|
|
|
|
|
|
by JonnieCache
5467 days ago
|
|
|
To tell someone to their face that their experiences amounted to nothing more than perceptual disturbances would be at best rude, and at worst cruel, agreed. However I think it's appropriate vocabulary when attempting objective analysis of neurological/psychological phenomena. Reductionism is an inevitable and valid criticism of any such analysis. (When I said "real" in this instance I was referring to the physical existence of objects perceived, your ability to reach out and touch them. I wasn't trying to make a value judgement about the validity or authenticity of anyones subjective experiences.) |
|
|
Without getting in to a deep conversation on objectivity, neurology, and psychology, I'll just say that I don't think these issues are so clear cut as to allow anyone to definitively say that he's on the side of truth and the phenomena he describes are "nothing but X", whatever that "X" may be.
"When I said "real" in this instance I was referring to the physical existence of objects perceived, your ability to reach out and touch them."
There are plenty of things that, even according to the "scientific" world view, purportedly exist and yet can't be touched or directly percieved, such as x-rays and atoms.