Delusion

[Godless]

Apparently many theist here don't have a clear definition of this word, hopefully these videos can clarify what is meant to be delusional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4MEi6BPsT4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FVzU_W22ns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw3TGjb9uvo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmQ8sVGe2uw

I hope these have been helpfull. I hope you realize that once you have a "belief" which is unsubstantiated by evidence it is a delusion!

 

[Juan Tres]

Also see the Abaddon thread for a clear definition

 

[Grantywanty]

Apparently many theist here don't have a clear definition of this word, hopefully these videos can clarify what is meant to be delusional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4MEi6BPsT4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FVzU_W22ns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw3TGjb9uvo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmQ8sVGe2uw

I hope these have been helpfull. I hope you realize that once you have a "belief" which is unsubstantiated by evidence it is a delusion!

there were people who believed all sorts of things before they were substantiated by evidence - even using your sense of what this word means. nevertheless they were not deluded.

One example amongst millions. There were a number of sailors throughout history who described having their ships hit by rogue waves, waves that stood out from other waves by such a large number of yards that scientists dismissed their claims as deluded. exaggerated by emotions and all those other arguments scientists use when they really don't know.

Fairly recently when satellite technology reached a level where the could check on this and some video recording starting coming in from ships that were hit, scientists REALIZED these sailor were correct and not deluded.

The sailors were not
deluded until that date their claims could be substantiated.
The evidence of their own experience was something they trusted.
so it is with many who believe things not substantiated by current science.
Some of them are certainly deluded. I think most of the monotheists are.
but many are not.

 

[Sarkus]

To be deluded there has to be evidence to the contrary, no?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

To be deluded there has to be evidence to the contrary, no?

*************
M*W: In this case, the evidence you are referring to would be atheism or contradiction to religious delusion.

From Wikipedia:

"A grandiose delusion is an experience of an extremely exaggerated sense of worth, power, knowledge, identity, or relationship. Someone who is grandiose may believe he can speak to supernatural beings or that he is a supernatural being himself. This is one of three of the strong signs that help determine whether a person is psychopathic, along with superficial charm and egocentriscm."

From about.com:

"Nonbelievers may often think that religious believers are deluded, but could it be that there really is a close connection between psychiatric delusions and religious beliefs? It is true that people with identifiably mental illnesses can experience, as one of the symptoms 'hyper-religiosity,' so perhaps the line between the two is not as sharp as people normally assume."

See:

Spiritual Truth and Religious Delusions, by H. Lawrence Zillmer, Lightning Source Inc., 2006, ISBN1413494846

OTOH, in order for there to be religious delusion, there has to be unrefutable evidence for religious belief. Unfortunately, there is no proof that belief in religious phenomena and ancient mythologies are true. Therefore, all religions are man-made delusions.

See:

The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, Professor, Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University, 2006. ISBN 0-618-68000-4

"In the book, Dawkins argues that religious faith qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's observation that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion."

See:

Gale Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders, by Jennifer Hahn PhD, The Gale Group Inc., Gale, Detroit, 2003

"Religious delusion: Any delusion with a religious or spiritual content. These may be combined with other delusions, such as grandiose delusions (the belief that the affected person was chosen by God, for example), delusions of control, or delusions of guilt."

From KSL News Radio 1160 AM:

"The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill's Vicki Cottrell says religious delusions are common among people with an existing mental illness. 'We know it exists, but it's a very complicated answer. With mental illness, with bipolar disorder, with depression, with schizophrenia, you can have religious delusions.'"

"Cottrell says experts still don't know a lot about how religion plays into mental illness, and there's still debate over whether or not it can be treated."

 

[Sarkus]

Thanks, MW
I know many people have differing ideas of what "delusion" actually means - and I think my own was somewhat narrower (i.e. requiring there to be actual contrary evidence rather than merely lack of supporting evidence) so thanks for the detail.

 

[Godless]

You know Juan, coming from you I really don't need to see shit, but perhaps if you put a damn link to whatever the hell you are talking about, others may get an idea of what the F*ck your talking about!

there were people who believed all sorts of things before they were substantiated by evidence - even using your sense of what this word means. nevertheless they were not deluded.

