Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,talk.religion.newage,alt.atheism,alt.pagan,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!stevens
From: stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens)
Subject: Re: THE WINDMILL HAS WON
Message-ID: <1994Dec30.183000.19925@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@galileo.cc.rochester.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
References: <3crovi$12e@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <blaine-2812942227200001@prevost.islandnet.com> <1994Dec29.155841.24793@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3dvhcl$6ok@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <3e13if$2e5@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 94 18:30:00 GMT
Lines: 84



Roose says to me,
>I am truly sorry that we cannot have a rational debate.

I am truly sorry you feel that way.  Apparently you only feel able to have a
rational debate with those who agree with you.  I think much of humanity is
that way, and it is a sad state of affairs.


>It is curious to me that so many people spend so much energy denying 
>everything they experience day in and day out.

It is curious to me that so many people are so captured by assuming the
truth of their personal and cultural constructs that they never even both
to question them, nevermind question whether they ARE constructs or the
reality they believe them to be.

I think many people in our culture would do well to study a little Buddhism.
Meditation often leads to the insight that, for example, "self" does not
exist anywhere in our perception -- there IS only perception, and we assume
the perceiving object to explain it.  But we don't have direct access to
"self."  Descartes, who got far enough to admit that all that was around him
in his perception could be personal hallucination, still did not make this 
leap -- he said the most fundamental fact was "I am," rather than just "is."

Yet every day people assume self-ness because they never do meditate -- they
are so caught up in routines and activities and assumptions they never think
it important.

>  Every human awakes from 
>their sleep to go about their daily business confident that when they 
>open their front door to step out into the world, the world is going to 
>be pretty much the same as it was the day before.  

This fact is completely consistent with my view -- given that we also assume
that when we wake up we will be the same perceiving entity, with the same
structure, and therefore constructing/bringing forth the same kind of world.

>... how many things have to be "consistent" and "real" for 
>this to take place?

Is consistency now the same thing as reality?

>"Verifiability is a custom that ITSELF is in need for verification"

I think it would be nice if you actually addressed this quote in particular.

>"Laws of Nature are, in fact, edicts that humans have described"

Note that I didn't say whether consistencies objectively exist or not,
but the "laws" are *descriptions* of consistencies.  This should be
obvious when you consider that when you restate laws of physics in different
terms, or derive one law from another, you are changing the form of the
law, but reality is not changing.  You are changing your perspective of your
DESCRIPTION.


>How do these people know which side 
>of the road to drive on?  

Consistency-- SELF-consistency within MY experience -- not "Reality."

>Most frightening... How do they decide how to vote on important social 
>issues or who to vote for?

Same as anything else.  Just as I have a belief based on my PERSONAL experience
that when I see certain shapes and colors I will not be able to move "through"
them, I have a belief based on my PERSONAL experience that the shift to the
Republican senate will result in a lot of things I don't like, and a belief
that although I shouldn't vote for a republican president next election,
I hope I have the option of voting for a different democratic one, and so on.
None of this is inconsistent with my claim that individuals distinguish reality
based on their experience.  In fact, if you DENY that, and claim objectivity
about ALL predicates of belief, then you're practically saying that there are
ways to determine who OBJECTIVELY would be the best president.  Now, I have
strong political views, but I am not so arrogant to think that people who
disagree with me are "objectively" wrong.  They simply have different
interests.

Greg Stevens

stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu

