Questions for the scientists in our midst

[9th]

subjective experience and objective reality arise together and are inseparable

 

Pratitya samutpada is sometimes called the teaching of cause and effect, but that can be misleading, because we usually think of cause and effect as separate entities, with cause always preceding effect, and one cause leading to one effect. According to the teaching of Interdependent Co-Arising, cause and effect co-arise (samutpada) and everything is a result of multiple causes and conditions... In the sutras, this image is given: "Three cut reeds can stand only by leaning on one another. If you take one away, the other two will fall." For a table to exist, we need wood, a carpenter, time, skillfulness, and many other causes. And each of these causes needs other causes to be. The wood needs the forest, the sunshine, the rain, and so on. The carpenter needs his parents, breakfast, fresh air, and so on. And each of those things, in turn, has to be brought about by other causes and conditions. If we continue to look in this way, we'll see that nothing has been left out. Everything in the cosmos has come together to bring us this table. Looking deeply at the sunshine, the leaves of the tree, and the clouds, we can see the table. The one can be seen in the all, and the all can be seen in the one. One cause is never enough to bring about an effect. A cause must, at the same time, be an effect, and every effect must also be the cause of something else. Cause and effect inter-are. The idea of first and only cause, something that does not itself need a cause, cannot be applied.

 

[Stosh]

You're always right Stosh. It's just that sometimes you are right off track. But that's okay. Just make sure that the next time you go out and hug a tree you understand that it really is a tree and not something else.

What was off track? If the off track thing is saying that I am supposed to value the conversation beyond what I believe to be correct, I'd defend myself by saying that I am not putting on an insincere mask. I am not being false , and while I could refrain from expressing stuff which wouldn't be welcome I don't value what is insincere either coming from me or to me.Would anyone care to say they want to be BSed? Does anyone not think that if they describe what is true, it should be conceded as such? While one can walk away and leave someone to some other view, it doesn't mean that they suddenly agree with it as well.

 

 

[manitou]

 

 

Quote

 

 

"Pratitya samutpada is sometimes called the teaching of cause and effect, but that can be misleading, because we usually think of cause and effect as separate entities, with cause always preceding effect, and one cause leading to one effect. According to the teaching of Interdependent Co-Arising, cause and effect co-arise (samutpada) and everything is a result of multiple causes and conditions... In the sutras, this image is given: "Three cut reeds can stand only by leaning on one another. If you take one away, the other two will fall." For a table to exist, we need wood, a carpenter, time, skillfulness, and many other causes. And each of these causes needs other causes to be. The wood needs the forest, the sunshine, the rain, and so on. The carpenter needs his parents, breakfast, fresh air, and so on. And each of those things, in turn, has to be brought about by other causes and conditions. If we continue to look in this way, we'll see that nothing has been left out. Everything in the cosmos has come together to bring us this table. Looking deeply at the sunshine, the leaves of the tree, and the clouds, we can see the table. The one can be seen in the all, and the all can be seen in the one. One cause is never enough to bring about an effect. A cause must, at the same time, be an effect, and every effect must also be the cause of something else. Cause and effect inter-are. The idea of first and only cause, something that does not itself need a cause, cannot be applied"

 

 

These questions can't possibly be resolved in this discussion, IMO. The extreme metaphysician would see the Dao as latent in all, the purpose and the thought behind everything. The metaphysician would realize that all we see as physical reality is no more than thought. He would know that the reason we see phenomena, like the lamp here on my table, is because time and space are all illusion, and that everything we see is because of linear thinking, which is the expanded part of the bellows action of the Dao. The lamp remains here because it is the Idea which lives on, regardless of time or space. Perhaps this is why objects keep their form. Now, when we break it down into how it is physically made, yes - it does require the parents, the making of the metal, the electrical connections; and those were all formed over a period of time. But take time and space away? The idea remains.

 

Perhaps the concept of linear time really kicked in when the silly monkeys started to talk. Then linear time was laid out, one word and one thought at a time. The expansion of the bellows really kicked into gear. There may be something to that. Look at how fast we are moving now. We are speaking to each other across the world in an instant. Thought is broadcast at the speed of light, and broadcast to everyone worldwide simultaneously - assuming we're all on the same website at the same moment. I wonder what would happen if that were actually the case.

