining reality.

It seems that all determineations of reality ultimately end up at either "authority dispensation" or "group agreement".

Group agreement is the most important for day to day functioning.

I bet it would be quite eye opening to live someone else's reality for one day.

For sure. On both counts.

In most cases, the latter reflects the former anyway!

In fact, group agreement would mean you trust your own perception of what others say are their perception.

I don`t call that group agreement, because you must first convince yourself that the group`s opinion is real as perceived by you.

And there is no way of developing that conviction.

We may not have a choice since most/all of us are undergoing the group indoctrination from the childhood...

I see what you're saying, but it's not quite what I was trying to say.

Why one decides to agree is really irrelevant. It is the agreement itself, irrespective of any reasoning behind it, that is the determining factor. If you agree, then it's real. If you don't, then it's not. The reasons that led to the decision do not change the fact of the agreement (or lack thereof).

Life is tough. Sometimes others say something you have not.

You are wriggling again. I do not have the stamina to go through the same process as in the Mental Disorder thread.

Try this instead.

Take a long, hard look a the following quote, the firs part of which I agree with, and the second part of which, I maintain, can NOT be made compatible with the first part.

"I think it's interesting to note that there has yet to be put forth a purely objective means of determmining reality.

It seems that all determineations of reality ultimately end up at either "authority dispensation" or "group agreement". "

Please allow me to not try to defend points about this. If you refuse the power of reductio ad absurdum as a device in logic, then... well... all debate is futile.

Sigh...

Oh, and I, too, see what you're saying, and I assert you are worng.

Re-worded like this I could accept your statement.

Realize, please, that as long as there is nothing objectively knowable about the group, not even its existence, then an agreement with that group can only be an illusion or a coincidence, but not at all a reality of certain.

Therefore you can only say what appears to the subjective observer of a supposed (and perhaps occurring) reality, you cannot say and prove that a group exists.

If the existence of a group is questionable, then whom do you agree with in case there is no group(questionmark). With possibly no group in existence, there is no agreement for sure. Therefore the agreement cannot be real. Contrary to your unaltered third sentence in the quote.

Or perhaps we can work on the meaning of the word "agreement". I should have thought that for there to be an agreement, there would have to be somebody who agrees or some who agree. Since there is potentially nobody on the other side of my agreement with a group, there is potentially no agreement.

I honestly don't know what you mean at all.

The second sentence is the "proof" of the first.

I don't see any reductio ad absurdum anywhere.

I haven't refused anything.

I'm not "wriggling" anything.

You can choose to "try to defend", or not, anything you wish. I have no say in the matter.

<sigh>

Ok. So we have made different, opposing assertions. And?

No argument there. (Or at least I don’t think so. I’m not absolutely certain I followed all the intended meanings there.)

What I hear you saying is that if there is no group (i.e. at least two individuals), then there cannot be “agreement”.

Yup, that’s true.

So in that case, how is reality determined?

By “Authority”.

Reality is determined by the one and only person who observed it. There is nothing else that can determine it’s reality.

Just don’t forget that this is not about “what is real”. It’s about “how the determination of reality is accomplished”.

1. “Do we perceive reality?”

2. "Just don’t forget that this is not about “what is real”. It’s about “how the determination of reality is accomplished”. "

3. Reality is determined by the one and only person who observed it. There is nothing else that can determine it’s reality.

Your tactic of obfuscation won't work.

1. and 2. are your topic descriptions in the first and in the last(so far) of your many posts, respectively. They are different, and I call it a deliberate obfuscation and changing of the topic just so you won't have to admit defeat in an argument.

In 3. you make statements that are in clash with other statements that you already agreed with. This is an identical personal fault or else cunning (but not fair) debating method to what you used to use in the "mental health" topic. I refuse to keep arguing about something that you state, is refuted, you agree to its refutation, and wich then you bring up again as a truth or valid opinion.

When I am in a debate I am in it to decide and come to a common agreement about something. I often admit I am wrong in the instances when it's been shown to me that I was wrong. I feel admission to defeat is an honourable and actually the only reasonable action to do when I'm proven to be wrong. If I cannot expect my debating partners to do the same, I find it disrespectful to me, to the other parties, by the partner who is incapable of admitting to defeat.

Skye, what are you trying to prove? Not your point in the debate, because that had been refuted logically. What else can you or do you try to prove when you drag on a debate via obfuscation, via coming back to already conceded points, via changing the topic? Please tell us, I ask you. In my opinion you're becoming a big headache and I may want to leave the SC/Ph forum unless I can appease myself, and that would be easier done if I knew why you're doing these irritating things, what it is that you're trying to prove and to whom.

Thanks. I am upset, but no hard feelings. It's just I am starting to see, in the examples of mine and yours, that those who can admit to being mentally ill maybe have an easier time when they admit to being logically wrong, than those mentally ill who can't admit to their diseased state and to their being logically wrong. I don't see your reluctance to admit anything negative about yourself as an evil or bad behaviour; now I see it more as a weakness, a need to compensate for something.

Whatever. Please explain or else desist from obfuscating, changing the topic unannounced and going back to old arguments that had been refuted with your agreement in a given topic.

This entire discussion is all about objective and subjective reality.

Is the reality we perceive and agree upon the "true" reality?

We have no way of knowing, so we can only agree that it is or is not.

Hence the question "Do we perceive reality?" Or is the thing we perceive simply what we define as reality?

What if there are things (in reality) that we do not perceive? Then they are not "real" to us. We agree that they are not real.

If I saw a strange creature flying through the sky and no one else saw it.. is it real? The agreement is that it is not real, and I am said to be Hallucinating.

If everyone saw a strange creature flying through the sky on a daily basis.. is it real? The agreement is that it is real. That strange creature might be the sun or the moon or a dragon, it does not matter. If everyone perceives it and agrees that it is real, then it is real.

If there is only one observer, then what that observer perceives is reality. He is the only authority. He decides what is real.

If there are many observers, then reality is determined by their agreement on what is real.

Well you’re free to interpret it that way if you want. If you want to take a simple “topic drift” and label it “deliberate obfuscation”, go right ahead. But I submit that doing so is a deliberate obfuscation on your part.

If you include the entire context of the OP (not just the partial quote that you used) you’ll see that the very last phrase was “then how do we tell whether or not what we perceive is real? (I think this is what the debate, if any, will center around.)”. Which is exactly what has happened.

So where’s the obfuscation really?

Was it my restating the very same thing that I said in the OP?

Or was it your exclusion of what I stated in the OP???

Well since you haven’t provided the statements you are referring to, nor have you shown where they clash, all I can say is I don’t agree.

Again, you haven’t indicated the statement, the refutation, the agreement or the restatement. So there’s nothing there but personal opinion that I don’t happen to share.

And as I said in that other thread – I think there may be a misunderstanding as to what refutations I have and have not agreed to. But again, since you haven’t specified, I can’t say for sure.

There’s really nothing to explain because I didn’t “deliberately obfuscate” anything.

In the above quote you’ve simply stated your opinions. You’ve stated your subjective evaluations on what you think my actions, intentions, mental processes, and abilities are.

Now personally, I think your evaluations on that matter are hugely erroneous. But that’s just my own subjective evaluation – to which I have just as much right as you have to yours.

So unless you can point out something specific (as you did in the first paragraph - to which I responded) then as far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing to explain. I can’t explain your subjective evaluations. You’re the only one who can do that – which you have done.

But personally, I consider the entirely of that quote to be off-topic, since it was a discussion of me personally and not the topic. (Although I must admit that it does have some relevance in that it has led to an example of "differing perceptions of reality".)