So you cannot feel the 'we'.
Because you now have two layers of relative perception. Your brain must translate the information that the electron microscope exists, and has to conclude it is functioning properly, then has to translate any information received from the instument. If there is a mispercerception at any point, the entire event fails.
Ah. The fact is, however, that you have no evidence of the information outside of your relative perception.
Allow me to give an example. You observe a red ball on the ground beside a wall. You observe a person put a blue ball on the wall, and observe the blue ball fall off of the wall. Did the red ball, thus, fall off of the wall? Could it have been placed beside the wall, instead?
Almost. First, I must assume that my wife, the anesthesia, and the pool all exist.
By my reasoning, right now. There is nothing being typed on the screen by me, for I and the keyboard and everything else do not exist. At the same time, however, it all exists, and that is what is perceived.
Reality will keep on truckin'.
Wouldn't a particle in superposition be no thing. In fact isn't it silly to refer to it as a particle or anything really. (hey, what the hell, I like a challenge)Sounds like some mighty incoherent reasoning. And you didn't provide evidence that "nothing" exists.
I see. It's not that bad. Most major manufactures can make a pretty decent electron microsocope and with regular maintenance and a spare, you aren't going to see alot of mis-observations from malfunction.
of course you aren't. There are no unperceived malfunctions
Of course I do, because I can inject a certain type of information into myself and turn off my perception.
In what way can you make an observation that does not require perception while your perception is unavailable?
If I was interested, I would ask the person how the red ball got there... just like we use science to ask reality how something happened.
Go for it. You can throw those assumptions away once you've completed the task.
I'm afraid I must first be willing to make such an assumption first.
Sounds like some mighty incoherent reasoning. And you didn't provide evidence that "nothing" exists.
many minds is usually mightier than one
Wouldn't a particle in superposition be no thing. In fact isn't it silly to refer to it as a particle or anything really. (hey, what the hell, I like a challenge)
I denounce the op and all of it's heritage.
In the absence of your perception, you have no idea what is going on.
Define mind.
You see all things as all or none, don't you? No more energy is required to generate something from nothing than it is to generate nothing from something. The two states operate inversely, and infinite energy and zero energy are used to do all such things.
If everything exists and nothing exists at all times, then flickering from one to the other should cause no environmental alteration. Another way to put it: If I don't exist then not I exists in my absence.
Are you sure about these ideas?science?
based on axiomatic formulations agreed upon by a consensus of opinion
certitude?
go to religion
True enough. But somehow many turds have just as much odor as one.
So the experiencing self, that sifted through its experience and discovered all the ideas in both religion and science is merely epi. In fact it even came up with the idea that it is peripheral. This last ought to count for something.Epiphenomena of a functioning brain.
methodology in detail please
Are you sure about these ideas?
I can't refer to any others.If by properties you are referring to the human concepts then I agree.