"What's really going on" is a good question. It presumes that something is going on, which is my point.
I raised the issue to begin with because of what seemed to me to be a disparagement of the notion of reality. I find it hard to believe that GlenR (one "n". Sorry) doesn't "care whether there's a 'reality' out there or not." But even that statement implies there is an "in here and an out there" which again is my point, namely there is. Actually I find it hard to put into words the assertion that reality is. I feel driven to Buddhist-like phrases such as "is-ness." But I don't want to go there either because I don't see being aware of reality at all a religious or spiritual thing. It's just reality. And it has nothing to do with whether there is a God. I don't understand the connection. Reality is. (That's the end of the previous sentence.) God, if there is any such thing, is by definition outside the realm of what is. And I say that because those who believe in God -- at least those who are sophisticated about it -- are very careful to keep God away from any sort of empirical investigation or verification. -- RussA On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:12 PM, russell standish <[email protected]>wrote: > 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
