Hi Lee,

Lee Corbin writes:

Godfrey writes

> Hi Everythingers,
> Though I am new to the list I have been reading your fascinating posts
> on this troubling issue of "reality" and subjectivity
> so please pardon if I skip the protocol and delve into the discussion
> right away. I have a background in computer
> and cognitive science if you want to know, but little chance to
> engage in exchanges on philosophical matters
> such as the ones in which you guys are involved in. Forgive me if I
> misunderstand some of the finer details (yes I know,
> the devil is there...)

Welcome! But there's no pecking order here, we're all equal! :-)

Thanks for your welcome.

> Scientific Reality is definitely more specific
> than reality in general. There is also much that
> one can acknowledge without admitting to its reality. I have heard of,
> say, alien abductions but would not swear to their reality,
> though others may differ.

Is that so? So the Saucerians exist in their reality, but not
mine. I guess we're all, like I said, equal? How can anyone
be crazy? After all, their reality is as good as anyone's,

I was, of course, being sarcastic (or trying to be) but maybe there is a tinge of this "politically correct" presumption floating around, no? " To each his own reality" is becoming the current day equivalent of Heraclitus "to each one his own poison". That is to say: I appreciate your point which I believe is that there is still a still a consensual or naive level which we understand the term to mean. Not so sure that Bruno is not already... in a reality of his own! ;-)

(As you see, we are not equal in our capacity for sarcasm, and
I'm currently the most irascible frequent poster on this list.
Bill Taylor is on vacation, I guess. It's a tough job, but
someone has to do it.)

Fair enough! I am all for righteous indignation and you do express it well...

> [GK]
> I would argue that numbers are rather objective, perhaps even more than
> physical laws and surely so if you [Bruno] are right, no?

Yes, quite a few here are what we call (and maybe you do too)
mathematical Platonists. When "Platonist" is used, it's always
in the sense of *mathematical* Platonism. IMO.

Sorry I don't have time to comment on the rest of your 23 kilo-byte
post. Thanks for joining and contributing!

Sorry for those "kilos"! No problem. I think the rest of my barbs were directed at Bruno anyway. I am not as sure about his Platonism as about yours and mine. I also
feel that same shortness in my span of attention...

Till next time,


Godfrey Kurtz
New Brunswick NJ

Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Reply via email to