Re: OT: reality (wasRe: Atlantean)

--- Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:
> Quoting Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...>:
>
> > --- Daniel Andreasson
> <danielandreasson@...>
> > wrote:
> > > John Cowan scripsit:
> > >
> > > > My answer would probably be to hand you back
> the
> > > brick and
> > > > say "You're an idiot." (This is rather Zen, at
> > > that.)
> > >
> > > As for me, I would hit him in the head with the
> > > brick and ask
> > > "Is your pain objectively real?" ;)
> > >
> > > Daniel Andreasson
> >
> > Can I prove my pain to anyone else?  No.
> Therefore it
> > is not objectively real, only subjectively real,
> and
> > only for me.
>
> That doesn't process. Since when is provability a
> prerequisite for objective
> reality?
It seems to me that arguments about the reality of
objective reality always begin with "If I show thus
and so to 50 other people..."  Which is, in a way,
proof by demostration; you prove to everyone to whom
you demonstrate it.

American Heritiage Dictionary lists under objective:
(b) based on observable phenomina.  Scientific method
holds that something is observable only if it is
replicable.  If only I can observe it it is subjective
and anectdotal.  There is a 12 foot green dragon
living in my garage, but only I can see him.  Do you
believe me?

Something only counts as objective if it is
potentially provable to any observer.  Anything which
can only be exprienced by one person, like my pain,
and my 12 foot dragon, remains forever subjective,
which means, of course, not objective.  That is not to
say it is not real, only that if it is real, then it
is both real and non-objective.


--gary

Replies