posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 03:41 PM
So, here is another thing to think about.
What I perceive, what I observe - I know to be true. This is the prime, the core, the root belief.
However, my ability to perceive is based not only in physical faculties, but also on my mental faculties. Both of which can be influenced by internal
and external forces. In addition, that which I can perceive is not what you can perceive. Even video evidence is inconclusive, as the video recording
device does not perceive exactly what I perceive.
Thus, when I say I "saw" a demon in an empty room, I may have actually "seen" a demon in an empty. But the person standing next to me did not "see"
anything and the video camera only "saw" an empty room. Does that make what I perceived wrong? What if there were 10 people in the room and saw the
demon, and 10 people in the room who did not? Would the corroboration be sufficient to serve as proof or would it be evidence of mass-insanity?
Synethestasia is an awesome neurological condition. Seeing sounds or hearing colors. Does that mean that what the person with synesthesia is wrong? Or
does it mean that everyone else, who does not have synesthesia is wrong? Where is the ultimate truth?
There is an interesting study (don't have the links), that followed individuals who claimed to "see demons/angels". Whenever they saw the demon/angel,
parts of their brain would light up, in addition to causing a cascading reaction in their optical and auditory processing centers - many times leading
to the person being studied to have an ep. For the person who "saw" the entity, their perception was real - they saw and heard the "demon/angel".
So the question then becomes, did the person who "saw" the entity not really "see" the entity even though, for all intents and purposes the person
perceived the entity as real? By what definition are we then holding the experiences of one as "TRUTH" over another?