You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Bugmaster comments on How to deal with non-realism? - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: loup-vaillant 22 May 2012 01:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (168)

Comments (168)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 22 May 2012 08:24:33PM 5 points [-]

Your rephrasing assumes the existence of the observing 'I', which is still something. So it doesn't contradict the quote at all.

Comment author: Bugmaster 22 May 2012 09:04:15PM 2 points [-]

Fair enough, but the full quote from the OP says:

There is something. All that there is, we generally call "reality". Note that by this definition, reality is unique. The corollary is, we all live in the same reality. We do not percieve it in the same way, but our perceptions and reality itself aren't the same thing.

I interpreted this to mean, "a shared reality external to myself and others does definitely exist", which is too strong a statement. But it's possible that my interpretation was wrong.

Comment author: loup-vaillant 23 May 2012 07:22:17AM 2 points [-]

I do not exclude in that statement that we all live in totally separate parts of reality (Everett branches, light cones, or whatever). In this case the text I am answering to doesn't come from an agent. (You can apply the same reasoning to yourself and my text.)

Of course, I have empirical reasons to believe that you are an agent, and that we are interacting, and therefore we are part of the same whole in a stronger sense.

Comment author: Alsadius 23 May 2012 03:42:19PM 0 points [-]

If I'm interacting with somebody(say, via philosophical argument), we share a reality.

Comment author: Bugmaster 23 May 2012 09:05:53PM 0 points [-]

I think at this point it might be helpful to taboo "reality". I would rewrite your statement as something like this:

If my senses are transmitting perceptions that appear to be the result of my interaction with another agent, then, assuming that the agent does indeed have the ability to operate independently of myself, that agent and I share at least one communication channel that is common to both of us.

That sentence is unwieldy and, frankly, boring, but it does avoid making unwarranted assertions.

That said, going into this much detail is probably not useful. If you and your interlocutor can't even agree on whether both of you exist, there probably isn't much room for productive dialogue.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit