I think arnoldg is trying to lead a discussion into a particular conclusion he has in mind. I’m not sure if English is his first language, though. If I get what he’s trying to convey is that if observation and thought are indistinguishable, then any perceptual sensation deserves as much credibility to judge as being equal in weight. So, if you believe in God, for instance, a thought, and feel certain about it, that thought has just as equal weight to determine truth as any observation in nature.
I’ll play. If thoughts are presumed to be all our consciousness, how are we to determine the difference between emotions, feelings, and any other sensation? If our thought stops, time for our consciousness is expired and we can no longer perceive emotions, feelings nor sensation. So our capability to think in the present must include emotions, feelings, and sensations. Therefore, science’s dependence on observation alone is ignoring potentially relevant information to determine truth.
Is this a correct interpretation arnoldg?
(corrected “includes” to “include”)