Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: OT: Reality (was: Re: Atlantean)

From:Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>
Date:Sunday, January 11, 2004, 16:37
Quoting Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>:

> En réponse à Andreas Johansson : > > > >Attack what I'm saying! You can't defeat an objection by denying the > >assumptions implicit in the statement objected to! > > Yes I can, when those assumptions are not clearly defined and as such > subject to denial.
But denying the assumptions still doesn't affect the objection!
> >If there are other people, we don't need any proof there is! It's simply > >_true_, by definition! And if there aren't other people, they're not there > to > >have different perceptions, wherefore the point is frikken moot! > > Indeed. My whole point exactly.
Well, I'd have serious problems taking anyone who claimed not to agree here seriously.
> >Excuse my exlamation marks, but that made me angry. > > Why? Because I pointed out to assumptions you implicitly made without > saying it? When you do that, you make such attacks possible. It's your own > fault for not being consistent and not presenting *all* your assumptions > clearly as such. If you don't, how can other people know you're treating > them as assumptions?
Because, near as I can tell, you're not actually attacking my original point at all, yet you present your arguments as an attack thereon.
> >Explain to me what meaning the identity of one thing in your friend's > >subjective perception with one in yours could possibily have if the thing > does > >not have an 'objective' existence? > > Simply that we have common illusions. Not impossible as such. Ever heard of > collective hallucinations?
If multiple people have "the same" hallucination (this assumes the existence of mutiple people, the existence of hallucinations and a whole lot other stuff I'm NOT going to detail), there either _is_ some sort of 'objective' connection between them, a connection that is not limited to an individual's perception, or they're nonetheless not connected. In the later case I would not recognize identity, but that brings us to a discussion of what we mean by 'identity'.
> > The very identity as such is objective, or > >so it would seem to me. > > Not to me, and I see no reason why you can conclude that from what I say.
What's ironic is that this is a spin-off from a discussion of different people's different perceptions of the same thing.
> >(And it's _you_, not me, who assumed an identity between the things, > despite > >you and your friend's different perceptions thereof.) > > I don't.
Then I'm completely mystified what significance it is supposed to have that you and your friend perceive different things. I'm indeed completely unable to make any non-trivial sense of the relevant paragraph in your original post at all.
> >Zhang apparently believes so. > > Then you misunderstood him.
Always possible. OTOH, what I understood him to be saying seemed in perfect agreement with other views and beliefs he's stated here over the years, so I rather suspect not.
> >Also, I don't see your problem with believing in hammers or whatnot. To > >believe in a hammer means to believe it exists - just like believing in God > is > >to believe He exists. And while my belief in the existence of various > hammers > >certainly isn't proved beyond every reasonable doubt, that has just about > zero > >practical interest. > > Indeed! So why believe at all? At least believing in God brings something > to the people who believe in it (if some goal in life). Believing in the > objective reality of a hammer doesn't bring anything, since it's its > subjective reality you're reacting to when you use it.
Because believing it simplifies my mental bookkeeping a whole lot, and because I fear going around and disbelieving in the existence of various everyday objects around me might endanger my mental health.
> >Further, you certainly do seem to believe in objective reality as I > understand > >the term - the Cartesian ego has to _exist_ to make sense. > > Of course, but it's not a *belief*. It's something I just cannot doubt.
Either our definitions of "belief" differ, or one of us is insane. If I cannot doubt something, I by necessity believe in it. [snip]
> But the cogito doesn't say anything about the existence of an > objective reality *outside* of ego. > And even the existence of ego is not > objective in the true meaning of the sense, since I'm the only one to > experience it. I'm the only person who cannot doubt myself, everybody else > can (if they exist outside of me :)) ). As such, even ego's existence is > purely subjective.
As already pointed out, I came to this discussion with a defintion of 'objective' apparently different from what everyone else uses. So let's forget that word for a moment; you, assuming you exist, can know that you must exists, and that's enough for me.
> > And assuming it > >doesn't exist doesn't make much sense, as you yourself has demonstrated in > >earlier discussions on this list. > > Of course not. But is it meaningful or just a limitation of my own mind? I > don't know. And it still doesn't prove to me the existence of an outside > objective reality.
Of course not. I wasn't asking for that.
> And once again, believing in it or not wouldn't change > the way I *have* to behave in response to my perceptions anyway, so why > bother? :))
This is a whole other kettle of fish, but what justification to you have for thinking you behaviour needs to have any relation to your perceptions? Near as I can tell, I'm a being of tolerably free will, able to ignore experience, common sense and my immediate perceptions to a high degree. I do seem to have reflexes that are automatic reponses to stimuli, but how can I _know_ that is so? Well, that was just a tangent. Andreas

Reply

Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>