If there are no evidence supporting the claim or "hypothesis" of the Judeo-Christain God, then the conclusion follows that there is no reason to be holding that claim. — InfiniteZero

No! If there is no evidence, "then the conclusion follows that" no conclusion can be drawn, and we must await further evidence. [Or, in this case, any evidence at all.] You are espousing the scientific and logical viewpoint, so stick to your chosen tools. There is no logical justification whatever for dismissing such a claim, nor for accepting the claim either, of course.

If you're run out of things to say on the topic that's because you haven't given the subject very much thought — Jake

I don't think so. It's just that there are a number of existential threats - the most immediate being uranium, plague or nerve gas, in everyday terms - and you wish to concentrate on only one. Environmental collapse, or a global financial crash, are equally serious, and probably more likely. [There are those who would say that environmental collapse is already unavoidable, although it will take a little more time to complete. :fear: ] I see no reason to brush these other threats "under the rug", to concentrate exclusively on nuclear catastrophe.

I will add no further comments on this sub-sub-topic. :up: — Pattern-chaser

This time, I will try harder.

We have said what we have to say, several times. This sub-sub-thread is going nowhere.

You will list other problems in an attempt to sweep nukes under the rug — Jake

No, I'll observe that nukes are one of a number of existential threats. If we concentrate on one or all of them, that's what we will spend our lives doing. It may be called rationalisation by some, but it's just common sense. Yes, a global nuclear war could start without warning, but it probably won't. I can spend my life preparing for Armageddon, or I can just live my life in the knowledge that the unknown could interfere at any time, which has always been the case, and will always be the case. I choose to spend my retirement philosophising, not digging a deep bunker in the garden. Is that sweeping things under a rug? Maybe it is. Reality is full of rugs, with all manner of nastiness under them, from previous sweepings. :wink:

That's not what the science says... :) According to numerous findings - there is no anything like a reconstruction of visual impressions anywhere in the brain... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

V1 cells are organized retinotopically, which means that a point-to-point map exists between the retina and primary visual cortex, and neighboring areas in the retina correspond to neighboring areas in V1. — BrainHQ.com

- link to article.

Your sequence is probably correct. — SteveKlinko

:smile: Perception is the interesting part, I think. But it's so hard to find stuff about it. Most of what's on the net is naive kiddie science. Like the stuff about eyes that makes them sound like full-motion video cameras. :roll: If anyone has any links on perception (processing of sense data prior to conscious consumption), I'd love to see them! :up: :chin:

For example infinite time implies anything can happen will happen an infinite number of times which is absurd. — Devans99

It is? I think it's just a consequence of infinity, which is a very odd 'number' indeed. In scrabbling to make sense of infinity, some silly things happen. So, in a genuinely infinite amount of time, anything that can happen, will happen an infinite number of times. This isn't absurd, it's logical. But we just used "infinity" to mean two different quantities in one sentence. Didn't we? Maybe INFINITY is absurd? That certainly seems possible.... :chin:

But regarding morality I do think there are certain common properties that apply to every human agent, if not rational agent. I mean, how else would we all agree that murdering innocents is wrong? — InfiniteZero

There is always some extreme circumstance that breaks every rule such as this one. Consider a tribe whose membership has outgrown the locally-available food supply. Killing the children - or the old people, or some other portion of the tribe's population - could become necessary for the remainder not to starve. In this, admittedly extreme, case, it is right to kill innocents, so that the rest might survive. I do not argue this case strongly, I only observe that even the most obvious moral rules do not always apply, and I offer this somewhat unpalatable fiction as an example.

Nonetheless, subscribing to moral relativism as such seems like a loss, and it is a losing battle itself, given the paradoxes it may create through conventionalism. If one subscribes to conventionalism, then one is tolerant to the conventions of other societies. One follows the rules and moral code of the society you are a part of. However, if one society's convention is to be intolerant, one comes in the dilemma of following the convention of the society of being intolerant, meaning you no longer subscribe to a moral relativism. This is one of several other problems relativism may face, such as being part of more than one societies and having to follow conflicting conventions and such. — InfiniteZero

I don't think we subscribe to moral relativism, do we? Isn't it closer to the truth to say that we observe moral relativism in our populations? Couldn't further observations see that this doesn't always work, as your exemplary intolerant society doesn't. Here it is societies that you are using as an example, so let's stick with them.

