Has anyone seen my horse

[the preacher]

no: it's true because, my imagination is not reality

not objectively real

agreed.

exactly, because you subjective reality is only real to you

and your point is?

no point just agreeing with you

exactly in you imagination, you can have anything you want, you can be whatever you want, you can do whatever you want,

do i imagine that i hear my thoughts, or do i hear my thoughts? are they part of my subjective reality or are they part of my objective reality? can you answer that question without turning to your own subjective expereince of yourself?

no you think thoughts, and they remain thoughts until they are uttered/spoke, which becomes a sound and can be heard, thus this becomes objective.
remember no one can read your mind.

but it's not real and never will be.

you said it was before.

could you please show me where I said my imagination was reality.

exactly, because you subjective reality is only real to you

is it real or isnt it?

yes it subjectively real to you.

 

[ellion]

could you please show me where I said my imagination was reality

you never said your imagination was reality and i never said you did.

but if you re read this part of the post, you will see where you have said that my subjective experience is in my imagination and that it is not real and never will be.

but i do not need eyes to look within myself nor ears to hear my thoughts and the self that i see and experience is much larger than the physical manifestation.

exactly in you imagination, you can have anything you want, you can be whatever you want, you can do whatever you want, but it's not real and never will be.

so i was trying to establish whether you thought it was real or not.

however i can see that we have agreed that your imagination is not reality.

and we have agreeed that subjective reality is real to the person who percieves it.

but you have then posted this

no you think thoughts, and they remain thoughts until they are uttered/spoke, which becomes a sound and can be heard, thus this becomes objective.
remember no one can read your mind.

in response to this

do i imagine that i hear my thoughts, or do i hear my thoughts? are they part of my subjective reality or are they part of my objective reality? can you answer that question without turning to your own subjective expereince of yourself?

i did not ask you if i imagined my thoughts.
i did not ask how my thoughts are created.
i did not ask if anyone else can hear my thoughts.
read the question again

do i imagine that i hear my thoughts(in my mind) or do i hear my thoughts (in my mind)?

i also asked if the thoughts that i hear (in my mind) where part of what you would consider my subjective reality or my objective reality.

dont worry about the "turning to your own subjective reality" part just yet

 

[the preacher]

do i imagine that i hear my thoughts(in my mind) or do i hear my thoughts (in my mind)?

i also asked if the thoughts that i hear (in my mind) where part of what you would consider my subjective reality or my objective reality.

sorry I misunderstood you, yes you do imagine you hear your thoughts because you dont literally hear them, it just seems that way, to imagine is to form a mental image, but in this case your forming a virtual audible sound.
and yes this is part of your subjective reality, as it only becomes objective when you thoughts become actual audible words.

 

[ellion]

sorry I misunderstood you, yes you do imagine you hear your thoughts because you dont literally hear them, it just seems that way, to imagine is to form a mental image, but in this case your forming a virtual audible sound.
and yes this is part of your subjective reality, as it only becomes objective when you thoughts become actual audible words.

and would you say that your imagination creates all of you subjective experience?

 

[TheHeretic]

"The Vatican keep a library of documented evidence for the Miraculousz"
"If there phsical evidence around us all the time then there would be no need for faith."
Hum? Im confused, religion needs no physical evidence? Bullshit. These supposed miracles give you the physical evidence. Your religion feeds on lies. Its sickning your just a puppet on a string bieng pulled by your condintioning.

 

[the preacher]

and would you say that your imagination creates all of you subjective experience?

I said, you imagine, you hear your thoughts, I did not say that imagination total controls your mind, but when it comes to subjective reality I've said it's only real to you, on several occasions.
all those thoughts/feelings that are not directly effected by objective reality are truly lodged in your imagination, they cannot be classed as anything else.

Subjective reality, which is based on the primacy of consciousness, leads to the search of truth by revelation, divine guidance. It is simply examining our internal mechanisms as a guide to reality.

There are two major sides to subjectivism which are intrinsical and Subjectivism. Intrinsical basically says that our knowledge must come from authority, and duty. Subjectivism asserts that knowledge is a matter of personal preference. Basically they are both subjectivist ideas.

A concrete representation of this viewpoint is religion, where the notion of faith and revelation, show the need to look inside one's emotions and opinions for truth about reality.Religion offers a temporary solution for a species whose awareness exceeds their understanding, but does not have any positive cognitive value.
The ethical consequence of subjective reality is subjective ethics, which means that ethics cannot be derived from reality. This leads either to emotionalism or religious doctrine.

Subjective reality = a reality which is only real to oneself. It doesn't apply to the outer world we all share.

 

[ellion]

you see the problem for me is that this statement says that subjective reality is real.

