anyways... I'm reconciled with you guys.... I'll try not to play nicer yet remain a critic.
p.s. I'm no mathematician, computer scientist, or physicist.... I was schooled in the humanities and avoided mathematics like the plague....... so I will need to ask you guys in the future to translate things into simple English. I hope this is not necessarily like Plato's academy: "Let no one ignorant of mathematics enter here" surely there must be a way to express your ideas in plain English. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:25 AM, B Soroud <[email protected]> wrote: > Russell: "Yet the > > reality we perceive is very definitely a construction of our minds " > > Why do you say such things? How can you know that? > > IF this is true, then how did you get into the position to know this? How > did you derive a true metanarrative from a "confabulation". > > IF all that we know and perceive is false, how do we assume that idea is > then uniquely and exclusively true? > > I have heard that theory that the brain constructs our perception of > reality, but I don't buy it... because I would ask.... how could we know > that, it is contradictory.... they derive such a notion from a study of the > reality (the brain etc.) that they say the "brain" "constructs".... they are > just speculating from what seemingly makes sense to them.... > > "not one scrap of evidence that > that reality exists independently of our minds." > > people die, all the time... they get burried and life on earth continues... > the pyramids stay up... species propagate.... babies are born.... mozart is > still played... and people still cognize these thoughts. > > > I don't think the choice is between a belief in some socalled physical > reductionism or some noetic reductionism.... > > nor between an objectively existing reality or a hallucination or > construction of reality via the brain (which itself is a hallucination or > construction, no?) this makes no sense. > > I think we simply don't know. agnosticism is best. > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Russell Standish <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Constantine, this is a rather trollish comment coming from an ignorant >> position. >> >> Let me put the following gedanken experiment - consider the >> possibility that T. Rex might be either green or blue creatures, and >> that either possibility is physically consistent with everything we >> know about them. In a Multiverse (such as we consider here), we are in >> a superposition of histories, which include both green and blue >> T. Rexes. >> >> Then one day, someone discovers an exquisitely fossilised T. Rex >> feather, from which it is possible to determine the T. Rex's colour by >> means of photonics. Let us say, that the colour was determined to be >> green to everybody's satisfaction. But there is an alternate universe, >> where the colour was determined to be blue. This universe has now >> differentiated from our own, on the single fact of T. Rex colour. >> >> The question is, when was the colour of the dinosaur established as a >> fact? Many of us many worlders would argue it wasn't established >> until the photonics measurement was made - there was no 'matter of >> fact' about the dinosaur colour prior to that. >> >> Generalising from this, it is quite plausible that suns and stars did >> not exist prior to there being minds to perceive them. It is somewhat >> disorienting to realise this possibility, ingrained as we are from >> birth to believing in a directly perecived external reality. Yet the >> reality we perceive is very definitely a construction of our minds - a >> confabulation as it were, and there is not one scrap of evidence that >> that reality exists independently of our minds. >> >> BTW Bruno is not assuming that consciousnes preceded matter, he is >> instead assuming that consciousness is the result of the running of >> some computer program, as I'm sure he would tell you. The consequence >> of that latter assumption is that perceived reality is just that - a >> perception. >> >> On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 08:14:23PM -0700, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: >> > Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter.... >> > >> > then why do we only find consciousness as a terrestrial phenomena >> > (suns and stars aren't conscious).. and as a later stage terrestrial >> > phenomena for that matter.... i.e. water, plants, minerals etc. are >> > not conscious..... and intellect and understanding in any real sense >> > are found in even later stage terrestrial forms, and we have physical >> > explanations for this....... >> > >> > Bruno sins against naturalism and all that we know and intuit. >> > >> > He will do anything to resurrect from the dead some rudimentary and >> > vague Mysticism. >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Everything List" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> > For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> -- >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) >> Principal, High Performance Coders >> Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] >> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
