RoR: Forum

Ah, now I understand what a "fishy" is - it's anyone who posts a philosophical argument which is ultimately beyond MSK's comprehension (and none of this is because the argument is murky, by the way) and to which MSK's rudimentary predispositions, for whatever reason, are negative.

This has to be the case because
1. I have never denied the existence of objective reality.
2. I am a physicalist.

Laj.

P.S. By the way, is it just me, or does MSK's last post quoting Daniel suffer from a gross misreading of the first order?Daniel says that his position has never changed and MSK quotes Daniel holding the position that has never changed. With such reading skills on display, I should be more charitable towards MSK. He just reads whatever he wants to into the posts of others.

Post 21

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 9:17pm

It's just you, Laj. He quotes Daniel saying that he has not admitted that consciousness depends on the brain. (In other words, we can assume that he believes consciousness does not depend on the brain.) He then quotes Daniel saying that consciousness is dependent on the brain.

Unless, of course, Daniel draws some distinction between "our" consciousness and "non-physical" consciousness. Although I would wonder just *whose* consciousness he was referring to, if he indeed holds that the latter differs from the former.

Post 22

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 9:19pm

Laj writes:
>P.S. By the way, is it just me, or does MSK's last post quoting Daniel suffer from a gross misreading of the first order? Daniel says that his position has never changed and MSK quotes Daniel holding the position that has never changed.

Yes, it is rather embarrassing - but not for me, obviously.

- Daniel

Post 23

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 9:26pm

Ah, come on guys. You still speak English I presume.

Daniel, are you ignoring your own words now as your present argument? Close your eyes, make some quip or another, then it will all go away? After all, I didn't say them, you did.

btw - I honestly thought you meant what you said back then. Dumb me.

LOLOLOL...

(Sorry, it's just funny, that's all...)

Michael

Post 24

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 9:59pm

Andrew,

I guess you're misreading Daniel's point in the same way that MSK is - at least, you have the excuse that you aren't engaging in an extended conversation with Daniel.

Daniel meant that his position has *never* changed -> he isn't *admitting* *for the very first time* that consciousness depends on the brain -> he has *always* admitted that consciousness depends on the brain. What Daniel believes is that the spawned consciousness then causally influences the brain in a way that Daniel admits he cannot describe in detail, but he believes is necessary to preserve free will.

Is that so hard to grasp?

Laj.

Post 25

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 10:03pm

Andrew:
>It's just you, Laj. He quotes Daniel saying that he has not admitted that consciousness depends on the brain. (In other words, we can assume that he believes consciousness does not depend on the brain.) He then quotes Daniel saying that consciousness is dependent on the brain.

At last, my chance to say...context!!

Andrew, your misreading follows MSK's, and rests on the word "admitted". MSK used it in his post to imply it was a position I had recently come to - as if I had maintained a different position, but then had been somehow forced to 'admit' this new one - thus 'progress' was allegedly being made. Re-read it and see for youself.

In replying to MSK I put the word in ironic quotes. Because of course I don't "admit' that consciousness is dependent on the physical brain. In fact I *proclaim it*, and have never proclaimed anything else!! Re-read it. Now do you see what I mean?

And, um, rather than resting in a single misreading, wouldn't it be better to show that somehow, somewhere, sometime I had *argued for* or "promoted" the idea that consciousness was *not* dependent on the physical brain?

- Daniel

Post 26

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 10:11pm

Ah, I see what you are saying now, Laj. Since I usually avoid reading Daniel's posts (for reasons stated on this thread), I was simply making a straightforward interpretation of the quote provided by MSK.

Given the understandable confusion arising from the language in question, MSK's error can hardly be called a "gross misreading of the first order."

(Edited by Andrew Bissell on 8/09, 10:13pm)

Post 27

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 10:20pm

Andrew writes:
>Given the understandable confusion arising from the language in question, MSK's error can hardly be called a "gross misreading of the first order."

Thank you Andrew, I appreciate your honesty. I regret that we haven't got along in the past.

Over to you, MSK?

- Daniel

Post 28

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 10:27pm

Andrew,

I think that there was more than enough context for MSK to make the right call. I stand by my initial statement.
I guess when the point of a post is to ridicule your opponent by any means necessary, such a misreading is natural.