True, there were people who knew about healing herbs, they were usually killed as heretics or witches by the idiots who claimed the knowledge evil.
Even though the evidence was right in front of them, that the herbalist picked certain plants to make remedy they were considered evil. This is of course "ignorance" is what was deluded! And it led to the killing of many innocent women.

One example amongst millions. There were a number of sailors throughout history who described having their ships hit by rogue waves, waves that stood out from other waves by such a large number of yards that scientists dismissed their claims as deluded.

In this case, "science" without out empirical evidence was ignorant, the scientist who made claims in the past without any freaking evidence were the ones who where in error, sailors had the empirical evidence of such waves, they experienced it, others who didn't believe it, had no experience of the phenomena so in essence they were neither deluded but ignorant. Scientists in the past and today are ignorant of lots of things, it's when an individual makes an absolute claim, with out any evidence "experience or empirical" that the claim if believed with such a zeal as to "die" for, is a delusion.

Some of them are certainly deluded. I think most of the monotheists are.

Well a clear definition of delusion will substantiate any claim made without any evidence, to be a delusion. Just cause one "believes" in a certain deity or a certain phenomena without any freaking evidence that does not make one instantly deluded "brain malfunction" The idea is deluded, not the individual, the zeal of the individual upon such claims will determine his delusional state of being.

In other words most theist are not deluded, it's when they are very fundamentally involved in their religiosity to the extent of self mutilation, human bombers, killing in the name of their "deity" living with the illusion that prayers are answered, constantly making unsubstantiated positive claims, and ignoring the lack or no evidence with such zeal, and arrogantly claiming "they know" while others are believed to be misguided, or ignorant of their superior knowledge, it's this that I claim the theist whose behavior I've pointed above, are DELUDED!!

 

[Baron Max]

Y'all seem to be saying/implying that being "delusional" is a bad thing. Is it? Is it always a bad thing? If so how and why? Can being "delusional" ever be a good thing?

Baron Max

 

[Godless]

Your deluded Max, you woulnd't know the difference between illusion or reality, delusional is a state of mind that can hardly relate to real problems, look at the president speech, and the reality in text, by starting the war on terror, we have made a small problem into a larger chaotic problem, by claiming there were WMD's in Irag before invading, and then realizing there weren't any at all, condems this country in starting a war in false pretence, the delusion was there's wmd's in Irag, the reality was there isn't anything that was a threat to US. The deluded believed the media, the realist marched in the streets against this war.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: First, Baron Max, I'd like to ask where you are from? "Y'all" sounds hauntingly familiar.

Y'all seem to be saying/implying that being "delusional" is a bad thing. Is it? Is it always a bad thing? If so how and why? Can being "delusional" ever be a good thing?

Baron Max

*************
M*W: IMO, having delusions is not a good thing. It means one actually believes someone is there who is really not, nor something is happening, or about to happen, when it's not, or that something is reality when it is not.

In a way, it's like pulling the wool over one's own eyes and trying to pull the wool over anothers. It's like trying to force one's personal belief on another. That's not reality.

I do believe that reality for one person may not be reality for another person or even many persons in a social dynamic. There is a fine line between what is perceived and what is real. This is where I would tell people they need to read and research what they perceive to be the lies. It's very easy and certainly not challenging to reinforce one's belief. There are references out there that do just that. It's a lot harder to study something that one believes to be in opposition to one's belief. That triggers many fears, especially where religious delusion is concerned. Not only would they experience traumatic guilt for looking into something their own belief system deems evil, but in their minds, they also believe they run the risk of certain death... for eternity!

That's where delusion comes in. Just because 2.1 billion people in this world believe something to be true, doesn't mean that it is true. Among those 2.1B folks, there are some 34,000 different sects, because they do not agree. And among these 34,000 differing christian sects, each one believes his own particular church is the only true one... the only way to eternal life!

