Perhaps I'm intruding since you didn't address this to me, regarding your rhetorical question:

since we have only our subjective access to "out
there" does it make any difference if it is "REALLY?"
like we interpret it, or in an untraceable manner:

Didn't you practically give the answer in your recent "memory-prediction" post?

You wrote:
I hate to include my solution, but I think I ought to:
since the (undefined) mind is a-temporal and
a-spatial, we can go back to the event to be
remembered and take a second look. And a 3rd one. What
we see NOW is not entirely identical to what we saw
with the past mindset earlier, so our recollection is
not machine-like.

In other words, if we take only one instance of subjective access to "reality" and note that there is a difference between what we observe and the "true" reality, even though we don't know what the difference is, how do we know we won't be able to ascertain some (if not all) of that difference by (possibly later in time, but not necessarily) looking at is from a different perspective, ad infinitum? A belief in an "objective" reality gives us motivation to keep going back and looking at things from a different perspective. Otherwise we would end up in one of the other camps I've mentioned before: insanity or despair. (By the way, Russell, I think that using the anthropic principle is a cop out at this point.)

Tom Caylor

Reply via email to