2 ms·
That's the age old question of a tree falling in a forest. I'm not disputing the claim that the universe exists even if there is no observer. What I'm saying i
by imiric 3y ago
That's the age old question of a tree falling in a forest.
I'm not disputing the claim that the universe exists even if there is no observer. What I'm saying is that the perception of that universe depends entirely on our senses. After all, to a blind person, the universe appears much differently. In that same vein, altering our senses by taking various substances expands our perception of the universe in a way a person who doesn't will never experience. My point is that choosing to do so or not is fine, and neither is better than the other. So my objection is to your claim that the people who do make that choice are deluding themselves, or not experiencing "true" reality.
- bowsamic 3y ago> What I'm saying is that the perception of that universe depends entirely on our senses. And there is a right way to perceive it, and a wrong way to perceive it. > After all, to a blind person, the universe appears much differently. And? They still perceive the senses they can still access accurately. > In that same vein, altering our senses by taking various substances expands our perception of the universe in a way a person who doesn't will never experience. I agree except replace "expand" with "confuses". It makes our perception of reality incorrect. > My point is that choosing to do so or not is fine, and neither is better than the other. One is objectively better than another. Try driving a car on a strong LSD trip. You can't, because it isn't allowing you to have an accurate perception of reality. > So my objection is to your claim that the people who do make that choice are deluding themselves, or not experiencing "true" reality. You haven't adequately justified your objection.