Xref: utzoo sci.misc:1158 talk.philosophy.misc:948
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: <751@actnyc.UUCP>
Date: 26 Mar 88 02:23:57 GMT
References: <2868@gryphon.CTS.COM> <343@thirdi.UUCP> <732@actnyc.UUCP> <356@thirdi.UUCP> <741@actnyc.UUCP> <368@thirdi.UUCP>
Reply-To: jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man)
Organization: Diet Software
Lines: 76
Keywords: reality credibility validity

In article <368@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
)
)But, empirically, I would say when we say that someone else is out of touch
)with reality, we do in fact disagree with that other person.  And if we were to
)say that we were ourselves out of touch with reality, that would betoken a loss
)of confidence in what we believe and an inner conflict.  Can you think of
)a counter-example?

Yes. I disagree with your "mapping" of reality but I don't think you are out of
touch with reality.

)Sure: *anyone's* reality is perceived as being "out there", in that it is
)perceived, conceived, and known to be outside the person.

It looks like you are making a stronger statement here than the one you wish to
avoid.  You say that the question of whether there is an external reality is
"meaningless" regardless of how we perceive it to be, yet you don't hesitate to
speculate on what goes on in the perceptions of others which we cannot directly
perceive.

me:
)>But your definition does not correspond to the way the word is normally used.
)
)True, but I am offering a different conceptualization that will fit most of the
)instances where the word "reality" is used, one that I think has some useful
)consequences.

And what meta-map can tell me how to choose between the ordinary and new map of
reality?  As for myself, I kinda like the old "out-there" reality since it is
more intuitive.  What's more, I'm willing to bet that you act in the world as if
there were an objective reality despite your claim of meaninglessness.

me:
)>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?
)
)Interesting question.  I don't know.  All I know is that we seem to follow those
)rules.  The rules don't, of course, mandate the *particular* realities people
)experience, only various characteristics of those realities.  Completely
)different systems, for instance, may be logically consistent internally but
)quite different from each other.
)
)My point is really a skeptical one:  there *might* be some external reality

But you seem to be very selectively skeptical.  You end up assuming things
more improbable.  Take the following for example:

me:
)>How would you go about "proving" somebody (or some machine) is concious?
)
)I don't think it can be proved with certainty.  I think we can only infer from
)similarities (either of form or behavior) the probable presence of other
)consciousnesses.  There has been a big controversy raging about Turing
)machines in talk.philosophy.misc on this point.

)                                            ...  It has something to do with
)having a viewpoint and having intention.  If a machine had a viewpoint and had
)intention, the same way I have a viewpoint and have intention, I would say it's
)intelligent (or, rather, conscious).  I don't happen to think a machine *could*
)have these qualities, but if it did, it would be conscious.

Does a chess playing program have the intention of winning?  Somehow I think 
your "requisites" for conciousness are harder to pin down than conciousness 
itself.

)"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

You could always change your mind just for the fun of it...

)Sarge Gerbode

-- 
	Being an AI program means never having to say you're sorry.

				jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)