No society that I can think of would ever declare subscription to moral relativism. They would act at a much more detailed level, I think. For example, rather than declare loyalty to moral relativism, a society might pass a law making murder punishable by imprisonment. And that society would soon discover that the law mainly worked, but that the occasional murder still took place. It might subsequently recognise that there are circumstances where society requires its members to murder other humans, probably members of some other society. And so on.

I see no paradoxes, and no problems. What I see are rules that do not always apply in the real world. So we recognise these 'rules' as approximate guides to what happens in the real world, and we carry on carrying on. We don't bemoan the inability of the world to follow our rules, we formulate better rules, or (more likely and more practically) accept that the rules are followed some, but not all, of the time. Could we call this 'real world relativism'? :chin: :wink:

And I think at least regarding those three areas, religion in its plurality cannot offer objective epistemic content the way philosophy and science in general may. Of course on an individual level, religion may offer something else to people who do not seek cosmological, metaphysical or ethical knowledge from it, but rather the spiritual, traditional and cultural aspects of it. — InfiniteZero

Yes, religion does not (IMO) offer "objective epistemic content". It isn't that type of thing. :smile: I find that religion confirms and supports some fairly basic (as in fundamental) beliefs that I hold. I had always assumed that was the same for everybody, but that's probably a misunderstanding on my part. :wink:

However, certain "ultimate" truths or "objective" truths that we consider science to offer cannot be arbitrary, at the very least, the data cannot be arbitrary, only our interpretation of that data is. — InfiniteZero

Here, you must mean by "objective" something more than merely unbiased. If this is so, then science does not offer objective truth, it offers pragmatic truth. It does not and cannot consider Objective Reality, whatever that might be. It concerns itself, sensibly and pragmatically, with the world our senses and perception show to our minds. If that world should happen to be Objective Reality, all well and good. If not, it doesn't matter, since the reality we 'see' is the only one we have. Science (IMO) quite reasonably and rationally confines its work to that consistent and testable world, whatever its absolute nature.

So yes, in the sense that I describe, science offers pragmatic and testable knowledge of 'the world'. Objective? Maybe; maybe not. :smile: But not the same as what religion offers, as you suggest. :up:

However, in regards to understanding the true nature of the universe, and also an ethics that may be applicable to every human being, we would need certain non-arbitrary truths or axioms as a foundation to build on I think. Otherwise, moral relativism reigns true, and I don't think that's desirable. — InfiniteZero

Interesting. :up: You subscribe, then, to an Objectivist viewpoint (in general), and also to objective ethics/morality too. My own view is more open to uncertainty, as I believe Objectivity to be unattainable (for humans). But how to relate this to religion, and the topic here? If you seek universally-applicable truths, as you seem to be, I can't see how religion could benefit you at all. :chin: Not because it can't provide - or claim to provide :smile: - universal truths. There are a few religions that claim to provide exactly this, I think, but the foundation of these truths does not meet your standards or needs, I suspect?

As for moral relativism, I'm not sure it can be avoided, in practice. There is no universally-accepted morality. People think/believe all kinds of things, so many kinds that it is difficult even to imagine how we could agree on one morality. That's not that there is no morality, or that all moralities must be considered equal. I can't abide silliness like that. But judging one morality superior to another is problematic, maybe impossible. How to compare such things as morality? :smile: It would be more convenient if you were right, and morality is objective, but I don't think that's so, despite the convenience. :smile: The same goes for "understanding the true nature of the universe". :wink:

There is a part of Hinduism that does make that claim yes, and coming from an Indian family myself, I have some minimal knowledge on this to verify that claim. And the statement really is this: "only a fool thinks there is only one God" or something like it. — InfiniteZero

Thank you. :up:

However, to me, being an agnostic, I would go even further and say that "only a fool would try to make claims about God". — InfiniteZero

Religious people regularly make claims about God, some of them quite harmless and uncontentious, but only the unwise make specific claims about the nature or intentions of the unknowable. :up: Oops: IMO. :wink:

...it would seem pointless to make epistemic claims or create different images of the "one true God" when we as humans are in principle never going to be in an epistemic position to have access to "It". — InfiniteZero

Hee-hee. :smile: This is one of my main arguments as to why hard-Objectivity is merely an intellectual distraction. We "are in principle never going to be in an epistemic position to have access to" 'it'. :up: :wink:

Shame there's no 'like' button on this forum. :wink:

Unlike errors, which can always be corrected for, and are thus ‘extrinsic’ to thought, the trivial and the arbitrary are instead ‘internal’ to thought itself; Thought, to the degree that it can think anything it wants without motivation, is always in danger of triviality, which cannot simply be corrected for by providing more facts and better resources. It is this internal and intrinsic danger of thought that Deleuze dubbed ‘stupidity’ — StreetlightX

I went back to the OP, to read carefully what this topic is about. I hope I've chosen appropriate words?