Is delusion ever a good thing? When young children believe they have invisible friends, that seems harmless enough. I've also seen some beautiful young children with invisible playmates, but when they became mid- to late- teenagers, they showed signs of paranoia schizophrenia. One little boy who was close to my family was darling. Such a loving child in so many ways, but when he turned 13, he became unmanageable in school, not paying attention, later on to be diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. His invisible friends were always with him. When he got older, his invisible friends turned into bad associations who told him to do drugs and steal. They even turned into demons whom he feared would kill him. Once he even told me the TV talked to him and told him to "do bad things."

Of course, he had been seeing a psychiatrist for years, and was finally medicated (a little too late, I might add). He balked at taking his medication, and he even so far as to sell it on the street. He's still a sweet young man, now with a long prison record. He's also one of the most intelligent people I've ever known. I always wish him well, because I know he's had a tough existence. How much of it was actually his fault, I don't know. How much of his problem was inborn, I don't know.

My point is that when small children are entertained by their invisible friends, I just hope it is not a portend for mental illness later on.

Delusion is the lack of or avoidance of reality. There are many degrees to delusion. Maybe religious delusion is a forerunner of religious addiction. Maybe religious delusion comes with PTSD. SnakeLord can offer more information on this than I can, but I think it's something we need to be aware of early on. I wish more people would allow themselves to find awarenesses that are foreign to them, and to not be afraid to do it. There are no consequences of gaining knowledge.

 

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: In this case, the evidence you are referring to would be atheism or contradiction to religious delusion.

From Wikipedia:

"A grandiose delusion is an experience of an extremely exaggerated sense of worth, power, knowledge, identity, or relationship. Someone who is grandiose may believe he can speak to supernatural beings or that he is a supernatural being himself. This is one of three of the strong signs that help determine whether a person is psychopathic, along with superficial charm and egocentriscm."

From about.com:

"Nonbelievers may often think that religious believers are deluded, but could it be that there really is a close connection between psychiatric delusions and religious beliefs? It is true that people with identifiably mental illnesses can experience, as one of the symptoms 'hyper-religiosity,' so perhaps the line between the two is not as sharp as people normally assume."

See:

Spiritual Truth and Religious Delusions, by H. Lawrence Zillmer, Lightning Source Inc., 2006, ISBN1413494846

OTOH, in order for there to be religious delusion, there has to be unrefutable evidence for religious belief. Unfortunately, there is no proof that belief in religious phenomena and ancient mythologies are true. Therefore, all religions are man-made delusions.

See:

The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, Professor, Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University, 2006. ISBN 0-618-68000-4

"In the book, Dawkins argues that religious faith qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's observation that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion."

See:

Gale Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders, by Jennifer Hahn PhD, The Gale Group Inc., Gale, Detroit, 2003

"Religious delusion: Any delusion with a religious or spiritual content. These may be combined with other delusions, such as grandiose delusions (the belief that the affected person was chosen by God, for example), delusions of control, or delusions of guilt."

From KSL News Radio 1160 AM:

"The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill's Vicki Cottrell says religious delusions are common among people with an existing mental illness. 'We know it exists, but it's a very complicated answer. With mental illness, with bipolar disorder, with depression, with schizophrenia, you can have religious delusions.'"

"Cottrell says experts still don't know a lot about how religion plays into mental illness, and there's still debate over whether or not it can be treated."

assuming that atheists are deluded of course

 

[Grantywanty]

To be deluded there has to be evidence to the contrary, no?

if only this was what it took to be considered deluded.

 

[Grantywanty]

True, there were people who knew about healing herbs, they were usually killed as heretics or witches by the idiots who claimed the knowledge evil.
Even though the evidence was right in front of them, that the herbalist picked certain plants to make remedy they were considered evil. This is of course "ignorance" is what was deluded! And it led to the killing of many innocent women.

That battle is still being waged. Instead of the church it is now the medical industry. They don't kill anymore. But they are working on eliminating access.

In this case, "science" without out empirical evidence was ignorant, the scientist who made claims in the past without any freaking evidence were the ones who where in error, sailors had the empirical evidence of such waves, they experienced it, others who didn't believe it, had no experience of the phenomena so in essence they were neither deluded but ignorant. Scientists in the past and today are ignorant of lots of things, it's when an individual makes an absolute claim, with out any evidence "experience or empirical" that the claim if believed with such a zeal as to "die" for, is a delusion.

