[alegro]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I can really appreciate your frustration. I've been experiencing it for most of this thread.

Thank you.

But I wonder ... why are you still around if it frustrates you so much? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to seek pleasure than frustration?

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The idea of a cup. The perception of the cup. The observers of the cup. All of this is subjective. Whether fifty people say the cup broke or no one says it broke doesn't matter. The object does not exist without a subject to perceive it.

Again, you are arguing philosophy of existence instead of answering my question. This paragraph you write has nothing whatsoever to do with my question.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

There is not a world in which all observers agree. We all have a particular point of view. Each view is imperfect, with holes like swiss cheese in terms of rational objective perception. But THAT is reality.

I still do not find any explanation of how this resolves the inconsistencies I have inquired about.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The consciousness comes before the objective event. Consciousness precedes the existence of a material world. Change your consciousness and you change the material world. LOA.

Is there any basis for this claim? I mean, do you know anybody who is conscious before perceiving the material world? Small children perceive the world before they are conscious.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Were there other material objects in the room when your cup broke? What are their findings? So apparently, it is relevant.

No, for the question of how it is possible that two people disagree on the same event this is not relevant.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

You are choosing to see the world as you do. If you choose differently, the world changes for you. The point herein is there is no time/space where you are not you. You choose a perspective every moment and no perspective is right or absolute. Including mine.

That is a series of claims. It is somewhat philosophical, but misses the point.

You see, I could do the same: There is an objective reality. The only thing that is subjective are our thoughts and our interpretation of this objective reality.

But if we just make claims, we won't get anywhere. So you have to come up with specific ways to distinguish the two cases. Otherwise the distinction is irrelevant.


A way to distinguish subjective reality and objective reality is to find something that would be "objective". Could you please come up with a consistent description of how two people can perceive a cup and agree that it is not broken. Then for one person the same cup drops to the floor and breaks and for the other person it does not. Finally, both people can discuss that they disagree if the cup is broken or not - one can drink from it, the other one can not.

In my "objective reality" scenario I do have a consistent description of what is going on. Maybe the "subjective reality" scenario may provide a consistent description of the situation which I am just too stupid to understand. So if you are able to explain, please do so.