George Levy wrote: > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >Le Samedi 18 Mars 2006 01:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : > > > > > >>Ground them operationally, then. Real things have real properties and > >>unreal > >>things don't. Real properties can be observed empirically. Primeness > >>then is not > >>a real property. > >> > >> > >> > > > >I have to ask you one more time, but I'll reverse the question, what does it > >means for an object not to be real (hence being abstract) ? it is not a joke, > >I want to know. > > > I will insert my grain of salt in a very active thread.... > > In my opinion, reality is relative, more precisely, the perception of > reality depends on the level of implementation or the level of illusion. > > Here I use the term implementation to refer to third person perception > and illusion to refer to first person perception. > > For example, a simulated character perceives simulated objects as real. > He has the illusion that they are real.
Yes but he is simulated by something real (or simulated by something simulated by something real). > Similarly we perceive our world to be real. It kicks back. We have the > illusion that our world is real. Is it? that's the simplest explanation. > It all depends how you look at > it. One could say that our consciousness is emergent by the > bootstrapping of reflexive illusions: our world is an illusion that > allows us to have the illusion that we exist. Although the illusions we are familiar with do not work on a bootstrapping basis, --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---