Re: subjective reality

From: <kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:24:17 -0400

 Hi Lee,

 Lee Corbin writes:

 Godfrey writes

> Hi Everythingers,
>
> Though I am new to the list I have been reading your fascinating
posts
> on this troubling issue of "reality" and subjectivity
> so please pardon if I skip the protocol and delve into the discussion
> right away. I have a background in computer
> and cognitive science if you want to know, but little chance to
> engage in exchanges on philosophical matters
> such as the ones in which you guys are involved in. Forgive me if I
> misunderstand some of the finer details (yes I know,
> the devil is there...)

 [LC]
 Welcome! But there's no pecking order here, we're all equal! :-)

 [GK]
 Thanks for your welcome.

> Scientific Reality is definitely more specific
> than reality in general. There is also much that
> one can acknowledge without admitting to its reality. I have heard
of,
> say, alien abductions but would not swear to their reality,
> though others may differ.

 [LC]
 Is that so? So the Saucerians exist in their reality, but not
 mine. I guess we're all, like I said, equal? How can anyone
 be crazy? After all, their reality is as good as anyone's,
 right?

 [GK]
  I was, of course, being sarcastic (or trying to be) but maybe there is
a tinge
  of this "politically correct" presumption floating around, no? " To
each his own
  reality" is becoming the current day equivalent of Heraclitus "to each
one his
  own poison". That is to say: I appreciate your point which I believe
is that
  there is still a still a consensual or naive level which we understand
the term
  to mean. Not so sure that Bruno is not already... in a reality of his
own! ;-)

 [LC]
 (As you see, we are not equal in our capacity for sarcasm, and
 I'm currently the most irascible frequent poster on this list.
 Bill Taylor is on vacation, I guess. It's a tough job, but
 someone has to do it.)

 [GK]
  Fair enough! I am all for righteous indignation and you do express it
well...

> [GK]
> I would argue that numbers are rather objective, perhaps even more
than
> physical laws and surely so if you [Bruno] are right, no?

 [LC]
 Yes, quite a few here are what we call (and maybe you do too)
 mathematical Platonists. When "Platonist" is used, it's always
 in the sense of *mathematical* Platonism. IMO.

 Sorry I don't have time to comment on the rest of your 23 kilo-byte
 post. Thanks for joining and contributing!

 [GK]
  Sorry for those "kilos"! No problem. I think the rest of my barbs were
directed at
  Bruno anyway. I am not as sure about his Platonism as about yours and
mine. I also
 feel that same shortness in my span of attention...

 Till next time,
 Godfrey


 Sincerely,
 Lee


 --------------------
 Godfrey Kurtz
 New Brunswick NJ




________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Received on Thu Aug 11 2005 - 10:25:59 PDT