[Stosh]

I'd agree with 9th to a significant degree on the ideas of interconnectedness and first cause if I get the meaning right., more so than the platonic idea that lampness somehow exists without the lamp or the person imagining the lamp. The concept of simultaneous events has already been contested in favor of relativity.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Stosh

[Nungali]

Im thinking those lines are abstractions , indicating vectors of the attraction force from one end of the thing to the other end because the nearest thing that its attracted to is ....( its own arse) .

Where the Line comes out straight is the vector that is "surrounded by only slightly deviating field densities" the interactions of multiples of magnets should be more revealing than the simplified one.

The lines are of particular field densities and like a topo map they are essentially contiguous out to infinity, where all heck breaks loose.

 

.

The sort of hell I am postulating is that those lines do connect and thus complete the circuit ... but they connect in a variant time space 'field' or 'continuum'

 

Like the black / white hole thingo.

 

And being able to access this type of magnetic curiosity could be a power source ... but a magnetic charge does dissipate eventually , apparently DAMN !

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S5p_MPAJGCA/T7bfvdo3XiI/AAAAAAAAAww/m9MzbUNWCFA/s400/shot-down.jpg

 

The biggest issue I have with being off the grid ( a mini solar system I can set up, operate and repair , gas bottles for cooking on the stove {especially in summer } and wood for heating / oven in winter) is refrigeration ... but then I found this :

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=magnetic+refrigeration&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=KniFUrDBGMOckAXnyYHYDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1093&bih=468

 

might be feasible in yeaaaars to come , but now v. $$$$$$$$ !

.

[Stosh]

The dipoles of a material that can potentially be magnetized ordinarily cancel each other out. When they are intensionally aligned it is a situation which runs counter to the entropic gradient..rather than being a source of energy it is an energy sink. While it is possible to tap energy going in either entropic direction , you would need to find a giant preexisting magnet , like the earths core, and a thing which is the reverse polarity to it, then allow those two things to interact.

We call such an object a compass needle.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

.

The sort of hell I am postulating is that those lines do connect and thus complete the circuit ... but they connect in a variant time space 'field' or 'continuum'

 

Like the black / white hole thingo.

 

And being able to access this type of magnetic curiosity could be a power source ... but a magnetic charge does dissipate eventually , apparently DAMN !

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S5p_MPAJGCA/T7bfvdo3XiI/AAAAAAAAAww/m9MzbUNWCFA/s400/shot-down.jpg

 

The biggest issue I have with being off the grid ( a mini solar system I can set up, operate and repair , gas bottles for cooking on the stove {especially in summer } and wood for heating / oven in winter) is refrigeration ... but then I found this :

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=magnetic+refrigeration&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=KniFUrDBGMOckAXnyYHYDg&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1093&bih=468

 

might be feasible in yeaaaars to come , but now v. $$$$$$$$ !

.

 

You might want to check this out instead:

 

http://www.icestuff.com/~energy21/vortex.htm

 

I first read about this effect in 'Scientific American' when I was a teenager in the sixties. It may have been in the 'Amateur Scientist' section. The device there was much simpler and was in a 'T' shape with hot air coming out of one side of the 'T' and cold air out of the other.

[Stosh]

Powered by compressed air vortex cooling systems represent an enegy expenditure.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Powered by compressed air vortex cooling systems represent an enegy expenditure.

 

Thank you for pointing that out. Especially in the context of this thread that would seem to be a necessary caveat. I know thermodynamics too well to think otherwise, and that was emphasized in the 'Scientific American' discussion, but because I was in a hurry I didn't mention it. However on a practical level since:

 

The biggest issue I have with being off the grid ( a mini solar system I can set up, operate and repair , gas bottles for cooking on the stove . . .

 

If he has gas bottles for cooking, he can set up some sort of compressor and that was all I was attempting to address. The other issues on this thread are an intellectual 'Tar-Baby' of sorts and I don't want to get stuck in them.

 

[Nungali]

Its all relevant to my situation (for me)

 

1. I could get a gas powered fridge but the small camping / caravan size one is too small for my needs and the big ones are Xpensive and troublesome IME.

 

2. With the earth's magnetic field that is exactly the source I am interested in but it seems so weak (takes a whole planet to more that teenie compass needle ??? ) . That is why I am interested in that "where does it go to ... and where does it come from" in a 'broken looped system' but WHY I want that is too far out, even for this thread !