And this is endemic.

Well a clear definition of delusion will substantiate any claim made without any evidence, to be a delusion. Just cause one "believes" in a certain deity or a certain phenomena without any freaking evidence that does not make one instantly deluded "brain malfunction" The idea is deluded, not the individual, the zeal of the individual upon such claims will determine his delusional state of being.

See, this is where people get confused. They have no evidence they can show you or you are capable of perceiving. let's take the example of ghosts. There are many people who experience these. In ten years some little techno genius discovers a device that can pick up some kind of subtle phenomenon. Suddenly 'ghosts' are found, given a scientific name and perhaps considered slightly different by scientists - radiomagnetic echos or god knows what. Those people who saw ghosts were not deluded and then suddenly undeluded.

Again, the history of science has instances of this. Science and scientists ASSUME that sentience and the animate are the exceptions. This is just an axiom. So the burden of proof is always on those who think they experience sentience or animation somewhere scientists do not.

THIS HAS UNTIL FAIRLY RECENTLY INCLUDED ANIMALS.

If you tried to publish text or publically refer to animals as having emotions and acting like subjects and not machines, your career as a scientists was in jeopardy. Jeffrey Moussaief Masson has written a wonderful book tracking this in the scientific community. Now it is relatively OK to write about animals in this way in scientific circles. Did those of us who recognized consciousness and emotions in animals suddenly become undeluded because scientists became open to animals not being machines? (it was Descartes, by the way who made this horrible idea popular)

In other words most theist are not deluded, it's when they are very fundamentally involved in their religiosity to the extent of self mutilation, human bombers, killing in the name of their "deity" living with the illusion that prayers are answered, constantly making unsubstantiated positive claims, and ignoring the lack or no evidence with such zeal, and arrogantly claiming "they know" while others are believed to be misguided, or ignorant of their superior knowledge, it's this that I claim the theist whose behavior I've pointed above, are DELUDED!!

Most theists do not base their belief on experience. This is especially true for monotheists who do this out of habit, tradition, to follow authority. That's why they have this strange idea of faith. Knowing that is not based on evidence, experience or logic.

I am a pantheist and I base this on experience.
I am not deluded.
My inability to prove this to you does not prove I am deluded.

 

[Baron Max]

First, Baron Max, I'd like to ask where you are from? "Y'all" sounds hauntingly familiar.

The Great State of Texas!

I do believe that reality for one person may not be reality for another person or even many persons in a social dynamic.

I agree. But ....for the remainder of my post, please remember that particular bit of wisdom, okay?

This is where I would tell people they need to read and research what they perceive to be the lies. It's very easy and certainly not challenging to reinforce one's belief. There are references out there that do just that.

So what ye're suggesting is that delusional people read and research what other delusional people have to say in order keep from being delusional??? What's to say that those people who write all of the research papers aren't themselves delusional in other ways? So aren't you just attempting to change one delusion in favor of another delusion?

(Are you still remembering what you said above ...that I asked you to remember?)

It's a lot harder to study something that one believes to be in opposition to one's belief. That triggers many fears, especially where religious delusion is concerned.

Okay, perhaps. But at the same time, how does one know that what one is studying is not, also, someone else's delusions which differ from ones own delusions? Perhaps we'd just be trading delusions, huh?

That's where delusion comes in. Just because 2.1 billion people in this world believe something to be true, doesn't mean that it is true.

Then we could be reading, researching and studying the delusions of billions of other people and not have the slightest idea of what was delusion and what is reality (if there even is such a thing!). Again, it just seems as if ye're suggesting that we trade one delusion for another.

(Are you still remembering what you said above ...that I asked you to remember?)

My point is that when small children are entertained by their invisible friends, I just hope it is not a portend for mental illness later on.

I heard an interesting comment one time. In essence, it said that we all hold and cherish "invisible friends" in the very people that we call "friends" by projecting our own image of what that person is rather than the reality of that person.

Think of it this way -- how many times have you heard people say, "Oh, my god! I can't be that of "John" ...I've known him and been friends with him for 20 years and never, ever would have thought that he was a (...pick your own horror story... (child molestor, pervert, murderer, thief, dope addict, drunk, addicted gambler, child porno enthusiast, etc. etc.))!"

