Oh, please, not that old canard. It depends on the logical fallacy of circularity.
No it doesn’t. It’s a way of testing your decidedly New Age notion that “State of mind has everything to do with it.”
Reality most definately is not a matter of state of mind and never was. To presume otherwise is the worst sort of arrogance beaten only by the silly posturing of theology.
Go ahead. Test it. Jump onto the railroad tracks and convince yourself that the locomotive which is barreling down on you is simply a state of mind.
Make yer peace before you attempt this.
By the way, your comment, “Just because you can’t “see” something which is in fact there doesn’t make it any less real.” is exactly what relgionists point out to Atheists when the topics of God or spirituality arise. Excuse me for not recognizing you as a religionist.
Wrong again. The arguement religionists use is the evidence of lack is not evidence of lack, which is a variation of the arguement from ignorance fallacy.
What I’m pointing to is what can be demonstrated to actually being there. Earlier you stated “There are records of aboriginals being unable to see the ship of Christopher Columbus even though it was right in front of them because they had not experienced anything like it before and so could not conceive of anything like it despite its reality.”
Well guess what, the ships were still there!!!!
State of mind was and remains irrelevant to that core reality. Whether or not the aboriginals could conceive of it is equally irrelevant to that reality.