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
> >>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 email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at