🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <363@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>In article <27440@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes:
>
>>My map is real.  But my map is not the territory.  I believe my map, to
>>the extent that I rely on it to navigate through the world.  But I also
>>disbelieve my map, to the extent that I expect to find errors and
>>inaccuracies that cause me to walk into walls now and then.
>
>In my view, the map may be *more* real than the territory, in that the
>territory (new territory) is constantly being *inferred* from the existing
>map, thus adding to the existing map and resulting in a revised map.  

I agree with something Sarge said in an earlier posting: that
fundamental questions on the existence of objective reality are non
testable.  Thus, on an absolutist view we must admit that skepticism is
possibly true (infinitesimally likely?).  I haven't read much in this
area per se, but neither have I come accross a really knock-out argument
against skepticism.

So reality of the territory is undecidable.  What about reality of the
map? Sarge, I think you'd claim that an individual's truth claims about
their mental phenomena are incorrigible.  When I was reading in
Cognitive Science I did come accross some pretty heavy arguments against
this view.

So, what if reality of the map is *also* undecidable?  Well, then, uh, I
guess. . .gosh, I'd better be pretty careful going to work today. .
.never know when I met run into a reality pit and spit out a white hole.

O---------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Professional Cybernetician 
| Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, New York, but my opinions
| vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .