>I didn't say that we are born with knowledge or a conception of the
>natural world. From living and percieving we can infer that there is a
>natural world; that is why the concept of reality can be socially
>defined. If this knowledge were a priori, then reality would always be
>considered the same.
I agree. So then are we arriving at an agreement that our inferences about
the world do not correlate to anything called absolute or objective reality?
The concept of absolute reality wouldn't have much meaning beyond the
inferences you and David spoke of below, although I still get the feeling
that your hanging onto some notion of an absolute.
David McFadzean wrote:
>
> We can infer the existence of an objective reality from out subjective
> reality, but we can have no direct knowledge of objective reality.
>
John Aten wrote:
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. Our senses seem so natural that we think of them as
perceieving actual objective reality, but they do not. People tend to
think that their subjective realtiy is objective, absolute reality.
-----
Bill Godby
wgodby@tir.com