Hi Colin,
Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap! Very good!
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:40 PM
Subject: RE: subjective reality
From: Lee Corbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August
is acquired is a pretty complicated and still
mysterious process. I would venture that a lot of what we
would count as subjective reality is just that! (more below)
I am not sure I understand you, and pêrhaps it is just a question of
vocabulary. If I acknowledge a belief of someone, it seems to me
!
... and, sure, it is a progress to discover we know less. Glad to hear
that, because comp literaly forces us to realize we are much more
ignorant than most physicalist approaches could imagine!
---
I’ve caught up with the ‘subjective reality’ thread and am finding
for instance. How
(consensual) reality is acquired is a pretty complicated and still
mysterious process. I would venture that a lot of what we
would count as subjective reality is just that! (more below)
[BM]
I am not sure I understand you, and pêrhaps it is just a question of
vocabulary. If I
Brent said:
As Bertrand Russell pointed out long ago, the existence of a self who
has the experiences is an inference.
grrr! It doesnt matter how long ago anyone pointed anything out! Things do
not get truer or falser as they get older. They come in and out of vogue.
Russell's (wasnt it
(The original went only to Bruno's addressw)
To: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED],
everything-list@eskimo.com
In-Reply-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Bruno, your postulate of testability is falling into
Chris writes
Russell's (wasnt it Bernard Williams'?) criticism of the cogito is just to
say that Descartes added non certainties to his certainty. The assumption of
an 'I' to recieve the 'Thoughts'. Nevertheless, with regards to the hardcore
'realist', this isnt going to be much comfort.
: RE: subjective reality
snip
The realist does *not* want the world to be as it seems to be. No,
the realist focuses on the fact that a wholly independent world out
there exists and existed before he did. In fact, it is the subjectivists
who start calling their own unassailable introspections
Stephen writes
Just one point while I have some time and mental clarity. Can a Realist
accept that a wholly independent world out there exists and existed
before he did and yet can admit that the particular properties of this
independent world are not *definite* prior to the
:34:19 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Hi Godfrey,
't Hooft's work is motivated by problems one encounters in Planck scale
physics. 't Hooft has argued that the no go theorems precluding
deterministic models come with some ''small print''. Physicists
working on
''conventional ways
Hi Norman,
Le 12-août-05, à 20:47, Norman Samish a écrit :
Bruno,
You speak of God. Could you define what you, as a logician,
mean?
Usually I try to avoid the name, especially when I propose theology
for naming the study of all observer-moments from all possible angles
(angles =
to build from the cogito. Descartes didnt manage it.
However, to ignore it altogether is just lazy and is hardly a argument
against those who dont.
regards.
Chris.
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:13:21
my subjective truth that you don't exist. I
can be morbid enough to take I exist if and only if your self does
not exist as my subjective reality. What if I believe I don't exist
(most times I really do believe that), can you disprove it?
As soon as you say something that is not universally
Hi Godfrey,
Le 10-août-05, à 21:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Hi Everythingers,
Though I am new to the list I have been reading your fascinating posts
on this troubling issue of reality and subjectivity
so please pardon if I skip the protocol and delve into the discussion
right away. I
Hi George,
Still trying to understand you but having trouble holding my
disbelieve...
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
Hi Godfrey
The I that I consider consists of a logical system that defines and
coincides with the physical system that the I inhabits. Thus the
world (the slice of
Le 11-août-05, à 00:55, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Okay, but two questions:
1. by comp do you mean the computationalist hypothesis as
apparently
used by philosophers? Is comp just an abbreviation for that?
Strictly speaking: yes. It happens now that many people implicitly
conceive comp in
Le 12-août-05, à 02:29, George Levy a écrit :
Objective reality is an illusion that disappears when observers differ in their frame of reference. In this particular case, it does not exist when observers operate according to different but entirely consistent fundamental logics. In fact, such
Chris writes
The point is that given the certainty of 'I exist' subjective experience can
not just be dismissed by the realist. Given its certainty, it demands some
kind of explanation,
Of course it does. But I imagine that you are looking at the phenonmenon
from inside the system. I warn
Bruno,
You speak of God. Could you define what you, as a logician, mean?
