Ti, introverted logic - What is true and not true in a statement?

[purplehearts]

You aren't hallucinating: there is a tree outside.
Science studies the same tree that you see out your window... observation is part of the scientific method...
Are you really trying to argue that nothing you perceive is real? That's your argument?
It's a ridiculous argument and a waste of time.
If reality were a computer simulation there wouldn't be any "objective reality" for science to study anyway..
I don't think we can take this much further. There's nowhere to go from here.
Have a nice day

[Myst]

Well no I wouldn't agree with that, because it doesn't matter if you subjectively "connect with reality", because that reality would get filtered by subjectivity. So if you look at a tree outside, you could simply be hallucinating, or it could be a computer simulation. That's no "reality" at all.

I think seeing a tree (by default, when not a hallucination) is not subjectively connecting with reality and isn't based on personal ethics. There are other perceptions however that are subjective so the argument that seeing a tree is an objective perception doesn't really address the issue that there are other subjective perceptions that the scientific method explicitly tries to not rely on. I guess this was your point too, though.

[Alomoes]

It is very possible that perception is limited, wrong, or obscured, therefore it would be possibly correct that there is no tree.

I like the matrix for this kind of thought. Kid bends spoon without touching it. "How are you doing that?"

"There is no spoon."

Still, if there is a perfect fake perception, you will absolutely be unable to tell the difference. I don't know how good the fake perception would have to be to pass on the human mind.

[Froody Blue Gem]

There is a certain consistent logic to ti, it can be innovative, sometimes opened-minded, until something doesn't add up. This leads to a certain rigidity when unhealthy, because it's a fact seeking function. I would say with factual statements, if processed and picked apart, it is pretty good at finding things that don't add up. Or picking up on how someone's thought process/actions contradict each other. Or if the ti-user were knowledgeable about whatever the subject matter is, it would work even quicker in this case.

There may be a certain internalizing on the matter, especially if creative ti, but ti-users won't be shy about pointing out how A + B doesn't add up if the inconsistency is that blatant. There is a constant questioning of things, and looking at the different angles of logic.