My response to this is simple: how do we recognise "the trivial and the arbitrary", and distinguish it from that which is worth thinking about*?

* - In whose opinion...? :chin:

If we are to discover new knowledge, it will necessarily not be a part of our current knowledge, so it will seem unorthodox; it will not agree with currently-held knowledge. How do we continue to make new discoveries, and also avoid "the trivial and the arbitrary"? :chin:

Let's just say - because I have no desire to talk about brains in vats - that the idea for this thread did not develop in a vaccum. :eyes: — StreetlightX

No, I didn't want to talk about brains in vats either. I asked if we could look more generally, at speculations that were possible, but came without evidence. Sadly, most other contributors did not wish to direct their attention there. I hope this thread is progressing more to your liking? :wink: :up:

What is literally inexpressible... — Posty McPostface

I'd answer you, but I can't express the answer. :wink: :up:

But the whole idea of 'prosperity without growth' is contrary to capitalist economics. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think this is the problem. Continuous-growth economics cannot work in a system with finite resources. Like our Earth, for example. For years I have been amazed that this is not a phrase on everyone's lips. It is the reason for nearly everything we humans have got wrong in our treatment of our world. IMO, of course. :wink:

One thing Science is pretty sure about is that there is lots of Neural Processing that happens before a Conscious experience happens. — SteveKlinko

That's what I call "perception", but maybe I use the term incorrectly. :chin: First there is sensation - input from the senses - then there is perception - (extensive) 'processing' of the sensory input - and the end results are passed to the conscious mind, apparently fully-formed. Perception, like sensation, is pre-conscious and unconscious. We have no awareness of it, but we deduce (maybe wrongly? :chin:) that it happens.

That's not what the science says... :) According to numerous findings - there is no anything like a reconstruction of visual impressions anywhere in the brain... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

Then either the science is lacking, or we deserve a detailed explanation of how we seem to 'see' mental images, if they don't exist. Despite aphantasia, I 'see' visual images in my mind. If this is an hallucination, I'd be interested to know why and how.... :chin:

I think polytheism might be superior to monotheism. Monotheists tend to be rigid about being right... — Bitter Crank

I would take it farther, and recommend pan-theism. I think the Hindus claim that all 'Gods' recognised by humans reflect one or more aspects of God, who is so far above us that we cannot understand Her directly. So we use these avatars to make it easier for ourselves. If the Hindus don't say that, I apologise, but *I* believe it, so I respect Thor, and Jesus too. And all the others, of course. God is God; it's our human way of understanding that limits things. Hail Eris! :wink:

Just my view, of course. YMMV. :up:

But do you think you might as well have been a Zoroastrian, Wickan, or Shinto for instance if influences from these religions came into your life and affected your way of thinking about the knowledge regarding metaphysical, cosmological and ethical truths? — InfiniteZero

If the religions you mention had a specific influence on me - one that I found helpful - then I might have gravitated in their direction, if that's what you're asking? :chin: For myself, I do not equate religion with "knowledge" about anything. I look at religion, and God, differently from that.

I won't get in too deep, but I will offer this: I assert that God exists, but I also assert, in much the same way, that Harry Potter exists, and that Theresa May exists. Of course, each of those assertions exercises a different shade of meaning of "exists", but that's OK. Religion is about feelings, emotion and wisdom, but not much about intelligence or knowledge. That's how it works for me. Your approach might be quite different, and I would not call you 'wrong'. :wink:

...if in the thought experiment, the choice one makes is arbitrary, then the truth one has about cosmology, metaphysics and ethics is arbitrary. However, I think we all agree that truth and knowledge is non-arbitrary. — InfiniteZero

