virus: SM

Reed Konsler (
Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:37:03 -0400 (EDT)

>Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:50:40 -0600
>From: David McFadzean <>
>At 01:15 PM 9/25/97 -0400, Reed Konsler wrote:
>>>From: David McFadzean <>
>>>I didn't mean to imply that. I believe that some parts of
>>>objective reality lie entirely outside of anyone's (or any
>>>observer's) perceptions, e.g. I think some stars probably
>>>exist outside the lightcone of any and all conscious observers.
>>Why? Doesn't that alter the common definiton of objective?
>>It seems to me you are now using definition:
>>1) Derived from the material and not the mental
>What do you mean by "derived"?

I mean that there is a material or physical world that
is the basis of reality. This is one of Rand's axioms.
The universe of substance exists independent of our
observation of it. It is the same idea you invoke when
you assert there are stars that no one can see. The
"reality" of those stars in derived from their inherent
physical substance, not any conscious belief states
about them. That is what I mean by "derived", not
neccesarily an expression of my own beliefs.

>>earlier you described objective as
>>2) Identical for all observers using the same definition
>I did not. I hypothesized that objective reality is
>consistent (non-contradictory) for all observers using
>the same definitions.

Do you mean that the observers are internally consistent
or mutually consistent. Surely you must accept that
observers habitually contradict one another about even
the simplest of observations. Either mutual consistency
is not a characteristic of "objective" reality or else
the required condition "the same defintions" is inaccesible
in practice.


Reed Konsler