I said, you imagine, you hear your thoughts, I did not say that imagination total controls your mind, but when it comes to subjective reality I've said it's only real to you, on several occasions.

and this one says that subjective expereince is in my imagination.

all those thoughts/feelings that are not directly effected by objective reality are truly lodged in your imagination, they cannot be classed as anything else.

and in this statement

Subjective reality, which is based on the primacy of consciousness, leads to the search of truth by revelation, divine guidance. It is simply examining our internal mechanisms as a guide to reality

when you say a guide to reality are you reffering to objective reality or subjective reality?

and in this statement

A concrete representation of this viewpoint is religion, where the notion of faith and revelation, show the need to look inside one's emotions and opinions for truth about reality.Religion offers a temporary solution for a species whose awareness exceeds their understanding, but does not have any positive cognitive value

which reality do you refer to?

 

[mis-t-highs]

I've been reading this, what is it thats so hard to grasp

you see the problem for me is that this statement says that subjective reality is real.

it is to you, your own personal reality

and this one says that subjective expereince is in my imagination.

again same answer, it is to you, your own personal reality

when you say a guide to reality are you refering to objective reality or subjective reality?

subjective reality.
as it is you own person reality, is only a guide to objective reality as your subjective thoughts/feeling if based on fact, become objective reality.

which reality do you refer to?

again the same answer,the whole paragraph was with regard to subjective reality,
I quote (subjective reality, your own personal reality) "show the need to look inside one's emotions and opinions for truth" "about(objective ) reality".
it is quite obvious.

 

[ellion]

the point i am making

is that subjective experience is a valuable guide to the understanding of subjective reality.

experience of objective reality is valuable as a guide to objective reality.

and that subjective reality is not entirely an act of the imagination and does have an observable existence which can be engaged with.

 

[mis-t-highs]

the point i am making
is that subjective experience is a valuable guide to the understanding of subjective reality.

nobody said it is'nt.

experience of objective reality is valuable as a guide to objective reality.

nobody said it is'nt.
but subjective experience/reality can only be a guide to objective experience/reality.

and that subjective reality is not entirely an act of the imagination

nobody has said it is, not all your thoughts are imaginary,for instance, you could think of your mum, your mum is only a virtual image in you minds eye, but the image has solid foundation, however if you think of a fairy, that fairy is only a virtual image in you minds eye, but the image has no solid foundation, so the second image is only real to you.

and does have an observable existence which can be engaged with.

if it has an observable existence then it is objective, not subjective.

 

[the preacher]

ellion sorry, did not have chance earlier however, I noticed misty, has answered, so thank you misty, good answers I dont think I could not have put it any better.

 

[ellion]

if it has an observable existence then it is objective, not subjective.

no its not, but i cant be arsed anymore.

 

[mustafhakofi]

no its not, but i cant be arsed anymore.

I know, you cant be arsed.
but how can something solid/real.objective, which you could use either 1 or all 5 senses on, be imaginary, and vice versa how can something imaginary/not solid/subjective be real.

it seems to me your talking out of your arse.

 

[duendy]

I know, you cant be arsed.
but how can something solid/real.objective, which you could use either 1 or all 5 senses on, be imaginary, and vice versa how can something imaginary/not solid/subjective be real.

it seems to me your talking out of your arse.

your confused cause you are splitting 'subjective' and 'objective'. it is impossible NOT to be subjective. the indoctrination of mechansitic science states one can have pure objectivity, but modern physcists have shown this not to be the case at all--which greatly disturbed them

it is dangerous to believe you can be wholly objective, cause then you become like a religious fanatic cept worse!

so as for your first question, how can objective reality be imaginaRY. take the awareness of a black person by a racist. he 'SEES' 'objectively' what he 'imagines'....

yeah. do you see how you cannot split up subjective and objective?
the materialstic scientist does his shit and creates the atomic bomb....his subjectivity is found wanting, cause if it had been more attuned with what he was doing he'd have not gotten inolved

our subjectivity CRREATES the objective environment we create. we beCOME what we create. so it is a dynamic whole, subjecitivty and objectivity. when it gets dangerous for people, other species and Nature, is when the brain divides these capacities up. abstracts out 'being objective' and 'being subjective'

 

[mustafhakofi]

deundy: have you read what misty had to say and audible and the preacher, all have said similar.

and that subjective reality is not entirely an act of the imagination

nobody has said it is, not all your thoughts are imaginary,for instance, you could think of your mum, your mum is only a virtual image in you minds eye, but the image has solid foundation, however if you think of a fairy, that fairy is only a virtual image in you minds eye, but the image has no solid foundation, so the second image is only real to you.

Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
A long series of careful experiments by highly trained observers, some of them men of world-wide reputation, has fully established certain remarkable differences between the action of the subjective and that of the objective mind which may be briefly stated as follows. The subjective mind is only able to reason deductively and not inductively, while the objective mind can do both.

