[TraineeHuman]

10thdim, it seems to me you’re still staying totally within the assumption that the only things that are real are objects, and “information”.

The scientific method doesn’t accurately work on – doesn’t properly apply to -- anything except objects and a world of objects, on which it seeks to collect “data”. But I observe that surprisingly many scientists adhere to the belief that anything the scientific method doesn’t apply to can’t really exist. That’s actually a religious belief. (The religion of scientism.)

In twentieth century philosophy, up until about the late 1940s there was a very influential movement which indeed was based on the claim that the only things that are real are objects and “information”. It was called logical positivism, or just plain positivism. (Huge misnomer.) At the height of its popularity and power in the intellectual world, it claimed that all feelings were a kind of aberration, and that subjective value of any kind (and also inter-subjectivity) was a flat-out delusion, and was pure fantasy, and mentally unsound. It also claimed that the only real things are things that can be measured. Today, logical positivism is pretty much extinct in the world of philosophy. I believe it would be good if you became familiar with the arguments against logical positivism, and the many points at which it is generally agreed to be flawed – and to be much, much weaker than the frameworks that are its rivals. If I may say so, it seems to me we might then be able to have a dialogue where we both fully appreciated where the other was coming from.