Nick Prince wrote: > This is a form of solipsism - it is difficult to attack it and > defending it can be similarly time consuming. I think we have to move > on and believe there is a better approach – if only to get somewhere > other than back to the beginning every time. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Norman Samish <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:53 PM > > *Subject:* Can we ever know truth? > > > > In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are > living in a simulation. . ." > > > > To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the usual pretension. > . . I think 'we simulate what we are living in' according to the > little we know. Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' - 'modeling' - > 'metaphorizing' - or even 'Harry Potterizing' things we think does > not change the 'unknown/unknowable' we live in. We just think and > therefore we think we are." > > > > This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as a child - I used > to wonder if if everything I experienced was real or a dream. How > could I know which it was? I asked my parents and was discouraged, > in no uncertain terms, from asking them nonsensical questions. I > asked my playmates and friends, but they didn't know the answer any > more than I did. I had no other resources so I concluded that the > question was unanswerable and that the best I could do was proceed > as if what I experienced was reality. > > > > Now, many years later, I have this list - and Wikipedia - as > resources. But, as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot know > that what I experience is reality. I can only assume that reality > is how things appear to me - and I might be wrong. > > > > Norman Samish
I think this is wrongheaded. You doubt that you really assume "things are how they appear to me" - the Earth appears flat, wood appears solid, and electrons don't appear at all. What one does is build, or learn, a model that fits the world and comports with "how they appear". I see no reason not to call this model "reality", recognizing that it is provisional, because there's no point in speculating about a "really, real reality" except to suppose there is one so that the model is a model *of* something. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
