[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[Gene M]

On 7/9/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
>
> [Case]
> >Do you actually mean to say: "there is no 'object in itself' lurking
> behind
> what we perceive" or that, "Whether the object exists (or not) is beyond
> what we can know since we cannot experience the world directly."
>
> [Dan]
> Could you please spell out what difference it makes if we cannot know.
>
> [Case]
> I guess that would depend on how important "knowing" is. My own view is
> that
> at this point we can only speak in probabilities ranging from "dead on" to
> tossing a coin. But I am betting that there is something external to
> myself.
> But this is not a bet based on a coin toss. You are making much of the
> fact
> that the existence of anything outside this illusion can not be known with
> "certainty". If that is the criteria then you are left with nothing.
> 'Certainty' only exists in a present that we have no access to.
>
> Is our illusion based on something that exists apart from us or is it
> entirely self generating. Solipsism is the belief that it is self
> generating. This can not be disproven anymore than it can be disproven
> that
> the whole business is not the work of clever demons. There is no way the
> KNOW that this is not the Matrix. All that can be said is that those
> possibilities seem very unlikely.
>
> As for what difference it makes: if you assume that there is actually
> something that exists outside of and independent or yourself then you can
> ask questions like: does my illusion conform to this other something? How
> accurate are my perceptions and reconstructions of it?
>
> If you assume there is "no thing" I guess you are more inclined to just
> accept your illusions at face value.
>
> [Case]
> OK but I for one am will to jump out of the boat and adopt a provisional
> materialism solely on the grounds that it seems to me the mostly likely of
> the option available. As you point out this can not be proven and I am
> willing to confession that I accept this provisionally and purely as a
> matter of faith. I accept that all I can ever deal with is an illusion but
> I
> think reconstruction or representation is a better term for it. My task as
> a
> being is to test how accurate a representation I have constructed.
>
> If you assume that there is not really anything to represent or
> reconstruct
> it seems to me you are left spinning your wheels.
>

Case, I just wanted to say I absolutely agree with everything you said in
this post! It is precisely where I stand on the matter. Everything is about
probability. Everything is Possible, nothing is certain. So I prefer to
accept for true things that lead to more interesting ideas, even if I'm not
sure of them.

I think it's in my interest to believe the world exists independent of me,
or anyone's perception for that matter. It's more interesting to me, and
gives a good point for new Ideas to branch out. If I assume it's all in my
head, then it seems like the mystery is over. Almost an intellectual dead
end. or cul de sac I guess, where my thinking just gets narrower and
narrowe. And it ends up looking like Ham's thesis, indecipherable to the
average person it's so folded in on itself.

Assuming everything really Does exist is very liberating to move onto new
ideas I think.

That, and I believe it gives one a bit more respect for the things around
us. When we realize they may well outlast us. Are not dependent on us. We
tend to treat the things around us better then.

-Gene