Aditya writes

> Although it is of course debatable, I hold that what we call reality is
> our minds' "understanding" of our sensory perceptions.

It's just amazing on this list.  Does no one speak up for
realism?  The *default* belief among *all* people up until
they take their first fatal dive into a philosophy book
is that there is an ordinary three-dimensional world that
we are all running around in.

(Yes---one *may* look at it as a model, but is this *really*
necessary?  It prevents accurate understanding as well as
fosters terrible misunderstandings.)

When 99% of the human race use the word "reality", they mean
the world outside their skins. 

If you sacrifice our common understanding of "reality", then
you'll find yourself in a hole out of which you'll never climb.

Janos wrote later

> How do you (all) imagine experience/knowledge WITHOUT
> experience and knowledge to absorb/create it? It is a
> (vicious?) circle. Do we start with a blank form to
> fill in? What empty lines? what relations? where from?
> You all use the word "reality" - who's and who knows
> what is 'behind' it? We interpret some figment by our
> own (1st mostly, but applying 3rd pers. info as well -
> to the extent how we absorbed it as our own 1st pers
> compliance) We are part of the "reality"-word....

See?  This is what happens.

Look, it's VERY simple:  take as a first baby-step the notion
that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
then add just the Big Bang.  What we then have is a universe
that operates under physical laws.  So far---you'll readily
agree---this is *very* simple conceptually.

Next, look at this picture after 14.7 billion years.  Guess
what has evolved?  Finally, there is intelligence and there
are entities who can *perceive* all this grandeur.

So, don't forget which came first.  Not people.  Not perceptions.
Not ideas.  Not dich an sich.  Not 1st person.  Not 3rd person.
NOT ANY OF THIS NONSENSE.  Keep to the basics and we *perhaps*
will have a chance to understand what is going on.  

And have a common language with which to describe it.


Reply via email to