[ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"
jef at jefallbright.net
Fri Oct 3 23:13:38 UTC 2008
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> > It's the unfounded assumption of the existence of an objective point
> > of view (which some people here get), or even of an objective measure
> > of where one stands in relation to a hypothetical asymptotic objective
> > point of view (which fewer people get.) And the point I try to convey
> > is that from the point of view of any necessarily subjective system of
> > observation, there is no rational justification for any claim that our
> > present model of truth is nearer of farther from Truth.
> OK. Can you restate "objective point of view" in solely subjective
It seems a silly question. Considering that any recognizable agent
must share some fundamentals of that "tree", what do you mean by
solely subjective? On the other, it seems trivially obvious that any
agent could have and use private signs, meaningful solely to that
agent. Do *you* know what you meant by this question?
> I consider this an aside from thread. If there is no reality
> in a supposed objective view, why/how have we become so dependent on
Were you paying attention when I said "A key here
is that all agents, rooted in (descended from) a common reality
(regardless of knowing its specific nature) will necessarily have
evolved aspects of their nature (their model of reality) in common.
Thus there is an inherent basis for increasing probability of
increasing agreement on increasingly fundamental principles of
'reality' supporting the ongoing actions of any group of agents."
Does that not answer your question?? Oh, I see. It contained not
one, but three "increasing"s and your mind may have blanked out.
> Yes. I accept your proposition. I am convinced.
More information about the extropy-chat