We must agree that our perceptions of objective reality are entirely subjective. For that reason we ultimately can and will argue whether or not illisions are real, whether or not the imagination is real, but by arguing that we will argue whether or not reality is real. If you want to argue that, subject, then what are we talking about? If reality isn't real, then why are we arguing in the first place? If we are going to agree that reality isn't real, then this whole conversation is pointless. If we can't agree that reality doesn't exist or exists and that it is or is not something more than subjective, then why are we talking about it? Doesn't it make this entire forum pointless? Is this not common sense? I am going to argue that existence is, and, thus there is a differenence between subjective and objective reality. I am also going to argue that space and time ARE objective reality. I am going to argue that there is a barrier between our mind and our brain and that the difference between subjective and objective reality is that barrier. I am also going to argue that, being we continue to talk about this subject, reality exists.  |