On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 04:32:09PM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote: > Both RussS and GlennR responded to my question about the disparagement of > "real" mainly by talking about phenomenology, ontology, and epistemology. I > wasn't asking about any of those. I was asking whether you really don't > believe there is such a thing as reality -- whether or not we can preceive > it, conceptualize it, or know about it. I can't even imagine what it would > mean to answer a question like "Is there reality?" in the negative. > > -- RussA
It means much the same thing as to answer the question "Is there a god?" in the negative. If asked that question in a thinking environment, I might respond "Probably not your God". The point is that the term reality is hopelessly confused, with many people meaning completely different things by it. Take Doug's thumb. Doug's hammered thumb is purely phenomenological. The thumb is a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons, the former two are collections of quarks. The thumbs properties do not depend much on the properties of the elementary particles, but rather on the electromagnetic forces keeping them together. The thumb is actually 99.9...% hard vacuum! The seeming solidity of it is due to electromagnetism. What hurts then? Is it the thumb? Is it the neuron that was stimulated by the thumb? Is it the brain that has processed those signals. The consciousness that emerges from the activity of the brain. What is really going on here? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
