Re: Can we ever know truth? - simulation

[1Z]

> I think this is wrongheaded.  You doubt that you really assume "things are
> how they appear to me" - the Earth appears flat, wood appears solid, and
> electrons don't appear at all.  What one does is build, or learn, a model
> that fits the world and comports with "how they appear".  I see no reason
> not to call this model "reality", recognizing that it is provisional,
> because there's no point in speculating about a "really, real reality"
> except to suppose there is one so that the model is a model *of* something.

And so that the model can be corrected, and so that reality doesn't
disappear when the model doesactually , there are
aquire a lot of reasons for believing in reality.


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

RE: Can we ever know truth? - simulation

[John M]

Nick: the "practical" - "philosopher". 

I refer to my 'misunderstood' expression to Bruno: 
"NAME Calling" 
(which was a pun, meaning we "call" names and assign
meaning to it - in our OWN mindset, then fight for
THIS meaning against another person's meaning "called"
by the same NAME) - Bruno misunderstood it into its
original "un-pun" (vulgar?) connotation
( - sorry, Bruno -  )
well, your "solipsism" is such a 'name'. 

We live in our own one and pretend to be 'objective'. 

Indeed our (call it: First Person) mind formulates a
'world of solipsist reality' - one may consider it as
'primal', indeed it is a reflection to who knows what.

(Norman's 'reality' vs. Brent's "real real-reality").

Some people are more flexible in this (internal)
formulation and absorb impacts from others (what I
call 3rd person impact) others just stick to 'their
own'. 
Inevitably reformulating the topics into the original 
(solipsistic?) original positions to argue about.

I don't believe that such cycling is a perfect one: 
the argued-against positions have an impact. 
Slow, but adjusting. 

It is sort of a slow 'moving on'. 

John Mikes


--- Nick Prince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This is a form of solipsism  - it is difficult to
> attack it and defending it
> can be similarly time consuming.  I think we have to
> move on and believe
> there is a better approach - if only to get
> somewhere other than back to the
> beginning every time.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   _  
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: Norman Samish   
> 
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:53 PM
> 
> Subject: Can we ever know truth?
> 
>  
> 
> In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said,
> "If we are living in a
> simulation. . ." 
> 
>  
> 
> To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the
> usual pretension. . .   I
> think 'we simulate what we are living in' according
> to the little we know.
> Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' - 'modeling' -
> 'metaphorizing' - or
> even 'Harry Potterizing' things we think does not
> change the
> 'unknown/unknowable' we live in.  We just think and
> therefore we think we
> are."
> 
>  
> 
> This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as a
> child - I used to wonder
> if if everything I experienced was real or a dream. 
> How could I know which
> it was?  I asked my parents and was discouraged, in
> no uncertain terms, from
> asking them nonsensical questions.  I asked my
> playmates and friends, but
> they didn't know the answer any more than I did.  I
> had no other resources
> so I concluded that the question was unanswerable
> and that the best I could
> do was proceed as if what I experienced was reality.
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Now, many years later, I have this list - and
> Wikipedia - as resources.
> But, as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot
> know that what I
> experience is reality.  I can only assume that
> reality is how things appear
> to me - and I might be wrong.
> 
>  
> 
> Norman Samish
> 
>  
> 
> 
>   _  
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/415 -
> Release Date: 08/09/06
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Can we ever know truth? - simulation

[Brent Meeker]

Nick Prince wrote:
> This is a form of solipsism  - it is difficult to attack it and 
> defending it can be similarly time consuming.  I think we have to move 
> on and believe there is a better approach – if only to get somewhere 
> other than back to the beginning every time.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> *From:* Norman Samish 
> 
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> 
> 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:53 PM
> 
> *Subject:* Can we ever know truth?
> 
>  
> 
> In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are
> living in a simulation. . ."
> 
>  
> 
> To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the usual pretension.
> . .   I think 'we simulate what we are living in' according to the
> little we know.  Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' - 'modeling' -
> 'metaphorizing' - or even 'Harry Potterizing' things we think does
> not change the 'unknown/unknowable' we live in.  We just think and
> therefore we think we are."
> 
>  
> 
> This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as a child - I used
> to wonder if if everything I experienced was real or a dream.  How
> could I know which it was?  I asked my parents and was discouraged,
> in no uncertain terms, from asking them nonsensical questions.  I
> asked my playmates and friends, but they didn't know the answer any
> more than I did.  I had no other resources so I concluded that the
> question was unanswerable and that the best I could do was proceed
> as if what I experienced was reality. 
> 
>  
> 
> Now, many years later, I have this list - and Wikipedia - as
> resources.  But, as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot know
> that what I experience is reality.  I can only assume that reality
> is how things appear to me - and I might be wrong.
> 
>  
> 
> Norman Samish

I think this is wrongheaded.  You doubt that you really assume "things are 
how they appear to me" - the Earth appears flat, wood appears solid, and 
electrons don't appear at all.  What one does is build, or learn, a model 
that fits the world and comports with "how they appear".  I see no reason 
not to call this model "reality", recognizing that it is provisional, 
because there's no point in speculating about a "really, real reality" 
except to suppose there is one so that the model is a model *of* something.

Brent Meeker

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

RE: Can we ever know truth? - simulation

[Nick Prince]

This is a form of solipsism  - it is
difficult to attack it and defending it can be similarly time consuming.  I
think we have to move on and believe there is a better approach – if only to
get somewhere other than back to the beginning every time.

 

 















- Original Message - 





From: Norman Samish 





To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 





Sent: Wednesday, August
09, 2006 12:53 PM





Subject: Can we ever know
truth?





 





In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are
living in a simulation. . ." 





 





To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the usual
pretension. . .   I think 'we simulate what we are living in'
according to the little we know.  Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' -
'modeling' - 'metaphorizing' - or even 'Harry Potterizing' things we think does
not change the 'unknown/unknowable' we live in.  We just think and
therefore we think we are."





 





This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as a child - I used to
wonder if if everything I experienced was real or a dream.  How could I know
which it was?  I asked my parents and was discouraged, in no
uncertain terms, from asking them nonsensical questions.  I asked my
playmates and friends, but they didn't know the answer any more than I
did.  I had no other resources so I concluded that the question was
unanswerable and that the best I could do was proceed as if what I experienced
was reality.  





 





Now, many years later, I have this list - and Wikipedia - as
resources.  But, as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot know
that what I experience is reality.  I can only assume that reality
is how things appear to me - and I might be wrong.





 





Norman Samish



 







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/415 - Release Date: 08/09/06








--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list  -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---