"George Dance" wrote:
>On Feb 3, 8:27 am, nothun...@enough.yet wrote:
>> Howdy. I'm new here.
>
>> The subject line is interesting. I'd agree with it as a broad
>> statement. Sanity is a voting matter and all that.
>
>
>That's last sentence is a bit ambiguous to me.
Sorry, I thought it was a common saying; see below.
> Are you saying that it
>really is insanity to disagree with the majority? Then what would
>ever justify changing one's mind about anything?
I'm saying that the word "sanity" is a goofy thing, instead of
referring to the functionality of a person't mentality, it measures
conformance instead. If a person hears voices and acts on what they
say, the common view is that the person is insane; my view is that
sanity depends exclusively on the functionality of whatever internal
algorithms the individual finds useful. Voices? Omens? Physics?
Mathematics? Logic? What works, works; conformance for the sake of
conformance is in my view a form of insanity because it does not
necessarily lead one toward increased functionality, it leads only
toward increased acceptance. The word "normal" as it refers to
"sanity" basically means "average" or "conformant", not "functionally
sound".
>> This door you guys are talking about. It sounds like you're assuming
>> a physical reality within which it exists.
>
>
>Well, yes and no. In my daily life, I do assume that the door et al
>exist in a reality that is objective - that is separate and distinct
>from my mental, subjective reality. And I'd call that 'physical
>reality', provided 'physical' means only that I can sense it.
Well it's certainly useful that the door consistently maintains its
characteristics. I don't see that it necessarily needs to be separate
from your mentation but neither do I see where a separation would be
dysfunctional.
> But as
>I see it, that's precisely the question in dispute here - can I know
>anything at all about that objectively existing 'door in itself, or
>any of the rest of physical reality in itself? - so I cannot and have
>not been assuming a positive answer for this discussion.
Why do you care anything at all about the objective existence of the
door? If its characteristics are consistent, its behaviour
repeatable, what's the diff? Are there bonus points for being
"objectively correct" that I'm unaware of, and if so who is the final
arbiter?
>> Suppose that physical
>> reality isn't the thing that gave rise to the door which you are
>> perceiving? Suppose instead that physical reality is generated by
>> perceiving it? What then? Or is injecting that question a
>> threadjack, I dunno.
>
>
>
>No, I think that line of thought is clearly implied by a negative one
>answer to the above question. If I cannot know nothing about the
>door that exists out there, independently of mind - the "door in
>itself" - but only about the purely subjective idea of a door in my
>mind - then I cannot know if there's any door, or anything at all but
>the purely subjective idea. In that case 'physical reality' would be
>no different from my subjective ideas; whether I could open the door
>and walk through it, walk through a wall instead, or be stuck in my
>room with no way to get out, would be solely a matter of what I
>believed.
Perhaps it would be a matter of what you believed, or perhaps
something more than simple belief would be involved. Then, "belief"
is a squirrely word, there are variants that range from "wishful
thinking" to "confirmed knowledge" with lots in the middle.
>The big question I have about that, of course, is: If I am simply
>conceiving, or making up, physical reality as a mental construct, then
>why am I making it up in this particular way?
That is precisely the $64 question... if one has sufficient
experiences with the physical-reality-dominates model to conclude that
it is a false model, and falls back to the model that physical reality
is generated by its perception, it really becomes one of only two
useful questions; the first is, am I doing all this by myself or are
other agencies involved, and the second is, why exactly like this?
> I know, and am quite
>conscious that I know, that in many cases I would prefer that physical
>reality be different. For instance, why would I always have to walk
>over to the door, move it, and walk through it, in order to be
>somewhere else? If I want to go to the bathroom, why can't I simply
>be in the bathroom instead of here (the way I can simply be in one
>place, rather than another, in my dreams?) For that matter, why do I
>have to go to the bathroom at all? I certainly can't see any point
>to 'generating' that particular fact.
Sometimes things need to be learned, and given consistency with all
that has been previously perceived (manifested if you prefer) there
are fallouts, inescapable results of derivation; sometimes the nature
of those seemingly irrelevant details provide vital clues.
>> It just seems to me that your arguments are
>> pretty straight-up but your underlying assumptions aren't the same as
>> mine.
>
>
>It's precisely those underlying assumptions that I think are in
>question here. Accordingly I'd welcome your further input.
I'll hang around for a while then. If my statements here are
insufficient to provoke questions (and/or attacks, though this seems a
remarkably civil group for usenet), feel free to resort to whole
cloth. I make no great claims, but I have spent a number of years
gradually moving from one kind of (normal) understanding toward
another that is less "sane" and more functional... or maybe, I'm just
nuts, though I can't find my nuts-o-meter anyplace handy to take an
"objective" reading on that.
--
Anybody seen my tinfoil hat?
