We can define it in many ways, but it is still worth considering that the more interesting question might be how the word functions, in practice.
What is the role that confirmation-by-others plays in what what you, or I, or someone else ascribes reality to? How sensitive is that ascription to variations in confirmation-by-others? What other factors affect the ascription's strength? What weakens it? As for dreams: Plenty of people believe they have had dreams confirmed, both in their own direct experience and in the experiences of others. It really is a much more mirky topic than most give it credit for. <[email protected]> On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 5:29 PM Jochen Fromm <[email protected]> wrote: > If we want to define "real" in terms of observers we could say an > experience is real when other observers have the same experience in the > same situation or context and can confirm it independently *and* > subsequently. > > A squirrel we meet in the park can be confirmed by others and if we find > out the place where it lives, we can observe it subsequently. > > A rainbow in the clouds or a movie in the cinema could be confirmed by > other observers, but only for a short time and not subsequently in the time > that follows. > > A dream at night can neither be confirmed by others nor repeated by > oneself subsequently. We experience things that seem to be real, but when > we wake up in the morning we see that they are not real. We are not able to > confirm the experience. > > -J. > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: ⛧ glen <[email protected]> > Date: 6/1/22 03:43 (GMT+01:00) > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Peirce, Buddhism, Monism, Behaviorism, oh my! > > How many subsequent experiences are needed? 2? A google? And is reality > defeasible? Eg if some experience is 'real' to me, then I get some brain > damage and no longer get repeats, is the now unexperienced experience real? > > On May 31, 2022 6:05:40 PM PDT, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >Dave, I think I disagree. Not all experiences have a character of being > real. Only those that are confirm or subsequent experiences. > > > >Sent from my Dumb Phone > > > >On May 31, 2022, at 8:27 PM, Prof David West <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >At the risk of becoming a poster boy for glen's comments about cult > maintenance and othering; > > > >It is the body and brain that are Illusion, the self Real. > > > >The mirage, the rainbow illustrate the emergence of Illusion. Raindrops > and neurons are posited as ex post facto "explanations" and "causes" for > very real, 'perceptions,' 'apprehensions,' 'experiences' of rainbows and > mirages. > > > >davew > > > >On Tue, May 31, 2022, at 12:59 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > >> Interesting episode. Yes, Garfield apparently uses it to advertise his > book. I like the mirage example he uses (at 11:00) to illustrate an > illusion which is real as an experience and as a dynamic refraction process > but unreal as a physical substance. > >> > https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691220284/losing-ourselves > >> > >> Daniel Dennett recently posted on Twitter a link to an article which > contains the same idea, but for a rainbow instead of a mirage: perceiving a > rainbow is a real experience of a colored arc, but also an illusion because > there is of course no real physical arc at the place where we see it. > >> https://www.keithfrankish.com/2022/05/like-a-rainbow/ > >> > >> Maybe the illusion of the self works indeed in the same way? As whole > persons who have bodies and brains we are real, just as raindrops in the > sky are real. But when the billions of neurons start to sparkle in the > light of conscious thoughts, the experience of a self emerges for a short > time like a rainbow which emerges shortly from a million raindrops that > bend the light towards the observer. > >> > >> I believe Jay Garfield is right when he says that we are able to > construct ourselves as embedded beings. It is as if we are 6, 7 or 8 > dimensional beings in a 4 dimensional spacetime where the additional > dimensions are embedded in the others. This additional dimensions come > through language and enable to specify a personality. If we consider a > person from a 3rd person point of view, then the personality of a person > certainly determines the behavior. This means everyone has a self in form > of a character or personality. Even if it is illusionary or an unreachable > ideal to be a certain type of person, such a type can be approximated. Our > personalities can be considered as embedded abstract person types that we > acquire and approximate in the course of time. In this sense we can say we > have a self that guides our actions. And the abstract type is independent > from us, since it could also be implemented in a sophisticated robot, > android or AI. > >> > >> -J. > >> > >> > >> -------- Original message -------- > >> From: [email protected] > >> Date: 5/31/22 11:04 (GMT+01:00) > >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' < > [email protected]> > >> Cc: 'Mike Bybee' <[email protected]>, [email protected], > 'Grant Franks' <[email protected]> > >> Subject: [FRIAM] Peirce, Buddhism, Monism, Behaviorism, oh my! > >> > >> > https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/282-do-you-really-have-a-self/id733163012?i=1000563340865 > >> > >> > >> > >> Jay Garfield promotes his book Losing the Self on the Sam Harris > Podcast. I can see no evidence that Garfield ever read a word of Peirce, > but It’s fascinating how closely he tracks Peirce’s monism. Fascinating, > also, to see how Harris never quite gets it, repeatedly trying to drag the > outside/inside distinction back into the conversation, while slathering > praise on Garfield for eliminating it. Reminds me of James’s failure to > ever quite “get” Peirce. But then it was James who died a neutral monist. > Oh well. > >> > >> > >> > >> Reminded me of all the times that Dave West has accused me of being a > closet Buddhist. > >> > >> > >> > >> Nick > >> > >> > >> > >> Nick Thompson > >> > >> [email protected] > >> > >> > -- > glen ⛧ > > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
