Observation of actual realities is directly limited by our perceptual abilities.  Observation of our own thoughts is less limited. e.g. We can develop abstract concepts, produce and consider fiction, analyze our dreams, make up new religions, take on new beliefs and discard old ones, etc., etc.

are realities, perceptual, concepts and analyze, word descriptons, of undeveloped images of ourselves, limiting sensation and emotion from observation

Arnold, Even people, who are fluent in the same language, often talk past each other when discussing abstractions or complex topics.  Even in, not-so-complex, topics, discussions become fruitless when one person is defining a particular word one way and the other person is using a different definition.

I think that you may have some interesting thoughts and ideas, I just don’t know what they are.  I also, don’t think that my attempts to respond to your questions have been particularly productive.

Your responses have been productive, thank you, I have not been objectifying consciousness I have been trying thoughts to objectify observation,  is observation the difference between the unknown and the known or is observation the unknown

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”)

this topic is not about determination though we may be on the same path, would sensations emotions thoughts consciousness,  as impressions on oneself,  aid the objectification of observation, defined as not personal, thank you ,ag

Your welcome,

Define “objectification of observation”.

not personal,  movement is personal

Do you speak English? What is your nationality? Either the words you use are not being written correctly or something else is wrong? I can’t follow you.

Are the words of our thoughts as descriptions—-predicates of Being;

Do our thoughts change in time; Will our Being change in time;
 
What is Being without observation?