MSK prefers to read what he wants to read into the posts of others, rather than understand what his opponents are saying - after all, his opponents are irrationalists who subscribe to the primacy of consciousness (justifying quotes and excerpts not forthcoming from MSK). Could it be that these irrationalists are aware of some epistemic limitations in human beings, limitations that MSK is unwilling to grant credence for whatever reason?

Laj

Post 29

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 10:59pm

Daniel,

You were being ironic. I though you were being emphatic. I did misunderstand. This is one of the limitations of the written word.

Laj imputing me with all those evil intentions, of course, is pure twaddle.

Why you use words like "forced" and so forth for arguing are beyond me, though. You are not forced to think anything.

But on to the idea itself:

Laj stated it pretty succinctly:

What Daniel believes is that the spawned consciousness then causally influences the brain in a way that Daniel admits he cannot describe in detail...

The problem is that I've never seen you describe it at all. (I won't even get into what and how a physical cell that cannot have volition can "spawn" an ectoplasm that does have volition.) Apparently this is something that must be taken on faith, sort of like a spirit.

Another thing that must be taken on faith, which is the grounds for this, is that physical living cells cannot have volition. They need this ectoplasm for volition. Why can't they? Because of a word - determinism, whatever that means. That's all I've seen so far.

There there is the grandaddy, this ectoplasm "causally influences the brain." That means that there is a (non-physical) ghost or spirit driving the physical cells.

Sorry guys. This is pure primacy of consciousness crap, dressed up a little to sound like something else.

I'm tired. More tomorrow.

Michael

Post 30

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 2:20am

MSK:
>Another thing that must be taken on faith, which is the grounds for this, is that physical living cells cannot have volition. They need this ectoplasm for volition. Why can't they? Because of a word - determinism, whatever that means. That's all I've seen so far.

Truly MSK, I can't stay annoyed with you when come out with stuff like this. Four words say it all:

MSK:"Determinism, whatever that means."

Nice one. Well, at least now we can now put your previous musings on the mind/brain problem and free will vs determinism in their proper perspective. Actually, I recall I tried to interest you in your own philosophy's various approaches to the problem by recommending Diana Hsieh Brickell's article "Mind in Objectivism" a while back, but clearly you didn't get around to it. But then if you don't know what determinism is I suppose you're missing pretty much the big picture (and now I realise why I have had so little joy discussing this with you previously) Perhaps you assumed that if it was a major philosophical problem, Ayn Rand must have solved it. Well it is, and it is fairly clear from the diversity of opinion within Objectivism that she didn't.

MSK:>...Another thing that must be taken on faith...is that physical living cells cannot have volition. Why can't they? Because of a word - determinism, whatever that means....This is pure primacy of consciousness crap, dressed up a little to sound like something else.

I am sorry to break it to you, but it is *nothing whatsoever* to do with 'primacy of consciousness'. Further, I will make a prediction that one day when you do get around to actually understanding the mind/brain problem and the closely related problem of free will vs determinism, you will wince a little when you re-read what you've written here.

But 'nuff said. Although my chuckling is fairly well deserved, I will chuckle no more. I am happy to give you an short, zero-jargon overview of this problem if you like, and why I consider my solution the preferable one, despite its obvious disadvantages. Who knows, you may end up agreeing with me.

>I'm tired. More tomorrow.

Seriously, before offering up any more on the morrow, I recommend a thorough visit with the Wikipedia, and at least a skim of Mrs Brickell's overview. Or perhaps a few well-wishers might put you straight on it.

- Daniel

Post 31

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 5:54am

Daniel,

Nice sidestep. Still gotta do the faith thing for the spook, though.

He don't follow determinism, apparently. That's why he had to be made up. Sort of like the flat earth theory in former times. You don't really know what he is, do you, despite strongly affirming that he exists - non-physically, of course?

That ain't going away, but you can ignore it and talk about other stuff.

(I have an idea. Maybe he's a soul and there's a God and there's a non-physical realm where he can inhabit after his physical brain dies, even a noumenal one, who knows? But that's for later. Ayn Rand's work has to be undone first. Many people obviously disagree with it because they don't understand it correctly or have they faith in spooks.)

