> "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),

> 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?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -