We're still not in synch. The issue here ( and correct me if I'm wrong ) is that there is a contention that what you call "tales" are believed by others to be true and you have gone on to offer a reason as to why you are of the opinion that they aren't true. Correct? If so, then from an unbiased point of view there is no "tale", only information that may or may not be accurate. Your accuracy test states that the information is false by virtue of the, "inexperienceable nature of the real world". But does that test apply evenly to all information? Let's try asking this question:
- If the "the inexperienceable nature of the real world" makes information about the reality of something false, is not the knowledge of the apple's existence ( seen by Jim and Bob ) also not "false"? After all it is just as directly "inexperiencable" as anything else. Correct?
I am saying the apples that Jim and Bob experience are not the real world apple. They both
know about their own apples but not the others. They can even tell stories about their apples. Jim's may be red and Bob's, who is color blind, a muddy looking brown but they are still both be looking at the same real world apple. However the real world apple has no
color as we experience color, has no solidity as we experience solidity, and so on. How do we know these things? We have developed instruments that map non-sensory events to our senses that have given us workable models of real world events, but we are still behind the barrier on the other side of the screen.
This is an oversimplification, but it illustrates my point: If
all we can do is watch a recorded television program, can we
know anything about the true nature of what we are watching, or more importantly the true nature of the studio in which it was made? We are unable to even perceive that the screen is actually displaying changing still images at such a rate they only appear to be moving. The studio is one thing, the light entering the camera another, the image processed and beamed to us as a signal of a completely different nature, the received and decoded signal sent to the display circuitry another, the actual display an entirely different thing emitting a completely different type of signal through an entirely different medium to begin a similar process of transformation, transmutation, and processing by the human being watching the screen. What is left of the event that was recorded in the studio? Did we experience that event? Do we have any real knowledge about the event in the studio or do we only have knowledge of what we perceive as displayed on our screen?
Science, religion, and philosophy peer at the images presented on the screen of human consciousness and attempt to perceive and interpret events occurring in some other form in some other time and in some other place. Living things have evolved the means to navigate their environments and nourish themselves using maps of the environment they create from their own substance. The map is not the territory and all we see is the map. Tales told of the map are of the map not of the territory. In this way they are "false" stories told about the territory, they are true tales told of the map.
I think this also describes a mechanism for paranormal activity of all kinds. The complete and absolute
otherness of the human experience (the awareness, the consciousness, the conscious mind) of our environment vs. the real environment (invisible, soundless, intangible) means that we move and have our being in a vastly inexperienced and unknown
domain in which many things exist beyond our ability to sense or reproduce in our consciousness properly or at all. Invisible structures and events surround us. Do beings and entities also exist
outside our ability to perceive or even comprehend? That is a possibility, but do those who claim to have
knowledge about beings and events outside of their ability to perceive or comprehend have any justifiable reason to do so?
When I say "Tales of the reality that exists beyond that created by the human senses in concert with the brain/mind system are logically and practically false by virtue of the inexperienceable nature of the
real world in which we actually move and have our being." I am saying, "Tales told of unreachable realms must by necessity come from that which is reachable, namely the facility known as imagination within human consciousness and not the unreachable realm itself."
A person sees an apparition of some kind, or experiences a vision of heavenly realms and other dimensions. What did they actually experience? Their mind portraying something. What does the mind do when incomplete or incongruent information is presented to it? It shoehorns it into a recognizable or "displayable" form by filling in blanks and using available material from within itself.
Why do tales of spiritual realms and other dimensions parrot the world of human experience?
To prove my hypothesis incorrect provide one
tale of some event, being, or communication which is claimed to come from somewhere other than human consciousness that has proven to be "true." Example: Joseph Smith's communication from the inter-dimensional being Moroni. The Moronic information is false and actually based on Smith's imagination and his plagiarism of other people's imagination. Scientology: "Tech" from investigations into other realms and dimensions which are actually the products of Hubbard's imagination and plagiarism as well . The Book of Urantia: Mystical communications from the masters of the universe -Bullshit on steroids. I have others.
