Re: OT: reality (wasRe: Atlantean)

E fésto Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...>:
> 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.
Pain, though, is a physical phenomenon, and could easily be observed if
you subjected yourself to be hooked up to the proper equipment.

Actually, if there is a dragon in your garage that only you can see, the
technology exists to decode that image as well[1].

In the face of sufficient enough science (or omniscience, even) can
anything true actually be subjective?  [Or is this where the liar's
paradox comes in?]



        *Muke!
[1] It has been tested on cats:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/471786.stm  ...this particular tech
though will not pick up your dragon if the dragon is being hallucinated
(in which case it is not actually living in your garage) or if the image
of the dragon is somehow entering your brain directly and bypassing your
sense of sight (which is a stretch of "only I can see him").
--
http://frath.net/                  E jer savne zarjé mas ne
http://kohath.livejournal.com/     Se imné koone'f metha
http://kohath.deviantart.com/      Brissve mé kolé adâ.