Thanks,
Norman
~~
An informal, but (hopefully) rigorous and complete, argument showing that
physics is derivable from comp. That argument is not constructive. Its e
asyness comes from
Godfrey Kurtz wrote
More specifically: I believe QM puts a big kabosh into any non-quantum
mechanistic view of the physical world. If you
don't get that, than maybe you don't get a lot of other things, Bruno.
Sorry if this sounds contemptuous. It is meant
to be.
There aren't many
Hi Godfrey, Bruno
The "I" that I consider consists of a logical system that defines and
coincides with the physical system that the "I" inhabits. Thus the
world (the slice of the plenitude that we can observe) is anthropically
constrained by the "I."
[GK]
So the "I" is (1) a logical system
Hi George,
Thanks for the clarifications. Let me see if I understand you better.
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-Original Message-
From: George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[GL]
I am sorry I was sloppy in my explanation. Let me try to be clearer.
I is the kernel of consciousness. It
Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:11:30 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Godfrey Kurtz wrote
More specifically: I believe QM puts a big kabosh into any
non-quantum
Hi Lee,
Lee Corbin writes:
Godfrey writes
Hi Everythingers,
Though I am new to the list I have been reading your fascinating
posts
on this troubling issue of reality and subjectivity
so please pardon if I skip the protocol and delve into the discussion
right away. I have a background
@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:55:51 -0700
Subject: RE: subjective reality
Okay, but two questions:
1. by comp do you mean the computationalist hypothesis as
apparently
used by philosophers? Is comp just an abbreviation for that?
[GK]
No! What he calls COMP is NOT what you call
Hi George,
I see your point. Brandon Carter expressed recently the same idea, it
seams, when noting that Quantum Mechanics
suggests to him that objective reality is NOT a realistic objective.
Perhaps, but that hardly implies that subjective
reality is any more realistic as an scientific
Well, maybe some of the above helped to explain it. Basing stuff
on 1st person has a long history. That's what everyone, it seems
to me, did before the scientific era (about 1600?). So far as I know,
nothing
has ever come of it.
Its been the cornerstone of modern philosophy since the 1600's.
Chris writes
Well, maybe some of the above helped to explain it. Basing stuff
on 1st person has a long history. That's what everyone, it seems
to me, did before the scientific era (about 1600?). So far as I know,
nothing has ever come of it.
Its been the cornerstone of modern philosophy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also have some trouble with the idea that we "share an I", as you put
it, as I don't know to what extent
I do share mine with anyone! My notion is, instead, that the "I" is
exactly what we DO NOT SHARE, what makes us different,
while Reality is all the rest:
Hi Lee ,
It was just a figure of speech. You are free, of course, to use
the word reality any way you want. I'm not comfortable for using
it to describes one's subjective impressions, feelings, etc.
But I am not using the word reality to *describe* one's subjective
impression, it seems
PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:35:18 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Hi Lee ,
It was just a figure of speech. You are free, of course, to use
the word reality any way you want. I'm not comfortable for using
it to describes one's subjective impressions
Bruno writes
You just seems to want those [1st person] experiences to be just an
unnecessary
epiphenomenon, and you would like that science never address what they
really are and where they came from.
For you it looks like consciousness is just a sort of subjective
mirror partially
Godfrey writes
Hi Everythingers,
Though I am new to the list I have been reading your fascinating posts
on this troubling issue of reality and subjectivity
so please pardon if I skip the protocol and delve into the discussion
right away. I have a background in computer
and cognitive
ay be.
There are probably more than one I's/worlds/logics that satisfy this
requirement. Bruno, you are the expert in logic. Subjective reality is
fundamental. Objective reality arises because we share the same "I" and
therefore the same world (slice view of the plenitude).
