🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <343@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>>In article <2885@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes:
>> 
>> So, I ask you, what is reality, and who defines it?
>
>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?
Then again, I'd hate to think that my reality achieves ligitimacy by the
same process that selected Reagan for president.  But what I think you're
really saying is that the validity of everyone else's reality depends on whether
it corresponds to yours; i.e the answer to G. Gleason's question is that *you*
define reality (though you might qualify that as *your* reality).  Or maybe
you're saying whatever a person believes is what she believes, which is a
tautology which makes it both unfalsifyable and contentless.  And, therefore,
as you put it below, should be ignored.

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?

>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.  Turing's
point was that the question of machine intelegence is only a meaningful question
on the behavioral level.


>-- 
>"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."
>
>Sarge Gerbode
-- 
	Absloute knowledge means never having to change your .signature

				jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)