On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:31:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Ghibbsa and Russell, > > There can be absolutely no doubt of an external reality independent of > humans. As I said, all of common sense, and all of science makes this > fundamental assumption. > > We have eyes, and other sense organs, so we can sense that external > reality. Do you deny we have eyes? If not, then what are they for? > > We have hands so we can manipulate that external reality. Do you deny we > have hands? If not then what are they for? > > We have legs so we can move around within that external reality. Do you > deny we have legs? If not then what are they for? > > Evolution assumes an external environment that we survive within by > adapting to. Do you deny evolution? > > Houses are constructed so we can live within these places in an external > reality. Do you deny the existence of houses? If not then what are they for? > > We wear clothes so as not to freeze when the external environment becomes > too cold. Do you deny clothes, environmental temperature? > > All of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, sociology and every science > assumes an external reality in which humans exist. Do you deny all of > science? > > We were all born from our mothers who are thereafter part of our external > realities. Do you deny human reproduction? Do you deny you had a mother? > > This is like arguing with the inhabitants of an asylum! > > OF COURSE when we become unconscious our INTERNAL MODEL of external > reality disappears, but to assume that means that external reality itself > then disappears is insane. > > > So the question is not whether there is an external reality, but what is > its nature. It is easy to show that the true nature of external reality is > not the world our minds tell us we live within, but pure abstract > computational information. > > Edgar > I can't speak for anyone else, but with me it's really nothing to do with questions about the realness. I mean, I genuinely think mused on that for years. Maybe never. I can't remember. I'm also unhinged so I guess there's room for that and a lot more. But look, what you say in your last sentence above. You spot about two fundamentals, but totally overlook other fundamentals sitting in plain sight. And ruinous. 2 out of 3 ain't bad. It's ruinous. It's about you as you, and as human being too, and what your nature and human nature. You are a fundamental force of nature in the context of Discovery. So then it becomes it's about how to correct for everything cluding your own weakness and limitation. How are you going to take yourself out of the process. How do you performance manage the product of you as you, as human nature, as a fundamental component in the force of Discovery of Nature. See I think, that in the end, one has to recognize that's a problem with a methodological solution. Or no solution at all. In which case in the end the theory is about the fundamental force of nature, that was you.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