George
Le 08-août-05, à 17:49, Lee Corbin a écrit :
(True, we can also extend sympathy by believing it to be utterly
true that he is experiencing pain, but I think that John and I
(and many) are simply not comfortable with introducing a reality,
namely, subjective reality to cover this simple
:
(True, we can also extend sympathy by believing it
to be utterly
true that he is experiencing pain, but I think
that John and I
(and many) are simply not comfortable with
introducing a reality,
namely, subjective reality to cover this simple
situation.)
This amounts to dismissing
Message-
From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Dear Bruno,
I hope not to affront Lee when I imply that both of
us may well accept the 1st person impression
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:30:26PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me (oh no, subjectivity!) that believing in an objective
reality is doing the same epistemic move as Bruno's belief in
arithmetic realism and Godel's Platonism. Isn't belief in objective
reality really by
to conclude is progress of a sort.
---
I’ve caught up with the ‘subjective reality’ thread and am finding the usual
linguistic blurs, wondering how to resolve them. Part of the process is to
ensure we are all talking about the same things. It seems there is room for
some work
Bruno writes
Le 08-août-05, à 17:49, Lee Corbin a écrit :
(True, we can also extend sympathy by believing it to be utterly
true that he is experiencing pain, but I think that John and I
(and many) are simply not comfortable with introducing a reality,
namely, subjective reality to cover
it
is not subjective.
Why? I don't see why subjective and objective cannot have an objective
overlap, and a subjective overlap too.
Once we 'subject' it to our personal 'mind' and its
own distortions it is subjective, not objective
anymore.
So it looks like subjective reality is an oxymoron.
I'm
Le 08-août-05, à 00:11, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Jesse and Norman gave excellent reasons for us not to abandon the
objective stance.
I think we all agree here. I am not sure that anyone regular in this
list has ever abandon or proposed to abandon the objective stance.
It is quite the contrary,
, but maybe John didn't really mean that. After all, any
action I take affects the physical world.
Once we 'subject' it to our personal 'mind' and its
own distortions it is subjective, not objective anymore.
So it looks like subjective reality is an oxymoron.
I'm afraid you do some category error
distortions it is subjective, not
objective anymore.
So it looks like subjective reality is an
oxymoron.
I'm afraid you do some category error.
Oh, come on. It's clear that he just wants to use
words in
this way :-)
[JM]:
I think I did not differentiate between reality and
our perception
frozen at the
instant chosen? Granted, we can't know what this distant objective reality
is until we wait for the photons to reach us, but that doesn't make it
nonsense. The supernova that occurs at a million-light year distant galaxy
is objective reality, even though our subjective reality
it
is not subjective.
Once we 'subject' it to our personal 'mind' and its
own distortions it is subjective, not objective
anymore.
So it looks like subjective reality is an oxymoron.
I understand if you (all) use the phrase as the
'imagined' and 'acceptable' version of something we
CAN handle in our feeble
, this is
not to say I do not believe in something like an objective reality; a
way in which our world works that can be understood and studied and
applies to all observers. But by the same token I believe in the
concept of a subjective reality as complementary to that and as
something with meaning
danny mayes wrote:
Fair enough. But if we accept those parameters does it make any sense to
even talk about reality.? Maybe in a philosophical sense, but certainly
not in a scientific sense as by (your) definition objective reality, the
only reality you say, is forever separated from
. The supernova that occurs at a million-light year distant galaxy
is objective reality, even though our subjective reality is that the
supernova has not occurred. We have to wait a million years to make the
discovery.
Norman Samish
- Original Message -
From
Jesse and Norman gave excellent reasons for us not to abandon the
objective stance.
About Norm's post, I agree with
I realize that different observers must see different versions of events,
but so what? In our 3+1 dimensional universe, couldn't objective reality
be defined as the state of
101 - 150 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