 

But thanks for the input

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Shortly after I posted the above, it occurred to me that solar power might be connected to Stirling Cycle type engine, which brings us back to the more tractable part of this thread, so I searched and found this which might prove useful to you:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Powered_Stirling_Engines

 

 

[Nungali]

Hmmm two things at once ...

 

1. Refrigeration. If the Stirling cycle engine is connected to the solar reflector to create a high heat source and the energy is drawn from a differential heat flow, to a cold output (heat in cool out) and that does x y z and drives a pump or generator to make electricity etc ... why not just use the cold sink as the refrigerator? Or simpler (?) ... I am thinking of the old kerosene powered fridges , if the solar dish can focus on a similar heat receptor that the kerosene flame was on it could work ... and cut out a whole lot of other stuff in the middle.

 

As usual , with solar power, the issue is tracking to get a good constant output.

 

2. Magnetism and my earlier comment. " Earth's magnetic field ... seems so weak (takes a whole planet to more that teenie compass needle " ??? But a magnetic field is very strong as it can lift a nail against the whole gravitational field of the Earth.

 

Also 'magnetism decays' - yeah? What causes the opposite, can it be boosted by energy going in, like heat?

[Marblehead]

What was off track? If the off track thing is saying that I am supposed to value the conversation beyond what I believe to be correct, I'd defend myself by saying that I am not putting on an insincere mask. I am not being false , and while I could refrain from expressing stuff which wouldn't be welcome I don't value what is insincere either coming from me or to me.Would anyone care to say they want to be BSed? Does anyone not think that if they describe what is true, it should be conceded as such? While one can walk away and leave someone to some other view, it doesn't mean that they suddenly agree with it as well.

The point I was trying to make is that our subjective reality is oftentimes opposite of what objective reality presents to us. True and false do not exist in objective reality. What is, is. That is all. Subjectively we say "That was nice." or "That was awful."

 

This is what Lao Tzu was speaking of in the first half of Chapter 2 of the TTC. It is only in the subjective that we have dualities; opposites.

 

To have our life grounded in the subjective is an error, I think. Always thinking about how things should be instead of acknowledging how things are.

[Marblehead]

Its all relevant to my situation (for me)

 

1. I could get a gas powered fridge but the small camping / caravan size one is too small for my needs and the big ones are Xpensive and troublesome IME.

 

2. With the earth's magnetic field that is exactly the source I am interested in but it seems so weak (takes a whole planet to more that teenie compass needle ??? ) . That is why I am interested in that "where does it go to ... and where does it come from" in a 'broken looped system' but WHY I want that is too far out, even for this thread !

 

But thanks for the input

A possible consideration: most RVs and travel trailers have gas powered fridges. Perhaps you could find a recycling business that would sell the used fridge components and reconstruct it at your place.

[manitou]

Its all relevant to my situation (for me)

 

1. I could get a gas powered fridge but the small camping / caravan size one is too small for my needs and the big ones are Xpensive and troublesome IME.

 

2. With the earth's magnetic field that is exactly the source I am interested in but it seems so weak (takes a whole planet to more that teenie compass needle ??? ) . That is why I am interested in that "where does it go to ... and where does it come from" in a 'broken looped system' but WHY I want that is too far out, even for this thread !

 

But thanks for the input

 

 

Me too. It's the next logical question once the I Am is found.

[Stosh]

Hmmm two things at once ...

 

1. Refrigeration. If the Stirling cycle engine is connected to the solar reflector to create a high heat source and the energy is drawn from a differential heat flow, to a cold output (heat in cool out) and that does x y z and drives a pump or generator to make electricity etc ... why not just use the cold sink as the refrigerator? Or simpler (?) ... I am thinking of the old kerosene powered fridges , if the solar dish can focus on a similar heat receptor that the kerosene flame was on it could work ... and cut out a whole lot of other stuff in the middle.

 

As usual , with solar power, the issue is tracking to get a good constant output.

 

2. Magnetism and my earlier comment. " Earth's magnetic field ... seems so weak (takes a whole planet to more that teenie compass needle " ??? But a magnetic field is very strong as it can lift a nail against the whole gravitational field of the Earth.