So just who was delusional?

Delusion is the lack of or avoidance of reality.

Who's reality?

Are you still remembering what I asked you to remember?

Should I, or anyone, trade my reality for yours in order not to appear delusional to you? But then, wouldn't I run the risk of appearing delusional to someone else? Then what do I do? How often can I keep trading these delusions just to fit in with others? And which others?

Are you being delusional in thinking that I'm being delusional? Or am I thinking that you're delusional because your delusion is different to my own delusion?

I don't know. And ya' know something, as I get older, I'm beginning to think that that's not such a bad response to issues of the world .....why have we forgotten how to say, "I don't know."? Why must we always be so quick to make judgements or decisions about issues? ...especially when we don't have all of the evidence?

I wonder what life would be like if we just continued to say, "I don't know" when confronted with new or different issues. Perhaps we wouldn't be such a divided world ...on religion, politics, war, peace, crime, sex,.......

There are no consequences of gaining knowledge.

I don't know about that. According to some reports, the inventors of the atom bomb were not so hot and pumped up about their work after they saw the aftermath of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Consequences? Yeah, I think there are many. Perhaps we just don't like to think about them, huh?

Maybe ignorance really is blissful, huh?

I mean, think about it ....if you finally discovered the truth about everything in the world, you're still gonna' die ...and you can't take it with you.

Baron Max

 

[Godless]

Okay, perhaps. But at the same time, how does one know that what one is studying is not, also, someone else's delusions which differ from ones own delusions? Perhaps we'd just be trading delusions, huh?

If someone else's assertion can be verifiable objectively by many then we know we are in complete agreement that the assertion is objectively valid. Hence If I claim I've seen an oak tree and everyone else who passes the same path, can also see the same oak tree, the tree is objective reality. Hence the freaking tree exists, n everyone can perceive it.

However if I claim I've seen a leprechaun by the oak tree, but only I can see the damn creature, it pretty much makes me look "deluded" as it's only me who perceives the leprechaun.(The observer and not others) If I'm asked to provide evidence of the leprechaun, and I mainly explain to you to have "faith" in what I say is true, that the leprechaun is there, then this a delusional zeal. As I'm already telling people to have faith, in my assertions without any freaking empirical evidence.

Then we could be reading, researching and studying the delusions of billions of other people and not have the slightest idea of what was delusion and what is reality

What you are trying, with little effort is explain that the human mind is incapable of perceiving reality. It obviously is not. Objective reality is as is, no one can change it, wish it to be some way or the other, and all who have a sense of perception will perceive the same phenomenon. However it's our sense of "emotion" how that phenomenon will interact with separate perceiving observers. Hence have you ever seen a crowd explain a car crash? you get many variants stories of the same incident, however objective reality is the accident did indeed take place!

Think of it this way -- how many times have you heard people say, "Oh, my god! I can't be that of "John" ...I've known him and been friends with him for 20 years and never, ever would have thought that he was a (...pick your own horror story... (child molestor, pervert, murderer, thief, dope addict, drunk, addicted gambler, child porno enthusiast, etc. etc.))!"

So just who was delusional?

Huh? Because a person is "unpredictable" as is everything in existence, then one can't determine the behavior of any individual no matter how well you seem to know the individual. There's no delusion here, really don't comprehend wtf you are trying to say? Just because someone doesn't know the behavior of another, does not make either delusional. At best all that you've done is described were crimes, not delusional states.

Here is a delusional state for you: You believe in god, you believe god is talking to you, you like the voice you hear, you tell others "god talks to you" others look at you weird, ask you questions, they perceive there's something wrong with you, then all of the sudden you are in a mall shooting innocent people. It comes out in the news you were a schizophrenic who believed god told you to shoot people that were shopping! THAT!! is delusional. Now your friends know that there was truly something wrong with you.

Who's reality?

There's only one reality, everyone just perceives it a bit differently.

As for the rest of the blithering nonsense I'll let M*W answer it.

 

[Baron Max]

There's only one reality, everyone just perceives it a bit differently.

