And John A. Responded:
*****
It is exactly this objective reality that I called "absolute" reality. I
think that we are not seeing as much of the absolute reality as we think
that we are. I'm very suprised that there seems to be an acceptance of an
objective or absolute reality being discussed. Recognizing that all information
that is taken in by human beings is subjective, since it is indeed
"filtered" through our senses, how can we even speak of something
absolute? How is this "absolute" reality determined? Absolute means
unchanging. Isn't a central premise of memetics that things are
continually changing are reforming according to circumstance?
*****
And then Bill Said (May7,1:56pm)
*****
However, we are able to to speak of such things as beauty and absolute reality
as if they were objectively definable, this is what is misleading in
language. You could not of beautiful if everyone had a different
definition since no one would understand what you meant, but this is
not to say that the meanings don't change. I refer to Wittengenstein on
this. It is clear that abstract concepts such such as beauty, truth,
justice, and reality, are defined socially. This is necessary for any
discussion of them. They are continually redefined through time, that is
the nature of language, and thus knowledge and reality.
*****
I wholeheartedly add my support to the skepticsim raised towards this thing we
are describing as "Absolute Reality". I identify such things with "Absolute
Truth" and "God" as terms that are hopelessly vague and therefore not
incredibly useful in this context.
I agree with David that we infer the existence of something becuase we percieve
(or observe) it. I don't understand why we continue to have these
disagreements really, becuase that is my point. If you are going to define
anything that definition must be based in observation. Otherwise how can you
distinguish it from fantasy?
This is closely tied to the infered "objective reality". Such a model should
contain the fewest numer of possible items...even so it is so obviously
enormously complicated we will never grasp it all, even if the information were
avaliable. I think David is afraid of us missing important parts of truth just
becuase they are outside of our preception. I understand this concern, but I
can't help but wonder where he intends to get the time to assimilate all the
information he does observe. If there is one cliche in this age it is
"Information Overload". I have enough trouble discerning pattern in the chaos
that I do perceive.
Reed
konsler@ascat.harvard.edu