----- Original Message -----
From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> If it's real, it is by definition part of reality.
Then you are creating a set which only has value if there is such a thing as
"not"real. But by your own definition, no such things exist (i.e.: Reality
= All things) Again, this definition has no value because it is not a
description that contains any information.
> Obviously you can invent as many imaginary "realities" as you like.
> But if you have multiple realities, the question remains: By what term or
word
> will you refer to the sum of all realities? And is not the sum of all of
them a
> single set?
I'm suggesting a different way of looking at things entirely. I accept the
concept of reality as a working model, but I do not have absolute belief in
an external reality. Not yet anyway. We do not currently have the ability
to perceive reality directly.
>
> > I'm just running out the door, so I can't really address this right now,
but
> > I'm certain you'll agree there is value in making the distinction
between
> > reality and our perception of it.
>
> No problem with that -- it doesn't contradict that fact of one reality.
Actually, it does. If we draw the distinction you agree to above, the only
'fact' we have is in our perception of reality. Your belief in the
existence of one reality is an article of faith, not fact. Under current
operating conditions we are slaves to a sensory mode of existence.
Belief in reality makes perfect sense-- it fulfills our need for causal
relationships. This is a very human way of looking at the world. We posit
that in the action of throwing a ball, a real object has moved from point A
to point B. We may or may not be correct. It may later be revealed, for
instance, to have been a VR simulation (and you, the unwitting subject.)
Again, belief in reality is obviously a good working model. It is a
convention of your mind that facilitates your existence. I prefer however
to leave that sliver of skeptism in my mind-- I trust my senses, but if the
nature of things is shown to be fundamentally different, then I am prepared
to be flexible. Further, I am prepared to believe in no "nature of things"
at all-- that we live in the emergent vapor of an existence that is
illusory, for instance.
Heady stuff and apparently of very little practical use other than mental
excercise.
I do hold however, that there are very practical ways in which we can
leverage the plasticity of our perception of reality into control over that
reality. If I could sit you down in a room and have a conversation with you
about it, I would, because a written explanation would be tiresome-- I'd
have to spend too much time convincing you I was talking about something
rational. Indeed, extremely rational.
--::jason.joel.thompson:: ::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:51 MDT