FEED ME FEED ME FEED ME!

looked up 'assumed'. yep. means what i thought it means.

No, that does not follow from those words, nor is it what I believe.

Hallucinate typically means something like 'to perceive something that is not real, to perceive a fabricated and false reality', but given the phrasing of that sentence its reasonable to think that Bushi really means that our perception is in 'fabricated' by our minds in some way, its just that usually this fabrication aligns with reality. (Which is different than saying that our normal sensory perception is false). Further, I believe his claims were intended to apply to our experience of our senses, not to reality itself.

Reality itself is not a hallucination.



Measurements, recording, repeat-ability, collaborative investigation are just some of the means we can use to gain a grasp of reality, despite the limitations of our senses.




Taken out of context I would not disagree with you. Given my knowledge of the arguments you have made in the past, in a similar vein.... well, I know when my time is better spent not arguing.



I agree that you, me, and Bushi are touching on perceptual issues that relate to the differences in witness accounts - there are many issues with our senses, our memory, interpretation - we don't need the theory of mass hallucination to explain why witness accounts are different.

No, to get any deeper you would need an agreed upon definition of "reality."

(But if you are going to call it an hallucination or a fabrication, then I don't think it should also be referred to as "reality.' That might confuse some people.)

although

I believe that all human perception is similar and I understand how the human senses interpret the environment and the vibrations in a similar manner, therefore their descriptions and perceptions of these vibrations of light and sound are similar enough that they can mostly agree upon them, and name them and measure them, etc. That turns into what they have agreed to call "science."

And they have gone so far as to call that "reality."

If a human's senses are flawed or different, they might sense or interpret things differently and they might see or hear things that most people can't. These humans might then be called "insane" or of having hallucinations that are not in agreement with the majority of people.

For example:
People who claim to have seen flying saucers or little green men are said to be living in "fantasy land."

More people are living in fantasy land every day.

People who are "psychic" are accused of being fakes or "con artists"

But I am sure there are real psychics among us. Lots of them.

Does it mean "INCONCEIVABLE!"?

not in the least.

I once heard "Reality is that which does not go away when you cease believing in it."

I don't think thats a good working definition, but its fun.



Who is calling reality a hallucination or fabrication? Not I, and it looks to me like Bushi isn't either.



Yes. And when the ONLY evidence for the existence of something is a SINGLE person's perception, though other people and instruments are given the opportunity to detect it, then its usually sensible to conclude that the thing does not exist outside of that person's mind. You might contrive a counter-example - I don't mean for this statement to be sweeping or absolute; I only assert that there are many individual cases where people are imagining things that don't exist, and its reasonable for other people to reach that conclusion.






Believing one has seen alien spacecraft (is that what you mean by flying saucer? surely not a frisby...), if one hasn't, usually not just a problem with the senses, but a problem with interpreting those senses.

If I see lights in the sky, I haven't definitely seen an alien spacecraft, I've seen lights in the sky. If I then go around declaring "I saw a spacecraft!" the problem is not with my sense, but with my reason.

As a massage therapists who is into yoga, I have met many, many people who believe they have seen aliens or ghosts or cosmic energy eggs and all kinds of bizarre things, and all of those people have demonstrated a predisposition to certain flaws in their reasoning. I don't think this is a coincidence.

People often find what they seek regardless of whether or not it is there.

What would it take for that statement to be true?

Confirmation bias so strong that it skews one's intepretation of actual events.

People can't actually find something that is not there.

They can only believe they found it.

Of course. We agree here. Finding something that is not there requires making a mistake and believing it.

In interpreting an event how can anyone be certain what the truth of the matter is when each person interprets the event differently?

What would qualify a single individual to say what really happened?

Wouldn't cameras recording the event from different angles be the only way to fairly assess what actually happened?

This is the reason cameras are being installed in businesses and on public streets.

not necessarily. take nfl instant replay calls for instance. oftentimes several cameras show different views of a play yet the officials see the films and decide that the camera views are inconclusive so the call on the play stands. the official that made the original call could be right, could be wrong but because the film does not show conclusively either way the ruling is that he was right. of course he still might very well have been wrong but there is nothing to suggest that he was. the call stands, the game goes on with nobody knowing absolutely what really happened. but i'll guarandamntee ya that both teams will differ on the call.

This depends on what the situation is that is under discussion. In some situations, and for some questions about that situation, you simply can't.

For some truths, you can use methods that minimize or remove 'personal interpretation' from the observation process, and employ the help of others who reproduce our observations and critique our thought process.



Again, it depends largely on the event in question. Some events occur faster than the human sense are able to perceive. Care to present an example?



I agree that cameras are very helpful in reducing the effect of human bias from the question 'what really happened'; and I agree with JR that they are no guarantee that we will have the info needed to answer the question posed with certainty.

That does not prove anything. All that is doing is giving the power of the decision back to the person who is paid to make those decisions. If they decide the replay is inconclusive, they have to give it to the person whose job it is to render the decision.

He is like the judge. He has the power. If they can't prove his decision was wrong, then it has to stand.

precisely my point, jeannie. cameras are not necessarily reliable "to fairly assess what actually happend." we keep bowing to the judgement of an individual.

Its like the polygraph test. The jury is still the judge, the machine takes second seat. The day humans defer to the machines is the beginning of the end of freedom and THE RISE OF THE MACHINES.

If you look at the robot you will see that they have a perfect set of teeth. I wonder what their function is. I don't think those robots eat food.

are their teeth really that perfect, jeannie? i see a little gap between the two front teeth just like arnold's. dramatic licesnse? lol.