 

Also 'magnetism decays' - yeah? What causes the opposite, can it be boosted by energy going in, like heat?

Well if you wanted to power your fridge over time , you would have to keep finding objects to interact magnetically and they would just stick together so you would have to keep sticking more and more stuff onto the magnet,,

but it isnt hard to picture how that attraction action could be harnessed spinning the needle like a waterfall spins a hydroelectric generator .

As you mentioned already ,magnetic forces spread with distance very quickly so again , you need a really big magnet to pull things any significant distance.

Im just pointing to the idea that in principle it can be done ,its just that the practical aspects , like storing large quantities of compressed gas negate the use of the principle.

Yeah the gravitational pull of the earth can be overcome seemingly easily, but how big of a magnet do you think it would take to pull a nail from the surface of the globe up into gravity neutral space? , gravity is by far the energy 'bully' of the universe pulling planets together and such, even though the earths core is a huge magnet (of sorts)... all the effect it has is to deflect the solar wind, and tell pigeons which direction to fly, whereas gravity is pulling the whole darn moon in an inescapable embrace.

Heat is considered to be disruptive to magnets , representing an increase in friction or redistributing the dipoles into random 'disorder' again , the heat would represent an energy sink rather than a source but I suppose the heat of dynamo at the earths core is important to its functioning magnetically so I figure your idea isnt unprecedented in nature.

 

The far out stuff ,, umm is too far out , and a 'tar-baby' if you want to actually find a solution to your cooling needs in this century.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Stosh

[Stosh]

The point I was trying to make is that our subjective reality is oftentimes opposite of what objective reality presents to us. True and false do not exist in objective reality. What is, is. That is all. Subjectively we say "That was nice." or "That was awful."

Easily , agreed !

This is what Lao Tzu was speaking of in the first half of Chapter 2 of the TTC. It is only in the subjective that we have dualities; opposites.

Yes again , agreed.

 

To have our life grounded in the subjective is an error, I think.

Darn , not on this one..

Dont you judge whether you are at peace or comfortable or happy and run things to stay in those subjective states?

 

 

Always thinking about how things should be instead of acknowledging how things are.

Well yes, thats misled, and I have wasted plenty of time doing just that.

Its a really good thing to realize, and a breath could not be better spent, than saying exactly that.

[Marblehead]

Well, three out of four ain't bad. Hehehe.

 

Darn , not on this one..

Dont you judge whether you are at peace or comfortable or happy and run things to stay in those subjective states?

 

This one goes a little deeper for me. Subjectively things and my mood are constantly changing. Now I'm happy, now I'm sad, then I get POed then I get over it then I have a few minutes or longer of confusion, etc. Yes, this is the subjective. But when I stop - when all becomes quiet, external and in my mind, it is then that we find our true state of being. That is why I oftentimes speak of harmony. Our mood changes then we adjust so that we arrive at a neutral state - a state of just being, of living within ourselves.

 

Sure, I prefer happy over sad. But happy won't always be. Shit happens. But to be neutral - ah! - at peace and contented.

[manitou]

Being a victim to one's moods isn't mastery, though. it's like being like a stick on the ocean, at the whim of our moods and wherever life wants to take us. In one sense, yes - this could be called the Dao. But on the other hand, this is not the action of the Sage at all. I see lots of folks around here in Appalachia - the poorer parts particularly - that are at the whims of their moods. In fact, they're imprisoned by them, they are not able to transcend them at all. I'm sure that occasionally these folks achieve a neutral state as well - but can they count on it? Not at all.

 

What are the attributes of the Sage? Love, Never too Much, Never be the First. (Yutang), but I'll bet if we triangulated lots of other translations we would come up with the same basic idea. What this means to me is that the Sage is master over his emotions because he makes no judgments, he loves his brother as himself, he Knows Himself.

 

I just picked up Stephen Mitchell's translation to look for his version of the 3 treasures, and I turned to this page instead:

 

Chapter 33:

 

Knowing others is Intelligence:

Knowing yourself is true Wisdom.

Mastering others is Strength,

Mastering yourself is true Power.

 

If you realize that you have enough,

you are truly rich.

If you stay in the center

and embrace death with your whole heart,

you will endure forever.

