RE: subjective reality

From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:48:12 -0700

John writes

> Lee and Stephen:
> since we have only our subjective access to "out
> there" does it make any difference if it is "REALLY?"
> like we interpret it, or in an untraceable manner:
> different?

You write "we have only our subjective access to
[what is out there]". Yes, and from that we have
two choices: we can focus on the *appearances* of
the outside world, and try to formulate and understand
how it seems to us and how it looks to us

OR

We can formulate theories about what is really out
there, constantly trying to compensate for the errors
and partial understandings those theories will have.

To do the latter means keeping firmly in mind that
the best understandings will come from objective
scientific study of neurons, physics, people, and
things.

So you ask, "does it make any difference if it is "REALLY?"
like we interpret it?"

It is a scientific fact that it *cannot be* "like we
interpret it", except in the most wonderful and marvelous
way that evolution has provided: namely, the myriad ways
that one has an extremely good idea of about where
visible objects "really are" in relation to oneself,
amazing sensitivity to motions "out there" via sound
waves, and so on. We must constantly bow to the utter
marvelousness of how accurate on the whole the mappings
are.

> Provided that there IS indeed something - not 'out
> there' because we are IN IT as well. We assume so.

Well, I don't assume so. WHAT is not 'out there'?
That which Bruno (and I) call the ineffable impressions
we get of that which is out there? Yes---but so what?
The machine *must* have (or rather *be*) a map of what
is out there, or it doesn't work right.

Lee
Received on Tue Aug 16 2005 - 10:48:49 PDT