--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "Hugo" <richardhughes103@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@>
wrote:
> <snip>
> > > But that's what's so interesting to me--not *whether*
> > > one or the other is true, but the fact that we can't
> > > tell, that we can never know the most fundamental
> > > fact of ontology.
> >
> > I think we can tell which view is true. Occams Razor,
> > why weigh down observable reality with an invented
> > version of reality far more complex than it needs to be?
>
> But Occam's razor tells us which version is *more
> likely* to be true; it doesn't tell us which *is* true.
>
> > Same with God, I can't see that it's up to anyone to
> > disprove it but for the believers to prove the rest of
> > us are wrong.
>
> Again, the point is that you can neither prove *nor*
> disprove either solipsism or realism.
>
> I'm a realist so I'll stick with assuming
> > you and everyone else is actually here and not part of
> > my daydreams.
>
> As long as you realize it's only an assumption...
>
and the point really isn't "is it real or a daydream?"-- that
polarizes the choices and makes the choice obvious, even to a child.
Rather the point is, you are real and have attributes that I
observe, and my observation of you is guided by my perception. In
other words I will see you differently, even by some miniscule
fraction, than the next person will. Therefore, there is no way to
account for these differences in perception unless I am actually
creating you. How could it be any differently?
