> Jason McVean wrote:
> >But I obviously don't want to say
> >"true value" if everyone is then going to claim that truth
> >doesn't exist. That's why I'm perhaps stubbornly refusing to let
> >the subject drop... as I'm sure most people would like :-)
>
> Thank you for your posts on objective reality and absolute truth. I think
> they move us forward. Drop the subject? This discussion has not started
> yet! (All who are tired with it are free to ignore this thread; AND if
> you read it and have nothing to say -- please DON'T). I find it very
> important and enlightening. Most confusion and frustration comes from
> different definitions we have for the same words (not to mention memetical
> experiments on us). Let me start with the definitions:
>
> (1) REALITY.
>
> Kevin says:
> >Objective reality is not the kind of thing which can be true or false.
> >It is what it is.
>
> "It is". May I say that we all believe that objective reality exists?
> If not, as I said in my previous post, such "non-Euclidian"
> assumption may lead to some interesting discoveries, but let's handle it
> in a separate "Objective reality does not exist" thread.
>
> I see no big difference between "objective reality" and "reality". The
> only reason to use the word "objective" is to stress it's independence
> from our perception.
My perceptual map is different here. "Objective reality" is "clearly"
[sic] a proper subclass of "reality", because asserting verifiability
[required for the qualifier 'objective'] is not related to asserting
existence. This holds even if all existence-claims are in principle
verifiable, which right now is inobvious--try distinguishing between
'incensed' and 'angry' from the outside.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////