Deductive reasoning is the pure syllogism which shows why a third proposition must necessarily result if two others are assumed, but which does not help us to determine whether the two initial statements are true or not. To determine this is the province of inductive reasoning which draws its conclusions from the observation of a series of facts. The relation of the two modes of reasoning is that, first by observing a sufficient number of instances, we inductively reach the conclusion that a certain principle is of general application, and then we enter upon the deductive process by assuming the truth of this principle and determining what result must follow in a particular case on the hypothesis of its truth.

Thus deductive reasoning proceeds on the assumption of the correctness of certain hypotheses or suppositions with which it sets out; it is not concerned with the truth or falsity of those suppositions, but only with the question as to what results must necessarily follow supposing them to be true.

Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, is the process by which we compare a number of separate instances with one another until we see the common factor that gives rise to them all.

Induction proceeds by the comparison of facts, and deduction by the application of universal principles. Now it is the deductive method only which is followed by the subjective mind. Innumerable experiments on persons in the hypnotic state have shown that the subjective mind is utterly incapable of making the selection and comparison which are necessary to the inductive process, but will accept any suggestion, however false; but having once accepted any suggestion, it is strictly logical in deducing the proper conclusions from it, and works out every suggestion to the minutest fraction of the results which flow from it.
taken from here

you see they are split but you use them both, so no, I stand by my previous post.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

your confused cause you are splitting 'subjective' and 'objective'. it is impossible NOT to be subjective.

of course, we all use our subjective minds from time to time else nobody would have ever told a story, or wrote music.

the indoctrination of mechansitic science states one can have pure objectivity,

I dont think anybody has said that, your subjective mind is the mind of the arts, the only time the objective mind is interwoven with the subjective is when those arts become solids/music, pictures, storys, for all to see and hear.

it is dangerous to believe you can be wholly objective, cause then you become like a religious fanatic cept worse!

if you had no imagination(no subjective mind) then you would be a lunatic, you need your creative side.
but I would'nt say you'd be dangerous.

so as for your first question, how can objective reality be imaginaRY. take the awareness of a black person by a racist. he 'SEES' 'objectively' what he 'imagines'....

sorry not sure if I understand that, but if he SEES 'objectively' what he 'imagines', then what he imagined has now become objective, and is no long imaginary but real.((given that he is not the only one, who sees, touches, smells, hears, taste, what he has imagined) if it remains in is imagination, then it was not objective in the first place.)

yeah. do you see how you cannot split up subjective and objective?

no

our subjectivity CREATES the objective environment

no you got that back to front, how objective environment is.
our subjective environment is created from that.

so it is a dynamic whole, subjecitivty and objectivity. when it gets dangerous for people, other species and Nature, is when the brain divides these capacities up. abstracts out 'being objective' and 'being subjective'

and thats just plain rubbish

 

[ellion]

how can something solid/real.objective, which you could use either 1 or all 5 senses on, be imaginary.

this idea has not come from me so you may be better to look to yourself for the answer.

thought is real emotion is real but niether are observed using any of the five senses.

the valance that i use to engage with my thoughts has an auditory quality. but as someone pointed out the that auditory quality is only imagined however the thought is not imagined.

i learned a lesson from this thread, and it can be symbolized in this manner.
you cannot demonstrate to a deaf man the emotion of music, he has no concept of music and any allusions to its actaul quality are only that allusions the quality itself is incomprehensible to him, without the direct experience there is a huge void of understanding.

he who has ears to hear let him hear what the spirit sayeth.
shit am i turning xian.

 

[mustafhakofi]

thank you for replying, I'm sorry if I was rude.

this idea has not come from me so you may be better to look to yourself for the answer.

thought is real, emotion is real, but neither are observed using any of the five senses.

they are just as real to me.

the valance that I use to engage with my thoughts has an auditory quality. but as someone pointed out that auditory quality is only imagined however the thought is not imagined.

I dont think anybody said it was

nobody has said it is, not all your thoughts are imaginary,for instance, you could think of your mum, your mum is only a virtual image in you minds eye, but the image has solid foundation, however if you think of a fairy, that fairy is only a virtual image in you minds eye, but the image has no solid foundation, so the second image is only real to you.

I said, you imagine, you hear your thoughts, I did not say that imagination total controls your mind, but when it comes to subjective reality I've said it's only real to you, on several occasions.
all those thoughts/feelings that are not directly effected by objective reality are truly lodged in your imagination, they cannot be classed as anything else.[

what i credit with veracity to be real, may not be real objectively, but may be undeniably real subjectively.

exactly, because you subjective reality is only real to you

i learned a lesson from this thread, and it can be symbolized in this manner.
you cannot demonstrate to a deaf man the emotion of music, he has no concept of music and any allusions to its actual quality are only that allusions the quality itself is incomprehensible to him, without the direct experience there is a huge void of understanding.

I cant exactly agree with this, as I have some deaf friends who adore music, however I get where your coming from, it's like explaining a colour to a person blind from birth.
so I agree without the direct experience of objective reality, there would be a huge void