I'll take you up on the Noodling (which I normally have found to be highly opinionated and based on rule-based thinking). Right now. Back in a minute.

Michael

Post 32

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 8:24am

Daniel,

I read "Mind in Objectivism." It is a pretty good overview of different Objectivist's thoughts on the mind/brain issue (the ontology of the mind for those who like bigger words), but what a festival of "isms" and oblique pot shots at just about everybody.

I most emphatically agree with Hsieh on being partial to Aristotle's conception of the mind, however.

Not surprisingly, I agreed most with Ayn Rand. Especially the part of whether the relationship between the brain and the mind is a scientific question (she said "yes").

Obviously, if this is a scientific question, we are dealing with something that can be measured. Ayn Rand was not sloppy about her use of words for measurement not to have been included in "scientific." What can be measured is physical.

So far, your prediction of my wincing about how inane my thinking on this is has landed nowhere nearer to happening then before. But feel free to chuckle. It seems to make you feel good and I like it when people feel good.

You did do one nice thing, though, by pointing me to this article. You gave me a great idea for an article of my own. I will see if I can make these ideas interesting without using jargon like reductionism, dualism, monism, materialism, idealism, representationalism, eliminativism, behaviorism, emergentism, fundamentalism, physicalism, your own determinism (sorry, she didn't discuss that one at all), the ever insidious epiphenomenalism and protopanpsychism.

I don't mind realism and mysticism or nouns of attributes and actual things like mechanism and organism. Obviously I have to use Objectivism.

But this is an important issue. There is no reason whatsoever for your eyes to have to glaze over in order to be able to understand an important thing like what the connection between the mind and the brain is.

Let's take the covers off all this intellectual posturing and make the ideas interesting for non-technical people to read. One of the great aspects of Rand's writing is that she made philosophy simple so that both absurd ideas and good ideas were clear to people other than professional philosophers. That is why many of the absurd ideas of yesteryear now are being blasted out of their effectiveness. The world is changing for the better precisely because people are understanding fundamental ideas better

Strangely enough, I found Nathaniel Branden's protopanpsychism speculation interesting (and it was a mere suggestion and hypothesis, not a full theory). Protopanpsychism in this context is a big word meaning that Branden was suggesting an "underlying reality" that gives rise to both the physical and mental, a reality that was a source of both. He offered this as a suggestion for explaining possibly why mental events affected physical ones and vice versa.

Our direct perception of reality is based on the five senses. This actually limits the elements of reality that filter through to our brains (light waves, sound waves, odors, tastes and the tactile sensations like heat, texture, etc.). So maybe a facet of reality that is not directly perceived by our five senses is not a bad thing to think about.

Of course Hsieh takes a pot shot at Branden (why does that not surprise me?) for such suggestion. She claimed that is was based on a complete lack of evidence. The fact that such "evidence" is limited to the five senses and conceptual integration of the perceptual information coming from them seems not to occur to her in making that condemnation.

In simple language.

Hsieh: I perceive with five tools only.
Branden: Maybe there are things to perceive that these five tools are not equipped for. Let�s investigate.
Hsieh: Since my five tools do not perceive what you are talking about, then what you claim is utter nonsense and you are a bad person.

To me Branden's conjecture opens the way to investigation.

One of the marvelous capacities of conceptual consciousness is that it is able to create devices that measure and observe one particular aspect of reality. What is available to direct awareness by one sense can be put into a form that can be grasped by another. A good example is a temperature gage. Temperature (sense of touch) becomes measured by a visual gage (sense of sight). (From there it can be controlled better by other devices. That is why it is done, as sight is much more precise than touch.)

This is one way I see of going about investigating the matter. The subparticle controversy, with all of the different approaches, now going on in the world is an exciting way of attacking this.

Your nonphysical existence supposition rests on a logical fallacy, basically the same one that Hsieh makes. I will put it in simple language (syllogisms � two propositions and a conclusion). By "thing," I mean an entity or action that exists and has identity.

Your way (distilled from the arguments of yours I have read � the five senses part being mine):

a. Physical things are perceivable by the five senses.
b. Mental things are not perceivable by the five senses.
Conclusion. Mental things are not physical

a. Physical things behave in a certain manner.
b. Mental things behave differently than physical ones.
Conclusion. Mental things are not physical.

a. Physical things perceivable by the five senses do not have free will.
b. Mental things can have free will.
Conclusion. Mental things are not physical.

