Glen, You and Nick (and I) actually agree that thought is not necessary for us to eat, walk, etc. We do it whether or not we think that we do it. It seems to me that you are supposing that Nick (and I) are saying something different. We're not. What I'm saying (and what I imagine Nick is saying) is that once one starts to think about it, it makes no sense to deny reality, not that our thought is necessary for reality.
Furthermore, I would add (and I don't know what Nick thinks about this), that we are thiking beings and that we almost can't help ourselves from thinking. Consequently (in my view), we can't honestly say that we have no opinion about reality. We can hardly help ourselves. It's part of human nature to look around, observe, and conclude. That's one way in which we are different from pond scum. So since (again in my view) one can't help but have an opinion about reality (at least once someone poses the question), it makes no sense to me to then deny it -- or even to deny having an opinion. We just aren't built that way. Admittedly that's a somewhat different question, and it's possible that we can not have an opinion about issues like that. But I doubt it. It's like looking at the sky (with no clouds) and denying that one has an opinion about its color. It's hard for me to believe that one can do that. But as I said, perhaps it's possible. -- Russ A On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:22 AM, glen e. p. ropella < [email protected]> wrote: > Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/17/2009 10:06 PM: > > How can you even write to me without presupposing my existence. > > Because that is what we _do_. We talk to each other. And we've been > talking to each other long _before_ we ever had the biologically based > ability to _presuppose_ your existence. > > Thought is a consequence of action, not vice versa. I don't have to > presuppose _anything_ in order to eat or walk or write to you. This > whole paradigm you and other "realists" push about how important > _thinking_ is to life is just nonsense. Thought is not required for > life. And as such, I do not require a belief in the existence of > reality in order to live, which includes making a living, drinking beer, > yapping with yahoos on mailing lists, etc. > > Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/17/2009 08:32 PM: > > But it seems to me that every attack on realism I ever read presumes > > a reality, including those I have been reading here. > > The problem you have, here, is that nobody is _attacking_ realism. You > believe in it? Fine. Believe in it. I certainly don't care. You > believe in whatever you want to believe in. It doesn't matter. We'll > all keep DOING what we DO regardless of what you believe. What we > believe is irrelevant. It's what we DO that matters.* > > And that's the point. > > As for me, personally, I laid out my apathy towards the fictional > concept of the existence of an external reality because RussA ASKED us > to lay it out. He then goes on to claim he has trouble believing my > answer ... as if I have some reason to lie or as if I'm too stupid to > know myself ... or as if it matters whether he believes me. [grin] > Who's attacking what, here? I'm certainly not attacking realism. If it > makes you happy and allows you to DO what you DO, then fine. Believe in > it. Believe in a flying spaghetti monster for all I care. (I also > fully support my mom's conviction to Catholicism.) What matters is that > you continue to ACT ... to DO. It doesn't matter what you believe. > > > As Holt points out, you have to start somewhere and the simplest > > least contorted beginning is to assume realism. > > No. The _simplest_ least contorted beginning is to accept the > observations that life lives regardless of belief. No intention need be > imputed. Pond scum swims around. Do we have to impute that they > believe in the existence of external reality in order to swim around? > Ha! Of course not. > > You'll probably, like so many others, claim that we're so very different > from pond scum. But when pressed, you won't be able to clarify > precisely and accurately the mechanisms that make us so very different. > (You may even invoke the useless term "emergence" in the process. ;-) > You can bluster and preach about how we're different just like the > way my mom believes dogs don't have souls; but in the end, we're not > different. We swim around, eat, mate, and e-mail each other because > we're _alive_, not because we believe in flying spaghetti monsters. > > > * This is true in science as well as law. We don't make scientific > discoveries based on what we believe; we make them based on what we DO. > We don't throw people in jail for what they believe; we throw them in > jail based on what they DO. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > 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 >
============================================================ 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
