If humans had no eyes, there would be no such thing as light...
Quote:now from there to reality being dependent on the subject who observes goes another big step
Not really. However that observer wants to describe reality, that description depends very much on how the observer is. Anything we claim to be true about reality might not be true to an observer that has different conditions than humans.
I have little doubt that the universe would continue even if every human being vanished, but I am completely certain that we have no logic approach that can tell us what that universe would be like. It would not be as it is now, because that requires humans.
Quote:You see the troubles is that you mess stuff up, lack of clarity
You always had a knack for accusing others for your own shortcomings. Forget naive realistic musings about disappearing cars. The only place a car is different from a bump in the road is in the mind of humans and other living creatures. That distinction, and all other distinctions, lies in the minds of us who perceive and experience. If you remove everyone who has any use of a certain concept, that concept no longer describes anything about reality. If humans had no eyes, there would be no such thing as light...
what you would have would be a different experience or relation with light through your skin for instance sensing the eat of the sun...
the reality of light of course being exactly the same thing it is now
you see your problem is that you always refer to the relation, to the experience while I always refer to the source
Quote:you see your problem is that you always refer to the relation, to the experience while I always refer to the source
That's not my problem, it's yours. You cannot have knowledge of the source without the experience, without the relation. Your "base rock" is a perception, and as such, it's validity can be doubted. But we cannot doubt that we experience something, which suggests that reality is the relationship, not this perceived source you imagine.
Reality can be inferred not directly experienced
such abstraction proves to be to much for some people
And do you persist in your claim that when we infer what reality is, the resulting description is by no means influenced by our circumstance?
There you go again, we don't infer WHAT reality is, we infer there must be an X...
that is to say, that you believe when you start perceiving yourself as a bird you should be able to fly, obviously that is not the case
....I am saying that the conscious aspect of reality is more fundamental than the physical...
God is just as real, Her body the Universe and all its activity Her thinking
What "physical" are you talking about ? I don't know if reality it is physical or not physical