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

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