Truth and knowledge are problematic. No, they aren't arbitrary, but they can - how can I say this? :chin: - take on different guises in different circumstances/contexts, or for different people. Scientific knowledge is far from arbitrary. In other areas of human thought and understanding, knowledge is less well defined, and less rigidly confined, perhaps? :chin:

...some other religion or really any type of spiritual view that may claim to explain "God's being" and cosmology, metaphysics and ethics. — InfiniteZero

Religions offer some of these things to some people, but I'm not sure they are universally recognised features of religion, are they? :chin: For me, at least, God says little of cosmology, and maybe not that much metaphysics...? :confused:

The main distinction that you seem to be ignoring here is, our pets cannot survive on their own. — chatterbears

Well yes, but what is the cause of this? Could it be that there is no "wild" for them to live in any more? If we consider dogs, and their 'wild' cousins, wolves, there is nowhere they *could* live. We have paved the wild, and built houses on it. There is no room for wolves (or wild dogs) in our human-dominated world. If there was, I offer the suggestion that dogs could survive quite happily in the wild. :chin:

If we have a hypothetical situation with a person who's entirely non-religious, and have that person gain knowledge about all the religions there are in this world. How can that person justifiably pick one over the myriad of religions to choose from? — InfiniteZero

I'm not at all sure that's how it happens. :chin: Please don't misunderstand me. I offer my thoughts, the thoughts that your words evoked in me, but they have no authority, divine or otherwise. :smile: I don't think people start off looking for religion. I think it finds them. Or, as you have already observed, they were brought up in a faith, and stayed with it.

For myself, I was raised Roman Catholic, although I turned my back on it as soon as I became old enough to make that decision for myself. For some years, I acknowledged no religious belief. But gradually, I found belief in myself, still there, but not in the RC God. Now, if a form requires that I fill in a box marked "religion", I put "Gaian Daoist". It's just something I made up to describe my spiritual beliefs. I might just as well said "hippy" or "tree-hugger", I suppose. :smile: Nevertheless, I believe. I'm not aware of seeking out the things I believe in; it just sort of happened. :wink:

Any help? :chin:

P.S. Not all religions claim to know the One and Only Truth. Those that do, require their followers to accept their Truth, and to reject all others. There, there is a contradiction. But not all religions are like this. The Sikhs are instructed by their gurus to respect the religious beliefs of others. The Eastern religions look more like moral philosophies to Western eyes, but it is common in the East for (say) a Buddhist to quote (say) a Taoist text. Any contradiction or incompatibility between religions seems less important there. :chin:

Yes, I see what you're saying. :up: But when you say "usage doesn't always correspond with abuse", I wonder. :chin: If we had masters who kept us captive, and forced us to do certain things, even if they are things we might have chosen to do for ourselves, would we feel used? Would we feel like slaves? Would the use of our masters seem like abuse to us? I rather think it might.

I know many people - people who genuinely love animals - who have pets. Or animal captives, if I'm being provocative. We've used animals for so long now (millennia...) that we don't even notice that we're doing it, I think. We love our dogs; we have five. (!) But they cannot come and go as they wish; they are captives. Morally, is this OK? That's what I'm asking. ... And my answer is: I'm not sure. (Yeah, I know, lacking decisiveness. :smile:)

every ideology that's ever been invented seems to inevitably subdivide in to warring internal factions. The universality of this phenomena is a very useful clue trying to tell us that the peace and unity we're looking for can not be found in philosophies, in the content of thought. — Jake

Quite possibly. :up: But there are other explanations that also seem (to me) to recommend themselves. For example, perhaps the problem lies with humans, not directly with thought, or its content? I'm sure there are quite a few other possibilities too.... :chin:

In this case, the context is mathematics, and the axioms associated with number theory. :roll:
15m — Pattern-chaser

"2" referred to the US. "1" referred to Australia. The greatness spoken of was moral fortitude.

