Quote:
Originally Posted by John Freestone  The nature of truth is what is being debated [...] rests on the validity of whichever perspective is being defended. If one asserts objects exist independent of observers, and the other asserts that they do not, no amount of thought experiments will reveal who is right or wrong. That is why it is frustrating. For a solipsist, the statement 'A way to distinguish subjective reality and objective reality is to find something that would be "objective".' is itself meaningless. If they 'find' something 'objective' it is only a label that their subjective reality has projected outwards. |
That is a good point, indeed. Thanks for bringing it up.
I could carry this further and ask what if my reality is really subjective? Then anything I perceive as being objective is just so in my own reality.
But this argument carries within it the spawn of its own demise. If I manifested subjectively the absence of the LOA - such, that it became impossible for my thoughts to influence the material world - then there would be no way back. I could change my thoughts, but I could never undo the process and escape this objective reality. Otherwise, I would have failed to create that reality in the first place. Then it would indeed be impossible to create an objective reality and this very thing would be objective, violating the premise.
It would even be worse - there could not be any being in my reality that is both conscious and could have a subjective reality since then, again, I would have failed to manifest an objective reality.
But still ... these are just thought games. Of no practical relevance to my previous question. And of no practical relevance for anybody trying to mend broken cups or winning the lottery with the LoA ...