 

 

This is the trick of the shaman or the sage - to embrace death with his whole heart. To be able to look death in the eye and manage his fear, to face it. When fear of death is gone, what is there left to fear? When fear is gone, anger is gone. All emotions are based on either love or fear. Anger is based on fear (ego fears that we are wrong, that we will look bad if we are exposed to be wrong, that we will not get enough and starve, that we may not come in First and therefore our continual need to prove to ourselves that we are Okay, despite the fact that most of us have been brought up to manifest a lack of self love). To get angry is something that someone who has gotten to Know Themselves, truly Gnow Themselves, would not be subject to doing. This is pure Self-Realization, a component of enlightenment. What's to be angry at, when you know that all things are happening as they should be happening - even politics! To realize that that senator sitting on the opposite side of the aisle is merely playing his part in this great cosmic play, and that the Light will always prevail, sooner or later. It is this that wu-wei is based upon, if we let it just happen. But to let wu-wei just happen takes exquisite balance; because we know ourselves to the core, we can see into others as well. It's riding the ox - keeping the balance.

 

The sage will see way in the distance a negative dynamic coming, and will nip it in the bud with the simplest motion. While in the wu-wei process, the sage will always let dynamics come to him, knowing that within the Dao there is perfect timing. To reach out and grab it prematurely, to stand on his tip-toes and be in an unsteady posture - to curse his brother or to be selfish in his desires and think only of himself - this is not of the sage at all. And it is not of the Dao.

 

I don't think the Dao stopped at the day of creation or the Big Bang, or whatever current theory we're working on. The Dao lives on, has always been, will always be. We're in the middle of it, this living breathing Concept that is Life. The rocks are part of it, the cycles of the stars and planets, our mother earth, the water, the tides, our breathing, our emotions at a baser level. But mastery can be done, and that is the Sage. It's just a question of whether one wants to bother going to the trouble of getting to the mastery or not.

Edited November 16, 2013 by manitou

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. You went way off topic in your own thread.

 

 

But yeah, there were agreements and disagreements while reading that post. But then, it's good that we all are not the same.

 

I'm pretty sure I have already mentioned it but I will take this opportunity to state it again: I love my emotions. They are verification that I am still alive and I still care about some things.

[manitou]

Hehehe. You went way off topic in your own thread.

 

 

I've been known to do that in any thread.

[9th]

The point I was trying to make is that our subjective reality is oftentimes opposite of what objective reality presents to us. True and false do not exist in objective reality. What is, is. That is all. Subjectively we say "That was nice." or "That was awful."

 

This is what Lao Tzu was speaking of in the first half of Chapter 2 of the TTC. It is only in the subjective that we have dualities; opposites.

 

To have our life grounded in the subjective is an error, I think. Always thinking about how things should be instead of acknowledging how things are.

 

You are speaking of judgements and opinions - not pure subjectivity. For instance, hearing the sound of rain outside is a subjective experience. Your sensory perceptions are subjective without being "nice" or "awful". That classification comes later, according to what you find pleasurable or not in a given moment. Something you find "nice" today you may find "awful" tomorrow, even though the subjective experience which allowed you to perceive it in the first place has not changed.

 

Perception and awareness are subjective to the extent that there is a "subject" which percieves an "object". In the case of sensory perception, there is a "hardware" component involved - your eyeballs receive light particles, which results in your perception of a visual image through the mediation of your nervous system interpreting the signals which are communicated through the optic nerve. The visual image is a subjective experience. Your opinion of the image is another matter.

 

It may be possible to experience perception in which there is neither subject nor object, but that is also another matter.

[9th]

1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true, and is not affected by opinions one way or another.

 

1 + 1 = 3 is objectively false.

 

True and false do exist objectively, but opinions can never be "true" or "false" because they are subjective classifications which may fluctuate according to any given number of various factors by way of the relativity inherent in the observer itself.

[manitou]

The point I was trying to make is that our subjective reality is oftentimes opposite of what objective reality presents to us. True and false do not exist in objective reality. What is, is. That is all. Subjectively we say "That was nice." or "That was awful."

 

This is what Lao Tzu was speaking of in the first half of Chapter 2 of the TTC. It is only in the subjective that we have dualities; opposites.

 

To have our life grounded in the subjective is an error, I think. Always thinking about how things should be instead of acknowledging how things are.