More can be formulated in this manner. What this does is limit the definition of "physical" to what can be perceived by the five senses alone and leaves life out of the equation entirely.

My way:

a. Human life is experienced by the five senses and the perceptual/conceptual faculty of awareness.
b. The five senses and the faculty of awareness are parts of a physical neural brain system.
Conclusion. Human life is experienced physically.

a. Mental things are parts of human life.
b. Human life is experienced physically.
Conclusion. Mental things are experienced physically.

There are others:

a. Physical reality is made up of many things
b. Each of the five senses obtains sensory input from specific physical things only.
Conclusion. Each of the five senses cannot obtain sensory input from many physical things.

a. One individual thing can have one or some of the same attributes as a different thing.
b. Attributes can be measured.
Conclusion. Attributes shared by different things can be measured in the same manner.

(This applies to concept formation also)

a. Some physical things are not directly perceivable by the five senses.
b. Technical instruments can expand the input of a physical thing�s attributes until it is perceivable by one of the five senses.
Conclusion. Some physical things are indirectly perceivable by the five senses through the use of technical instruments

I could go on, but I think you get the point. The logical error, i.e. contradiction, both you and Hsieh make is to apply one standard to a proposition for which it is not logically suited. In her case, she rejects the possibility that there might be more to reality than the five senses indicates because there is no evidence of such based on evidence from the five senses (I am including concepts here). (I disagree with her on the nonexistence of such evidence anyway, but that is beside the point and opens a new can of worms beyond the scope of this discussion.)

In your case, you look at one category of physical attributes and claim that mental things cannot be physical because they do not share the same attributes as the ones you are looking at. There are others, but you prefer to invent an entire new system of existence.

One good example of this reasoning I mentioned in an earlier post to you is microwave broadcasting. Claiming that it is non-physical almost would be reasonable to a man in the nineteenth century, but certainly not now. Back then, one could say that there was no physical evidence of such and that speculation about the existence of microwaves needs a more "non-physical existence" approach. But now we know that microwaves are physical because we have instruments that measure their attributes and can manipulate them, thus manipulate the actual microwaves themselves. Now we can watch TV and use cell phones, among other things.

That is the same as with life itself � including mental things.

Philosophy needs to get out of the way of scientists and let them do their work.

I sincerely believe that it will be possible one day to create life in a laboratory from inorganic material. More needs to be known first on our five-sense conceptual level. That�s all.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/11, 8:34am)

Post 33

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 4:04pm

MSK:
>You gave me a great idea for an article of my own. I will see if I can make these ideas interesting without using jargon like reductionism, dualism, monism, materialism, idealism, representationalism, eliminativism, behaviorism, emergentism, fundamentalism, physicalism, your own determinism (sorry, she didn't discuss that one at all), the ever insidious epiphenomenalism and protopanpsychism.

Well in case you missed it, I did offer you a "zero-jargon" layman's overview of the topic myself in my previous post. My offer remains open.

MSK:
>But this is an important issue...Let's take the covers off all this intellectual posturing and make the ideas interesting for non-technical people to read.

I agree. I personally do not agree with everything Hsieh says. I only recommend it as a start point for an Objectivist - such as yourself - who has little prior knowledge of the subject.

>Strangely enough, I found Nathaniel Branden's protopanpsychism speculation interesting...

I have to ask why. It appears to be a very minor variant of one of the oldest theories known to man. But I guess if you're starting from scratch, everything looks original.

MSK:
>Your way (distilled from the arguments of yours I have read � the five senses part being mine):
a. Physical things are perceivable by the five senses.
b. Mental things are not perceivable by the five senses.
Conclusion. Mental things are not physical...
...What this does is limit the definition of "physical" to what can be perceived by the five senses alone and leaves life out of the equation entirely.....I could go on, but I think you get the point. The logical error, i.e. contradiction, both you and Hsieh make is to...(etc etc)

Right, that does it. Having read this I think now is the time to have a little talk about "intellectual posturing".

