Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

Interpretation of experience gathered through imperfect human perception and interpretation is subjective and vulnerable to a host of internal biases, and to acknowledge that is only to acknowledge reality, not to contradict oneself. It is only as a shared interpretation develops that objectivity emerges.Objectivity also requires reliably establishing that all are interpreting the same phenomenon, something not possible with internal spiritual experience.So while you can claim shared interpretation as support for your spiritual beliefs, so can literally billions of others for different spiritual beliefs, completely invalidating all such claims. And the inability to establish that common spiritual beliefs are actually about the same phenomenon completely removes the possibility of any objectivity.While it is extremely common throughout the world and throughout all time, there seems no spiritual necessity for people to seek an objective foundation for their spiritual beliefs. It is instead out of worldly necessity that some try to convince others that their spiritual beliefs are the only ones in the world that are right.--Percy

What you appear to prefer to do is not ask the question "Is this objective?" but rather "Is this a valid hypothesis?" and to answer "yes".Scientifically it's only a valid hypothesis if you can answer affirmatively to the question "Is this objective?" But you can't claim objectivity for a subjective hypothesis, and the inability of religious belief to converge upon a common interpretation even after thousands of years makes the subjectivity very clear.The IPU is a hypothetical. It's a stand-in for religious beliefs that you reject as clearly false, and it's extremely useful, necessary even, because it removes the difficulty of identifying a real set of religious beliefs that everyone in a discussion rejects. The IPU's only purpose is to help move the discussion forward by playing the role of the "clearly false religion". It's not supposed to be a real religion with real adherents. It's a hypothetical religion with hypothetical adherents that serves as an aid to discussion.--Percy

To others you appear to be arguing that subjective approaches can lead to objective knowledge. In this you are no different from the legions of people who think their religious beliefs actually find expression in the real world.Your belief is very common, I'm sure many of us here have very similar beliefs. But a la Feynman we must recognize that the easiest person to fool is ourself, and that just because the way we happen to be made has in our minds set the "this is true" indicator for some cockamamie beliefs doesn't mean we're going to give them any credence. Discipline requires that we subject all hypotheses to rigorous objective analysis.--Percy

This is the position that Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot argument refuted long ago. And you can't argue that you're not seeking objective knowledge when you make understanding aspects of reality your goal.Like those utterly convinced that perpetual motion machines are possible, you're just as utterly convinced that objective knowledge can be gained via subjective approaches, and just as immune to persuasion.We understand the way it feels to you. What we don't understand is why for you a little introspection doesn't tell you that it's just the way you're wired and that it isn't any reflection of the real world.--Percy

I think confusion is arising because you're using a different definition of reality, and at times you may even be equivocating between two different definitions. In this discussion we need a word which means "that which is true and the same for everyone," and I've been using the word reality to mean this.But you're claiming there are aspects of reality that are subjective, which means they aren't true or the same for everyone. That's a different definition of reality, and not the correct one in my opinion, but what particular word we use to mean "that which is true and the same for everyone" is not important, as long as we're not torturing the English language. If you want to come up with another term I'm open to suggestions, we just need clear terminology to distinguish between what I mean when I say "reality" versus what you mean when you say "reality".What you learn from your subjective studies may be true for you, but it isn't true for everyone, and therefore it isn't true of, let me call it, objective reality.--Percy

This isn't a useful definition for this discussion because it contains no criteria for establishing which ideas are true about reality. If we're not talking about objective reality, that which is true for everyone, then we're not talking about the same thing. You cannot turn something false into something true by careful phrasing. Increasing our understanding of objective reality cannot be achieved via subjective methods because by their very nature their conclusions are not true for everyone.--Percy

Once again, the IPU is a hypothetical, like the celestial teapot. It's not supposed to have actual people who believe it exists. It's a stand-in for things like alien visitations and gods and perpetual motion machines that has the advantage that you won't get drawn down rat holes by people who actually believe they're real. As Modulous put it at one point, they're ideal examples of unfalsifiable entities.So yes, of course you can argue that there are no actual shared experiences of the IPU. THAT'S WHY IT WAS CONCOCTED!!! To illustrate the error of concluding from shared beliefs that there is actually some possible reality for things for which there is no objective evidence.The length of some of your posts makes clear that you're putting a great deal of time into this (or are an incredibly fast thinker and typist), but remaking your entire argument from scratch while rebutting every key point you can think of every ten or twenty posts actually works against you. It's like you're trying to fend off counter-arguments with blizzards of words.--Percy