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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to