![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Trying again, because the previous wording was causing problems.
[Poll #157777]
Edit: I'd be interested in justifications for (3) from anyone that voted that way.
[Poll #157777]
Edit: I'd be interested in justifications for (3) from anyone that voted that way.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 09:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 09:10 am (UTC)Of course there is some kind of reality, but from our subjective perspective, we have no way of really understanding it, and another person's subjective idea of reality might be so completely different from mine that it makes the whole concept of reality subjective. So I picked three, then changed to two, then thought of changing it back to three.
This wording makes it very clear that my answer should be two, because to pick three would basically mean that nothing exists outside ourselves, and I can't see that as being viable. That would mean that Andrew doesn't exist, and I just created the illusion of someone else posting this poll so that it appeared on my computer, when actually it doesn't exist at all, I just imagined it. And I think Andrew could effectively debate that he exists, and could make the exact same argument that I don't, and he just imagined this response to his poll.
no subject
A.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 10:00 am (UTC)Do I get "the prize"?
However, my qualification of what constitutes "objective reality" is "nothing people outside theoretical physics below the quantum level ever talk about".
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 10:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 10:44 am (UTC)Figments have to be imagined in something, after all.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 12:43 pm (UTC);)
Adam
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 10:29 am (UTC)Reality is what we make it. That's why voodoo is effective, and our observations of quarks change the very nature of the quarks. That's why monks can sit on mountain tops in the middle of a snow storm and not be cold.
I could go on, but I'm hungry. Perhaps I'll get lunch and then continue this.
Re: Reality
Date: 2003-07-17 10:46 am (UTC)Then again, I suspect that I also flow between 2 and 3 as necessary depending on conceptual models I'm trying to manipulate.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 12:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 02:42 pm (UTC)if our perceptions are our senses and thought combined so what we feel, see, smell etc is all combined and then out brains say "that is so, so this must be!", then surely it doesn't matter if it's real or not.
i mean.. erm, geeky example. the holodeck in NextGen Star Trek - say you were on that, and you heard birds singing and wind blowing, you felt the breeze on your face and so on, to make you think you wer ein the countryside, would it actually -matter- that you weren't? that instead you were on a spaceship in the middle of nothing? that what you were touching was just gubbins made by the computer system on board?
have i strayed too much from the point?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 03:04 pm (UTC)But I still believe there is an objective reality underlying things, otherwise my subjkective reality would look nothing like yours...
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 03:12 pm (UTC)and how do you know what i see as yellow you see as yellow (for example)? maybe what i see as yellow you see as blue or some other colour i have no word for because it doesn't exist. maybe how i see is how you smell. myabe what i think of as three dimensional you see s two dimensional?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 03:56 pm (UTC)"Subverted" - I love that word.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 09:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-17 11:45 pm (UTC)It does?
no subject
Date: 2003-07-18 01:06 am (UTC)(and what do you mean by 'observed'?)
no subject
Date: 2003-07-18 10:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-19 12:32 am (UTC)The waveform collapses under certain conditions, including interaction with events above a certain size level. People happen to be one of them. But you can capture quantum events on photographic film just as well.
no subject
Date: 2003-07-19 11:18 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-07-21 01:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-07-18 10:31 am (UTC)