Sorry, I overestimated the level of your reading comprehension. Let me offer you some help here, since you clearly need it. You will note that my comment said,
given that unicorns aren’t objectively real
and
given that unicorns aren’t real
so your question was directly and deliberately answered twice in the negative in the context of defending my overall position, which you outright claimed I was unwilling to do.
P.S.: Oh, sorry, I have probably still made things too complicated for your simplistic mind, haven’t I? Let me make it even simpler for you, since are so desperate for an answer, and for some reason you think I am authority on this subject: no, unicorns aren’t real.
Phrased in a different way: if you see something that looks like a spring in the desert, then that might not mean that you will be able to drink from it, but you can be certain that, in that moment, you are seeing something that looks like a spring in the desert.
Phrased in a different way: if you see something that looks like a spring unicorn in the desert, then that might not mean that you will be able to drink from pet it, but you can be certain that, in that moment, you are seeing something that looks like a spring unicorn in the desert.
Congratulations, you have just quoted me saying that the spring might not be real, and the “might” is there because, if you are lucky, then you may very well have been fortunate enough to have come across an actual oasis in the distance rather than a mere mirage.
The second quote is your own fabrication and has nothing to do with anything I have argued because unicorns, unlike oases, are not even sometimes really there.
Yes, that word being mirage, which is so objectively real that you can take a photograph of it:
In contrast to a hallucination, a mirage is a real optical phenomenon that can be captured on camera, since light rays are actually refracted to form the false image at the observer’s location. What the image appears to represent, however, is determined by the interpretive faculties of the human mind. For example, inferior images on land are very easily mistaken for the reflections from a small body of water.
Sorry, I overestimated the level of your reading comprehension. Let me offer you some help here, since you clearly need it. You will note that my comment said,
and
so your question was directly and deliberately answered twice in the negative in the context of defending my overall position, which you outright claimed I was unwilling to do.
P.S.: Oh, sorry, I have probably still made things too complicated for your simplistic mind, haven’t I? Let me make it even simpler for you, since are so desperate for an answer, and for some reason you think I am authority on this subject: no, unicorns aren’t real.
Then why are you arguing that the spring is?
Oh right, because you are a pseudo intellectual who is full of shit.
Take care
Quoth my earlier comment:
Congratulations, you have just quoted me saying that the spring might not be real, and the “might” is there because, if you are lucky, then you may very well have been fortunate enough to have come across an actual oasis in the distance rather than a mere mirage.
The second quote is your own fabrication and has nothing to do with anything I have argued because unicorns, unlike oases, are not even sometimes really there.
Yes, that word being mirage, which is so objectively real that you can take a photograph of it:
There is a word for “Unicorn” as well.
A “Unicorn” is not a kind of experience; seeing a mirage is. Hence, “word for this experience”.