You're quite evasive in this reply J.R. so I'm just going to basically
repeat my posting and see if I can pin you down on a few of the particulars:
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> Jason Joel Thompson wrote,
> > It's not valid if "unreal" is a null set. It holds no meaning.
>
> But it's not a null set. Unreal means that which is false, untrue,
fictional,
> having no reality, actual existence, or substance.
If it is not a null set, then please indicate what things belong in the
realm of "having no reality." You can't have it both ways-- either reality
is all encompassing in which case the term holds no discretionary meaning,
or there are things that are not a part of reality, in which case reality
has limits.
This circular game of semantics is getting less and less interesting for me,
so maybe we should let it drop from our conversation, unless you have new
insight to provide regarding the usefulness of your definition of the term
'reality.'
>
> > Do you believe that there are unreal things?
>
> Belief has nothing to do with it. I accept that there are bogus inventions
of
> philosophers.
I see. And these bogus inventions are outside of the realm of reality?
> > Ah... I see the nature of our disagreement. You believe that you are
able
> > to perceive reality directly?
>
> Anyone can perceive reality directly. Just stop thinking about it.
I've already made good arguments why this isn't the case. I invite you to
respond to them.
>
> > So, when you look at a pen, you believe that you are directly seeing the
pen
> > as opposed to photons that have been reflected from its surface?
>
> No, when I look at a pen I don't "believe" anything. I simply look at the
pen.
Damn, you're slippery. :) Let me try again:
I'm asking you now, in retrospect: Do you, currently, hold the belief that
when you look at a pen, you are seeing the actual object, or do you now,
currently, hold the belief that when you look at a pen you are seeing
photons reflected from its surface?
>
> > I do not place absolute belief in my senses. I am aware of the fact
that
> > they represent information regarding properties of the object and not
the
> > object itself.
>
> Hopefully you don't do that while driving. You'd be a menace on the
highway.
Please explain why, in detail.
>
> > Let us suppose that I have a bunch of multi-colored tennis balls, that I
am
> > bouncing up against some object. And let us further suppose that due to
the
> > nature of this object, only the orange balls are 'springy' enough to
> > ricochet over a wall and land in your lap. Do you think that only
receiving
> > orange balls from the object is an indication that the object itself is
> > orange? Or instead an indication of a particular property of the
object?
I am quoting myself again here in the hopes that you will respond to this
argument. I invite you to do so at length.
> When you stop imagining things and simply see things as they are, then you
have
> awakened from your reverie of suppositions and conjecture.
> People can conjure all sorts of philosophic nonsense to entertain
themselves.
> I don't consider it extropic at all to waste time with such silliness.
As I mentioned in my first post, this is mostly a mental exercise, to which
you responded:
"Well, like the man said, "use it or lose it.""
Have you decided this particular exercise is no longer valuable?
There are -some- benefits to questioning the fundamental nature of reality,
but I'll grant, for now at least, they are mostly hypothetical.
--::jason.joel.thompson:: ::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:57 MDT