How much is "a bit"? And, see, isn't that just the very idea of "delusional" here that you're trying to explain?

You might call me delusional because my reality is "two bits" too much over the line for you. But someone else might see my reality as only "a bit" different, so he won't think I'm delusional. Who's right? Who's delusional?

All I see is that you're using the old "majority rules" ideal, and for me, that just don't cut it in most any topic. The majority usually don't know what the fuck is going on half of the time, and the other half, they don't give a fuck about.

Baron Max

 

[Godless]

How much is "a bit"? And, see, isn't that just the very idea of "delusional" here that you're trying to explain?

Existence is as is, what you perceive as "objective" every conscious individual would perceive the same thing. However it's difference of how you interpret what you perceive or mine is not a delusion. It's because we are two distinctively different individuals, I don't perceive with your stupid brain, you perceive with that, I perceive with my own. Thus two different interpretation of the same phenomenon. However we can both see the objective existence of the damn tree, it's there in front of us, you see it, I see it, however we both interpret what we see differently, to you who perhaps never seen a giant tree, the tree may be giant, to me a normal one compared to a tree a car can drive through. It's the same tree it exist objectively however there exist two distinct different interpretations of the same phenomenon.

To state that you "perceive" a leprechaun by the tree is in your "imagination" if only you see the leprechaun and I don't or no else for that matter. To insist that the leprechaun is there, when no else sees it, then we get into the delusional bit! If you hear voices and no else does, no matter how hard we are trying to perceive the "sound" of the voice you claim, then we also tend to have a problem. (auditory hallucination is very common with schizophrenics) Thus a delusion!

You might call me delusional because my reality is "two bits" too much over the line for you.

I call you delusional if up hold an assumption that you can't validate with empirical evidence. Hence if you see a leprechaun peeing by the tree, but no else in the immediate vicinity can perceive it as you claim, you must provide the empirical evidence of the leprechauns existence, if you find that you can't then we got a bit of a mental problem! Thus you would be more then two bits gone on your delusion!

All I see is that you're using the old "majority rules" ideal, and for me, that just don't cut it in most any topic. The majority usually don't know what the fuck is going on half of the time, and the other half, they don't give a fuck about.

And you do?

Can you perceive the letters that you are fucking reading now, so can the majority of people reading this thread, then they can perceive I'm calling you a twit dumb ass, can you perceive that? Do you feel like a twit? Are you that fucking stupid, or do you perceive that this is only a test, I don't mean to really call you any names or not, but hopefully you can get the freaking point that everyone else just read I made a dumb ass out of you!!

 

[lightgigantic]

godless

I call you delusional if up hold an assumption that you can't validate with empirical evidence.

how is it that empirical evidence is resistant to delusion (or illusion) since the very framework it works on are the senses? (mistakes are made in empiricism all the time - in fact the progress of empiricism lies in uncovering why what we are perceiving as true at the moment is not true)

 

[Godless]

how is it that empirical evidence is resistant to delusion (or illusion) since the very framework it works on are the senses?

What you are implying here LG is that the human mind is incapable of perceiving objective reality. Since it's with our minds that we perceive the phenomenon of existence. So why do you get upset, when I vulgarly call you names, and tell you, you got your head stuck up your ass? Is this what you reading is an illusion? Is it real? Are you sensing with your eyes what I've just told you? or is it a freaking "delusion"? BTW I only did that to make a point!

What you just witnessed and felt appalled when I use vulgar language to insult you, is reality! it's real, I'm really mean it! when I tell people they are idiots, it's because they can perceive in the other side what I've just told them. It's not an illusion, you perceived it, it's real. The fact that I will probably someday will call you an idiot again will probably happen, and you will be upset about it! Why? is it not a delusion? an illusion? according to your claim that it works in the very framework of your senses? BTW I only did that to make a point! No pun intended though it's fun! LOL...

Anyhow I've got an article that if you may read, perhaps ten percent of it, you'll see where I'm coming from.

The Argument from EXISTENCE:http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE.html

 

[lightgigantic]

What you are implying here LG is that the human mind is incapable of perceiving objective reality.

in essence yes, since the human mind is limited