--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > One of the things I find myself noticing in Curtis' > > > descriptions of David Eagleman's findings and opinions > > > is that Eagleman seems to make the same assumption > > > that religious people make. That is, that there is > > > something called Reality. > > > > I don't think that doing science requires more assumption > > than needed to fix breakfast and sit down at the computer. > > Both religious assumptions and the kind of high level > > philosophical skepticism about the nature or reality are > > on another level and don't intersect. > > It's not high-level philosophical skepticism but a > truism to note that, even assuming there is a reality, > we can never know it directly; it's always only > through subjective perception. And that includes > science. When we do science, we're comparing > subjective perceptions. If they agree, we say that > what we've mutually perceived is "objective" reality-- > but we don't and cannot know that there's anything > "out there" that actually corresponds to it.
Only YOU can prove reality to yourself, NEVER to anyone else. Since it is a subjective experience it rests upon the individual to seize it. Any objective analysis will always fall short of the experience, as you may well know....
