Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Subjective reality
Message-ID: <1748@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Sep-85 16:18:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1748
Posted: Sat Sep 21 16:18:11 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 06:42:08 EDT
References: <103@l5.uucp> <1544@umcp-cs.UUCP> <109@l5.uucp> <1697@pyuxd.UUCP> <524@spar.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 67

>>> There is nothing in:
>>> 	Knowledge is true belief in the light of sufficient evidence
>>> which rules out the existence of subjective truth. [LAURA]

>>Can you call it "subjective truth"?  What basis can you use for calling it
>>"true"?  Subjective BELIEFS, certainly. [ROSEN]

>     No, subjective TRUTH -- incorrigible and immediate self knowledge of
>     one's own internal mental state. [ELLIS]

1) Thank you for admitting the limitations of your subjectivity.  They involve
knowledge of your "own internal mental state", not of the rest of the world.
2) Often this "incorrigible and immediate self knowledge" is blatantly at odds
with what is really going on in your brain.  Like when hidden motivations
prompt certain actions on your part.  People often do not admit to themselves
(perhaps not until much later) the real reasons that they may take some
actions.  With this in mind, you have no "knowledge", you have only
subjective beliefs.

>     Like pain (even imagined pain) is still pain.  Or visions (even
>     hallucinations) are still visions.  Awareness, love, etc.. likewise.

Yes, indeed, they physically represent themselves inside the brain.  They may
involve some "bad connection" (bad is too judgmental a word) in the brain that
that believes that an imagined vision is a real vision, coming through the
"input ports" of the eyes from the outside world.  And we've already gone
through phantom pains, so I won't repeat.

>     Whether or not you chose to attribute reality to such entities, the
>     fact is, they are viewed in most philosophical and psychological schemes
>     as possessing reality, in some cases greater than that of rocks.

Fine.  I find such "schemes" to be completely bogus if what they are saying
is that these "entities" represent anything other than internal thoughts
within the brain which may have no correlation to reality.

>     Note that even `real physical' objects must first be manifested inside
>     your so-called mind as internal subjective images before you can be
>     aware of the original physical object.

Yes, indeed.

>     In other words, any objective fact must first become a subjective
>     fact before YOU can know it.

Thus, because you now admit that the mind contains external images gleaned
from reality outside the brain as well as internally developed images which
may be interpretations (faulty or not) of outside events or just imaginations,
you need a method to distinguish between faulty interpretation of external
events by the brain (either due to misconceptions about something really
external or something completely imagined) and accurate interpretations of
real external events.  One such method, one which allows serious scrutiny
and careful thorough analysis is a method that has been bandied about and
tarred in this very newsgroup.  I'll leave it to the readers to recall the
name of that method.

>>You can't just stick in the word "true" in that corollary just because you
>>feel like it.

>     Who else can tell you what you are sensing besides yourself?

What makes you so sure that in all cases, without a means of verification,
you are accurately sensing yourself?  Another important reason why a method
of verification is necessary to gain knowledge.
-- 
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
					Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr