Xref: utzoo sci.misc:1063 talk.philosophy.misc:929
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!actnyc!jsb
From: jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man)
Newsgroups: sci.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: The nature of reality.
Message-ID: <741@actnyc.UUCP>
Date: 21 Mar 88 13:25:30 GMT
References: <2868@gryphon.CTS.COM> <343@thirdi.UUCP> <732@actnyc.UUCP> <356@thirdi.UUCP>
Organization: Diet Software
Lines: 116
Keywords: reality credibility validity

In article <356@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
]In article <732@actnyc.UUCP> jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes:
]
]>In article <343@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
]
]>>Reality is the totality of what exists.
]
]>>For an individual person, reality is the totality of what exists for him. Thus
]>>different people have different realities, though realities may intersect
]>>to form consensual or interpersonal realities.
]
]>Does this mean that someone who thinks he's Napoleon has as 'valid' a reality
]>as I (or you?) or are we assuming some sort of "majority rules" principal?
]
]I wasn't talking about "validity".  I was only pointing out that reality is
]what exists for a person.  I think what we normally think of as "validity" is
]really "credibility", and it refers to the possibility of getting others to
]agree, not to a standard of correspondence with some absolute standard.  A
]person with a very credible reality would have an easier time getting
]agreement from others than one with a less credible reality.  A major aspect
]of credibility is conformity to what others already believe.  Another is
]logical consistency.  Another is aesthetics.  But I think it is relatively
]meaningless to speak of the "validity" of a reality.

At the risk of sounding like the 'ordinary language' folks, I have to say that
this is not the way we use the word "reality".  We can talk about someone being
out of touch with reality.  We don't mean merely that we don't agree with her
reality.  I can even entertain the idea that I am out of touch with reality.
This does not mean that I believe that the "totality of what exists for me"
doesn't exist for me.  Regardless of what I may like to philosophise about, I
believe in my ordinary life (and I suspect so do you) that reality is "out 
there" and that my senses give me a workable picture of it, sufficient, at 
least, to cross the street without getting run over.  I further believe that
others have access to that same "out there" reality.  In other words, reality
is (at least partially) independant of what "exists for me" and if (ignoring
life after death issues) I were to cease to exist, there would still be a "you"
(gentle reader) out there in reality.  (Not very 'New Age' of me, I know)
]
]I think people naturally tend to apply, as a first shot, the criterion of
]whether a presented reality corresponds to theirs, and they tend to reject
]those that don't.  But the saving grace is that if a credible reality is well
]presented, people can change their minds and have a different reality.  But the
]viewpoint that *my* reality is in some sense an *absolute* reality is a form of
]ideological imperialism.  I think anyone who asserts an absolute reality is
]being such an imperialist.  It is really only *his* reality, but in asserting
]it as absolute, he is trying to enforce it on others.

Are you asserting this view as "absolutely" true?  Does that make you a 
meta-imperialist?
]
]>Or maybe you're saying whatever a person believes is what she believes, which
]>is a tautology which makes it both unfalsifyable and contentless.
]
]Definitions are always unfalsifiable and contentless (I think).  I was just
]giving a definition of the term, "reality".  Naturally, by making the
]appropriate substitution, you can turn any definition into a tautology.

But your definition does not correspond to the way the word is normally used.

]>But the interesting question is why do these realities, which *may* intersect,
]>seem to have so much in common?  Or is this merely a feature of *my* reality?
]
]I think it is because *people* have so much in common.  There are certain rules
]that most people follow in organizing their worlds -- such as that of logical
]consistency, the pleasure principle, trying to create a simplicity and an ease
]of operation, much as one would try to do in designing the front end of a
]computer program.  So they will tend to agree of things that promote these
]characteristics in their worlds.  Nelson Goodman goes into this notion in his
]excellent book, "Ways of World-Making".

This begs the question.  Why do most people follow the same rules in organizing
their world?  Do they accidently choose the same rules?  Or are these "rules"
part of a "reality" they have in common?

]
]>>Whether there is an "objective reality" that exists outside of the reality of
]>>individuals is an unprovable question and should therefore be ignored.
]
]>This is the same kind of "unprovable" as the heavily debated question of what
]>is conciousness as distinguished from its behavioral manifestations.
]
]Consciousness in oneself does not require proof, since it can be *experienced*
]and, in fact, is a necessary condition for having any experience at all.
]Consciousness in others, similar to what we experience, cannot be directly
]experienced (absent telepathy) and therefore must be proved -- e.,g., by
]behavioral means.

How would you go about "proving" somebody (or some machine) is concious?

]
]>Turing's point was that the question of machine intelligence is only a
]>meaningful question on the behavioral level.
]
]Certain logical positivists notwithstanding, something can be *meaningful*
]without being *provable*.  I can get an idea of what it would mean for a
]machine to be intelligent without being able to prove it.

Is this 'idea' verbalizable?  Is it a judgement made on the basis of observable
evidence?  Or is it a feeling, such as we have watching the image of an actor on
the screen that this image is concious?

]-- 
]"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."
]
]Sarge Gerbode
]Institute for Research in Metapsychology
]950 Guinda St.
]Palo Alto, CA 94301
]UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge

	"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your .signature"

-- 
			The check is in the e-mail

				jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)