My original statement was that the subjective and the objective are two interdependent aspects of reality. Subjects are objectively real and objects are subjectively sensible.
I'm not sure what you mean by "subjectively sensible". Do you mean that we can sense them? By ourselves? If so then, say, electrons aren't subjectively sensible.
I think we can agree that brains and physical universes that are not observable do not exist.
No, I don't think we can agree on that, if you mean what I think you mean. If there are regions of the universe which are beyond our observation and the observation of any other life forms which may exist in the universe, then I would contend that that universe still exists, even though nobody would know of it.
No evidence that YOU have personally experienced. You're taking the claims of other people that there is no evidence on faith. I've communicated and interacted with conscious entities that did not have material brains -- at least none that were present during our interactions. I've all the evidence -I- need to convince me of the falsity of your "no evidence" hypothesis.
Then I'm back to where I started in this conversation - the untrustworthy nature of subjective experience and the proven track record of empiricism. Once more, science demonstrably works. Without question, it works. Spiritualism, or whatever you want to term what you're talking about,
has never been demonstrated to work, and has never achieved anything palpable.
Then "spirits" without material bodies are not superstitions.
No, that logic doesn't follow, I'm afraid.
Yet I've gained objective veridical knowledge from such encounters. All I'm getting from you is hearsay that such things are not possible.
Actually, I'm citing any number of scientific studies into the working of the brain, not hearsay. What you've just presented me with is hearsay.
Still, if what you say is true and you can repeat this feat, then there's a million dollars waiting for you.
I mean the 'external' world that modern science currently studies is analogous to WoW and "souls"/"spirits" are analogous to the material bodies of the users. The bodies do not exist within the frame of the VR world so searching for them there or trying to explain them purely in terms of the physics of that world is a futile exercise.
On what are you basing this?
My point was just as how one can accumulate a body of scientific knowledge concerning the 'external' world thru our sensory organs one can also do the same for the 'interior' world via introspection -- i.e. studying consciousness from the 'inside'.
Yes. And, as I pointed out, and which you have thus far ignored,
this hasn't been done. No such body of scientific knowledge exists, nor even a consensus about the spiritual. Why do you suppose this is, given that the spiritual has been around for thousands more years than science has?
Like I mentioned earlier, "supernatural" is just a relative term for anything that seems to operate outside the bounds of what one considers physically possible; like a slight of hand trick it violates an individual's sense of reality, only in a much more radical way. I, and many other people, have experienced things that, according to your conception of what is possible, should not be. To you those things are "supernatural" anecdotes. To me they are empirical proof that our scientific models of reality are woefully incomplete.
I think you're equivocating with the word "empirical", here.
]