 

 

I see this just about opposite of how you see this, surprise surprise. We're getting into a chicken and egg situation. It's a question of whether the dynamic is coming to us from the outside (or hitching our wagon only to what we physically see), or manifesting our understanding from the inside to the outside. I don't quite see your point that it is only in the subjective that we have dualities; opposites. when one truly gets to the point of Oneness, we realize that ultimately all life is One and there is no battle between light and darkness; not really - the only battle is a dynamic furtherance into the light; the battle is only the vehicle that consciousness takes to get to the One. The reversion of the Dao, back to the One. The DDJ is not a materialistic writing. It's not saying that we should never question anything. Questioning our own behavior is at the very crux of the matter. It is saying that when judgments are made, the Dao is lost. As I see it, the Sage is the apotheosis of the DDJ - he has attained by practicing the precepts of the DDJ. One either lives it if they take it seriously, or they think they're just pretty words and go on with life as usual and disregard the heart of the matter. Some here are seekers and desire nothing more than to attain the One through the teachings of the DDJ, and see the Sage as a pretty fine template. Or, I suppose, 'What would Jesus do' would get you there as well - with the understanding that Jesus was just a man who found it and manifested the wu-wei and healing. Which it appears that he did.

 

In Chapter 2 (Mitchell)...."When people see some things as beautiful, other things become ugly" Here, the DDJ is telling us to look at it all as one. When the labels of beautiful and ugly were put on an object or situation, the Dao was lost. This understanding is subjective, not objective. The Oneness of everything was lost and a value judgment was made.

 

What is matter? It's a clump of molecules but with space between them; more space between the atoms; more space between the electrons and neutrons and quarks and neutrinos. Space, the cosmic broth, is the stuff of objects when broken down far enough. What holds the molecules into the same position for an extended length of time until the elements take their toll and decay and rust set in? Thought. The Dao. The idea, both manifested by Man and previously the idea was potentiality within the Dao. That to me is more reality than anything physical can possibly be. Some think it's all Mind and that the Dao continues to reign within all objects and situations. Others think the Dao died at the beginning, perhaps, and left us with nothing but residual matter. More interesting to see it as still alive, I think, as it then becomes something we can use by Not-Doing and letting things happen of their own accord. Not an aggressive stance, I realize, but one that has more power because things always align perfectly, although not always as fast as we would like. But it works like magic.

 

Marbles, I disagree your statement about the subjective always acknowledging things as they should be as opposed to how they are. All things are relative. If you think someone is a jerk because of something he did, you would get mad. But this very act of getting mad is because you made a judgment that he was a jerk. You're not seeing things as they really are at all. He may not be a jerk at all, and he would probably see you as a jerk as well. To see things as they really are is to see that he is a part of You, and that you and he reflect each other's character defects, otherwise you wouldn't get mad at each other. the greatest freedom is to love that fellow anyway, despite what he did to you - to not have to respond to him in kind. "I don't care how you feel about me, I'm going to love you anyway" is the greatest freedom of all. When seen in Oneness, that is acknowledging things as they really are.

Edited November 16, 2013 by manitou

[Marblehead]

You are speaking of judgements and opinions - not pure subjectivity. For instance, hearing the sound of rain outside is a subjective experience. Your sensory perceptions are subjective without being "nice" or "awful".

We disagree here. Hearing the sound of rain, in my understanding, is objective. But it is when we add the value judgements of "nice" or "awful" is when it becomes subjective. (The rain is coming down whether we hear it or not.)

 

That classification comes later, according to what you find pleasurable or not in a given moment. Something you find "nice" today you may find "awful" tomorrow, even though the subjective experience which allowed you to perceive it in the first place has not changed.

Agreed.

 

Perception and awareness are subjective to the extent that there is a "subject" which percieves an "object".

Disagreed. Here you are speaking of both subjective and objective.

 

In the case of sensory perception, there is a "hardware" component involved - your eyeballs receive light particles, which results in your perception of a visual image through the mediation of your nervous system interpreting the signals which are communicated through the optic nerve.

Agree.

 

The visual image is a subjective experience. Your opinion of the image is another matter.

I have to agree but there is more to it than that.

 

It may be possible to experience perception in which there is neither subject nor object, but that is also another matter.

Yes, another matter. And I don't go there.