Firstly, your "distillation' of my argument is completely erroneous. At no time have I made any such claims. This argument as presented above is idiotic, and I can think of no reason why you might attribute it to me other than it is just another egregious misreading on your part. After your last embarrassment, I would have thought you would be more careful. But clearly no.

PLEASE CITE EXACTLY WHERE I HAVE EVER MADE ANY SUCH ARGUMENT.

Not your inane "interpretation" of it. Not your foolish "distillation" of it. WHERE I HAVE MADE IT.

So much for my (and apparently Hsieh's too) alleged "logical error". Heh, I'd just *love* to see what she'd make of your farrago. Do you think I should send it to her for comment?

Secondly: MSK, I find it incredible that you feel you are fit to lecture on "intellectual posturing". That you seem to think just because Hsieh, Branden, Binswanger, Piekoff, Kelly etc, and by extension Dennett, Penrose, Popper and any other writer on this complex and interesting probem - are "posturing" because they use *words you personally don't understand*. Words like, um, "determinism", for example. Not words that are incomprehensible - all those words actually apply to specific theories, if you know anything at all about the subject - but words *you* do not understand, simply because you *don't* know anything about the topic.

Now, what does this know-nothingness lead you to do? Exercise a little caution perhaps? Hardly - in fact quite the opposite. In this thread alone, you have not just once, but *twice* now attributed entirely silly views to people - myself, Laj, probably some others - that they clearly do not hold.

Both times you have done this on the basis of *no evidence*. The only thing you have been able to proffer is a single sentence you now admit you entirely *misread*. In fact, the only solid thing you've offered is *evidence to the contrary*!"

Further, after admitting this, you then *repeated* the accusation - still with no evidence that I or any other "fishies" hold this view!

Now I'm faced with you attributing yet another silly argument to me, once again on with no evidence whatsoever that I hold this view.

Finally, you now declare, having read *one* whole article on the subject - and even that on my recommendation - and having only learned the meaning of the word "determinism' literally yesterday (please, you have looked it up by now, haven't you?) you now declare you're going write some article that will blow "the covers" off the mind/brain problem! Frankly, I can't wait to see it. I fear such an article will blow "the covers" off one thing, and one thing only.

Bceause "intellectual posturing", MSK, means *pontificating about a complicated subject when you actually know nothing about it*.

If you are going to continue to lecture us all on this subject, please make sure that this term does not first and foremost apply to you.

- Daniel

Post 34

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 7:42pm

Daniel,

You state as a fact that I am a beginner at this issue.

You are dead wrong.

Stating that in that manner is nothing more than another form of intellectual posturing. So it goes. Whoever engages you in discussion always has to put up with these kind of mind games.

You did not refute any of my arguments, but apparently you did not read my post very carefully either because of your sanctimonious complaints. I stated:

Your way (distilled from the arguments of yours I have read � the five senses part being mine): [my emphasis]

I just made a shortcut by bringing up the five senses to save us about 5 or 6 posts of "isms" in order to get there.

How about that layman's explanation? Still offering? The ideas might be interesting.

I'm really not too interested in your opinion of me. It's boring.

Michael

Post 35

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 8:42pm

MSK:
>You state as a fact that I am a beginner at this issue.You are dead wrong.

Ok. Then as an experienced commentator on the mind/brain issue, do you yet know what the word 'determinism' means? Have you looked it up yet?

>You did not refute any of my arguments, but apparently you did not read my post very carefully either because of your sanctimonious complaints. I stated:
"Your way (distilled from the arguments of yours I have read � the five senses part being mine):"
I just made a shortcut by bringing up the five senses to save us about 5 or 6 posts of "isms" in order to get there.

Er, refute *what* of your arguments? You think I should defend positions I've held only in your imagination? That, as before, you are completely unable to provide any evidence of me actually holding?

I read you post *exactly*. What you say here changes exactly *nothing*. To prove it, let's remove your "by the 5 senses" bit. Go find anywhere I make the remaining (idiotic) argument.

>How about that layman's explanation? Still offering? The ideas might be interesting.

Let's have a retraction of the above nonsense, then I'm happy to give a short overview.

- Daniel

Post 36

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 9:02pm

Sorry Daniel,

I'm tired of smarm, last-worditis and mind games. I prefer the ideas.

Thanks for the indication of the article. That was about the only thing of any real value.