Why did you think the context was math? Stick with me. I'll get you straightened out. :wink: — frank

C'mon! :smile: You offered a statement without context, and challenged me to guess what it was. Now you come out with some cobbled-together story about how it concerned something quite different, demonstrating that context is very much present in your example, and that its importance to the meaning of the statement offered is central. Context applies to almost everything, as I said, and as you seemed to be denying.... :chin: I don't think I will be taking up your offer - to straighten me out :wink: - any time soon. :smile:

A nuclear attack is not imminent. — S

No, it isn't, but one might argue that the threat is. :chin: Either way, there are a number of serious - species-threatening or world-threatening - things that we might chose to be concerned about. Nuclear war is one of them. Is it really worth arguing any more about this? I think not, and I will add no further comments on this sub-sub-topic. :up:

Consider the proposition that two is greater than one. Could you explain in what sense you take that proposition to be context dependent? — frank

In this case, the context is mathematics, and the axioms associated with number theory. :roll:

I deny that the discussion is transcendentally stupid. [...] I do not see how calling an idea transcendentally stupid is anything more than a fancy way of saying that you do not like certain topics, and adding the - in my view fantastic - idea that the capacity to discuss topics which you don't like is woven into the nature of human thought itself.

Still, the idea of transcendental stupidity is itself an interesting idea. — PossibleAaran

I have rarely seen such a well-worth-reading post. :up: Thank you.

Metaphysics is awesome — StreetlightX

Real gold. ;-) — Wayfarer

Me too! I have always :heart:-ed metaphysics.

propositions aren't context dependent — frank

Lol. — StreetlightX

↪StreetlightX
What's funny about that? — frank

Well, you see, ... propositions are usually context-dependent. So much so that it's almost a law. More or less everything is context-dependent. So when you say "propositions aren't context-dependent", the most likely interpretation of what you say is that it's a joke, and so we laugh. That's what's funny. Your joke. :wink:

Humans being meat eaters isn't what is wrong. It is that we actively impose on Nature the nightmare that is industrialized mass breeding and slaughter. — Akanthinos

Yes, although I would go farther. :up: I'm not so opposed to us being carnivores, as so many other species are. The mass breeding and slaughter is bad, but I'm more worried about the less necessary (to humans) things, such as how we treat (just one example) horses. We enslave them, break them, and force them to carry the weights we choose not to. If we ate them, I could live with that, but this is just slavery. I thought we abolished slavery some time ago. :fear: We use animals (plants and fungi too), we don't respect them or live with them.

We treat other living creatures with the moral respect we extend to concrete.... :chin:

I seems that for Sensory input that there has to be Neural Activity before the Conscious experience happens. — SteveKlinko

Whatever else it is, perception - the 'processing' of sense data - is Neural Activity. :up:

But there is no preventable threat to civilization which compares to the threat presented by nukes in terms of scale and immediacy. Nothing else can convert the modern world in to chaos in less than an hour. — Jake

In fairness, I think chemical and biological weapons come very close to the imminent threat that nuclear weapons present. And if the timescale is extended just a little, there is the forthcoming famine and drought, as our soil collapses [ link ], and there isn't enough drinkable water to go around. [ link ] Then there is pollution of all kinds, or rather the effects of that pollution (e.g. micro-plastic granules in the earth, water and air....) on the living world, and all of the effects that climate change is starting to create. Hurricane Florence, for example. The list is extensive, and I venture to suggest that none of these life-threatening and species-threatening things are taken seriously enough by us humans.

But we also shouldn't forget the possibilities for the rest of the life on Earth, aside from humans. To them, by far the greatest threat is humanity, the creatures that have annihilated - and this is only one example! :fear: - 75% of all flying insect species in the past 25 years, and the carnage is still accelerating, not slowing down.

The world is filled with really serious, preventable (mostly), threats. Nuclear war is one of them.

How can the hypothesis be falsified? — HuggetZukker

Not all hypotheses can. This is upsetting for scientists, but philosophers can continue applying their considered thought in such a case. Only scientists must grind to a halt. And surely no-one would be rash enough to attempt to investigate consciousness using science? :razz:

Well, it has been roughly two hours since I submitted my last comment in this discussion, and nuclear war hasn't broken out yet. Odd. :chin: — S

Don't be trite! :wink: :joke: Because nuclear war is possible, doesn't mean the threat can be dismissed because it didn't happen within the space of a few hours. For myself, I believe that the loss of 75% of flying insect species in the last 25 years is more serious than a nuclear war that had already broken out. A 'limited' nuclear war could be survived by most living things on the planet. [Admittedly, a bigger war would be much more pervasive and damaging.] But I wonder if humanity can be survived by all the other living creatures? I don't think we could destroy all of them, but we could destroy enough that it would take life millions of years to recover. There are other threats too. Nuclear war is definitely one of them, but only one.

