I find that fractional separation of the
> mind into categories of real and unreal are rather
> difficult compromises of the whole brain/body
> experience that we humans actually consider as
> fundamentally actual,
Susan, you quoted my statement but did not comment on it. Is it possible that you had no comment because you did not consider the question valid, or responsive to anything in your categories of intelligible queries?
I just want to know two things: you always say that other people's INTERPRETATION is suspect. Another thing you always proscribe is the "100% verifiable and confirmed evidence of all objective tests" as the contention of your viewpoint.
I would like to be you, for a moment. Yes, interpretation is the key component to actual reliable proof of any mental assignment of inference. And yes, 100% verifiable evidence, by whatever mechanical means, supposedly if that means is calibrated by a sensor of meticulous accuracy, is the ONLY ABLE MEANS of providing a concensus to the test at hand.
Now, I do not dispute any preference one way or another. It is, or it is not; a peculiar compromise in this consideration. What I am after is the SUSPICION OF VALIDATION through all possible scenarios of exoneration and clarification of the matter at hand; namely, the test of individual subjectivity and testimony, were they superficial or extraordinarily adept at providing a result that composes both a viewpoint and a HISTORY of completeness in the core of such investigation. I do rather prefer a result that can be reworked by other tests of actuality. It is paramount that physical conditions be satisfied in every test of each, and every, test of the experience of a person's "information".
I think that, imperceptibly, a person CAN ONLY GIVE THEIR INTERPRETATION at any given moment according to their current bias of knowledge, and cannot be distinguished as either superior or inferior to the model of factual indices of individual perceptions. It is more than an individual stake on mental reliabllity can do, considering the outcome of "interpretive" testimony that comes with each and every person due to their own evolutionary development in due process of mental states of subjectivity.
The objective is temporary in it's fleeting test measurements at the time of gauging the status of a claim of personal conviction. The subjective, elongated station of a lifetime interpretation is far reaching and lasting than a mere test for an hour to prove that person's experience as valid, or not.
Is it not more comforting to know that a person's "take" on any subject is a reasonible explanation for their life purpose, rather than a conflicting attitude of concern for their well-being? As it is said, "let it be".
You may, or may not, convince me of another, elusive and temporary test of quality of interpretation, but I am convinced, thoroughly that a person's testimony is valid, within their own rights as a person. I concur with such a testimony, even yours, in liberty of conscience and contemplation (the long thoughts of personal intuition).
There it is: no more, no less.