Re: subjective reality

From: <daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:08:12 -0400

John:

Perhaps I'm intruding since you didn't address this to me, regarding
your rhetorical question:

> 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?

Didn't you practically give the answer in your recent
"memory-prediction" post?

You wrote:
> I hate to include my solution, but I think I ought to:
> since the (undefined) mind is a-temporal and
> a-spatial, we can go back to the event to be
> remembered and take a second look. And a 3rd one. What
> we see NOW is not entirely identical to what we saw
> with the past mindset earlier, so our recollection is
> not machine-like.

In other words, if we take only one instance of subjective access to
"reality" and note that there is a difference between what we observe
and the "true" reality, even though we don't know what the difference
is, how do we know we won't be able to ascertain some (if not all) of
that difference by (possibly later in time, but not necessarily)
looking at is from a different perspective, ad infinitum? A belief in
an "objective" reality gives us motivation to keep going back and
looking at things from a different perspective. Otherwise we would end
up in one of the other camps I've mentioned before: insanity or
despair. (By the way, Russell, I think that using the anthropic
principle is a cop out at this point.)

Tom Caylor
Received on Tue Aug 16 2005 - 13:10:27 PDT