Have a ball and good luck to ya'.

I'm oudda here.

Michael

Post 37

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 3:30am

For the record:

MSK:(Post 1)
>Solo has several posters who always pop up whenever axiomatic concepts are discussed in order to promote primacy of consciousness....Often Popper and other philosophers are mentioned...I find many of these discussions frustrating because of the constant sidestepping of principal points and issues. It is like trying to catch a fish with your bare hands..."stolen concept," "argument from authority" and a host of other mental-masturbation ploys. These posters jump from one to another without compunction when it suits them....

DB:(Post 12)
>Oh, ok, so you *did* mean me as one of your slippery "fish". I'm afraid you are very much mistaken....I have written nothing on this forum or anywhere else that "promotes" such a doctrine. This claim is entirely false. If you can show that I have please do....

DB:(Post 33)
>PLEASE CITE EXACTLY WHERE I HAVE EVER MADE ANY SUCH ARGUMENT.

DB:(Post 35)
>...as before, you are completely unable to provide any evidence... Go find anywhere I make the remaining (idiotic) argument...

MSK:(Post 36)
> ...I'm oudda here.

He smears, then he dissembles, then he runs away. Says it all.

- Daniel

Post 38

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 4:21am

MSK,

> "Laj imputing me with all those evil intentions, of course, is pure twaddle."

If you say so. Your penchant for imputing positions uncharitably onto others is getting out of hand, IMO. You are the king of smarm on SOLO a.k.a. the pot who calls the kettle black. I'm beginning to notice the MSK Macarena (the shuffle is for people who can really dance) - accusing people of smarm when they take positions that you don't like or respond to you in a manner appropriate to the tone of your exchange.

Daniel referred you to Diana's article to show you that varieties of the positions on the mind-body problem are held by different Objectivist philosophers and that even if, as I do, you think that physicalism is correct (leaving open the question of how your brand of physicalism works and whether it escapes dualism and is indifferent to determinism) and dualism is sorely misguided, there is a lot of room to understand each philosophical position and see its merits and demerits for analyzing particular problems.

Decorum dictates that if you try to engage a person in honest, organized discussion, you take the time to cite his writings at some length as evidence when presenting your understanding of his position. You can sometimes eschew such citations when the discussions are done in good faith, but when such good faith has broken down, you have to back up and get those citations.

Consider this from you:

> Often Popper and other philosophers are mentioned to lend authority to the "fact" that axioms or reality or conceptual thinking do not exist.

Who has cited Popper to defend the claims that
1) reality doesn't exist?
2) axioms don't exist?
3) conceptual thinking doesn't exist?
4) any or all combinations of 1,2 & 3?

When you were arguing with Brendan, I made a post (http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1339_1.shtml#26) about Coherentism (and I prefer not to use the word Coherentism - I prefer the name, General Foundationalism, which argues that there are no immutably privileged beliefs for justification - one starts where one is, with all of one's beliefs, and takes it from there) and how it is opposed to Foundationalism (or rather, Narrow or Special Foundationalism, where some privileged, immutable beliefs, call them axioms etc. are used for proper justification).

I referred people to an article by Bob Bass (http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/coherence.html) showing the problems with Special Foundationalism and why it will always get you into problems when debating. I would strongly recommend that you read it and tell me your objections to it. I think that the article better explains some of the motives behind the viewpoint that you associate with the "primacy of consciousness".

>I jump in from time to time, though. The reason is that I refuse to let irrational premises, especially on axioms, take root by default, by no one caring enough to argue, just because these discussions are so mercilessly boring.

As a former Special Foundationalist and a person who has argued with them often, I know the attitude. I now think that it's grandiose and self-indulgent, but I know how it feels to want to wipe out those irrationalists. How dare they say that they believe in "commonsense reality" (of course, what they mean by that phrase is that our experience of reality is inherently EPISTEMIC and that we all experience reality differently given our differences in beliefs, but even when we believe with near certainty that our best explanation for the similarities in experience being objective reality, we must accommodate for subjective differences and limitations in apprehending that reality when we can).

A blind man once asked, "What color is the wind?" Dwell on that when you think that questions about *how* consciousness relates to reality are motivated by irrationality.

Cheers,

Laj.

Post 39

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:29am