The other sort is underdetermination by all possible evidence. In such a case, no matter how much effort we expended, we could never get any evidence that would settle which theory is true. If BIV and RL were cases of underdetermination - and I say they aren't - they would likely be cases of underdetermination by all possible evidence. — PossibleAaran

I think maybe they are ("cases of underdetermination"), but addressing this point requires us to dive deeply into the eternal subjectivity/objectivity debate. This can often be fun, but it's also hard work trying to get Objectivists to admit that they have no direct (Objective) access to Objective Reality. By the time any kind of agreement is reached, the original point of discussion is long forgotten. So let's not, eh? :wink:

[I don't mean to brand you an Objectivist; you seem quite rational to me. :smile: But Objectivists are drawn to heresy (in their eyes) like moths to a flame. :smile: Just look at what happened in this thread, which barely touched on the matter. :wink: ]

My own preference is quite old fashioned. If there is no reason to prefer one hypothesis over another, do not choose either. Suspend judgement. — PossibleAaran

Very wise. :up: And logical. :smile:

I see that your own suggestion is to admit that we have no reason and yet still prefer one hypothesis if it is more useful to us for some purpose. — PossibleAaran

Yes, but I suggest my own course (as above) because there is no more justified one. To me, it is more important to admit I don't know, rather than to pretend that I do. That way, I am less likely to start reasoning on the basis of my unfounded assumptions because I've forgotten that they're just guesses, and no more than that. Painful honesty is something we autists often exhibit; perhaps I'm doing that here and now...? :chin: :smile: :wink:

power is not the only criterion of explanation. Simplicity is another and I argued that RL is simpler than BIV... — PossibleAaran

...and, by applying Occam's Razor (a rule of thumb; a guessing-aid), you chose RL. Fair enough. But this is little different from my choosing the one that we find to be most useful. Simplicity versus utility.... :wink:

Having no means to assign probabilities of correctness to either speculation, we have no means to compare them. We can say that they are not both correct, as they contradict one another. We can say that one or both of them could be incorrect. Logic allows no further justified conclusions, isn't that so? :chin: — Pattern-chaser


To which I say: No, that is not so. RL is more probable than BIV, because of the argument I gave earlier in this thread about the superiority of RL as an explanation of sensory experience. — PossibleAaran

I'm sorry if you think I have been negligent. I have tried to limit my responses to posts like this because they are so far off-topic, and also because their truth or falsehood is impossible to confirm.

But to answer you directly: RL and BIV are identical in their explanatory power. Both account completely, and without contradiction, for the human experience that results from either one of them being true.

RL and BIV are not what this topic was about. They are examples of a particular type of speculation that I wanted to consider more closely. Neither BIV or RL had anything at all to do with this topic, except that they were good examples.

I deny that all - in your terms - inference is unreliable. — PossibleAaran

Yes. :blush: I mistook inference for induction. My mistake, for which I have already apologised. Think of it as a senior moment on my part, if you're feeling kind. :wink:

I'm unsure of the continuing purpose of the thread honestly. — Jake

I agree. There has been some examination and discussion of the matter, which is better than I'd hoped, if I'm honest. :smile: So let's end it here, and thanks to everyone who has contributed. :up:

My point is RL is still present in the BIV context. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And my point is that BIV and RL are both examples of speculations that don't come with evidence. Their truth or falsehood is not the subject of this topic. To sort out our relationship with Objective Reality is much, much, more than I am attempting here. :wink:

If we are to dismiss something, I think we should know WHY we are doing so, not just rely on knee-jerk assertions. Either that or admit clearly that we are acting illogically, without a basis in reason or rationality. At least that is honest. :wink:

To suppose an illusion indistinguishable from reality is like claiming an ocean submerged within another ocean. Where's the logic in that? — BrianW

Consider an illusion that an omniscient creature could see through, but that is completely convincing to you.... :chin:

everything stated to happen in RL here also happens in BIV account. The measure of "I am in my apartment, etc." is given by the BIV world too (that is, my body in the experiential world in my apartment of the experiential world). In this BIV, the person is still in the ordinary world. They have been all those places (there body, as experienced was there). Being BIV would just be an extra fact they might not know about. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, exactly. Although an omniscient creature could tell RL from BIV, we cannot. :up: