4 ms·

No, I meant reality. Unless you give me a means of separating my perceptions from the reality then there is no useful distinction to be drawn here.

RevRal 17y ago
Confusing the map and territory needs to be classified as a psychological disorder, where sanity is below a minimum threshold. This kind of thinking is too easy. This is basic stuff, and you call it "obviously wrong." That's an indication that you haven't thought about it enough; there is very little which is "obviously" this or that. You must examine an idea and it's surrounding evidences, or established ideas. If you're going to state something as "obvious" in the sense that it's axiomatic, that's fine if you are treating it as a temporary variable and examining its implications and drawing it out to conclusions. The mistake at this point is noticing that, after treating objective reality as axiomatic, the world you see is congruent with your internalized map and therefore that is "how it is." This is a functional facade. An illusion, and you've been tricked. The world is not very colorful in an objective reality. \/@greenlblue: Sorry, I have a bad habit of submitting comments then editing the rest into it, so I don't know where into my editing you read. Anyway, from my experience, there's no use in carrying a conversation about "objective reality." I just had to say a little bit since I wouldn't feel right not giving some direction.
- greenlblue 17y ago
  Making vague analogies with no relevance should be one as well. When you figure out a way of putting my perception, the map, and "reality", the territory, side by side on the screen then you can call me crazy for denying its existence. Until then be a little more courteous and respectful of other people's opinions and don't accuse them of confounding variables.
  - brg 17y ago
    Experimentation: Reality is different from your memory of perception in that one can always go back to re-examine it.
- RevRal 17y ago
  Crap. The world is not very colorful in an objective reality. The world is very colorful in an objective reality, is what I meant.
Tycho 17y ago
One word: corroboration. You know reality from hallucination/dream because one survives objective verification, the other does not. Let me turn the question back on you: what use is there in NOT drawing this distinction? (ie. what use is denying that there is a knowable reality, and then our interpreted knowledge. territory/map)

RevRal 17y ago

Confusing the map and territory needs to be classified as a psychological disorder, where sanity is below a minimum threshold. This kind of thinking is too easy. This is basic stuff, and you call it "obviously wrong." That's an indication that you haven't thought about it enough; there is very little which is "obviously" this or that. You must examine an idea and it's surrounding evidences, or established ideas. If you're going to state something as "obvious" in the sense that it's axiomatic, that's fine if you are treating it as a temporary variable and examining its implications and drawing it out to conclusions. The mistake at this point is noticing that, after treating objective reality as axiomatic, the world you see is congruent with your internalized map and therefore that is "how it is." This is a functional facade. An illusion, and you've been tricked. The world is not very colorful in an objective reality. \/@greenlblue: Sorry, I have a bad habit of submitting comments then editing the rest into it, so I don't know where into my editing you read. Anyway, from my experience, there's no use in carrying a conversation about "objective reality." I just had to say a little bit since I wouldn't feel right not giving some direction.

greenlblue 17y ago
Making vague analogies with no relevance should be one as well. When you figure out a way of putting my perception, the map, and "reality", the territory, side by side on the screen then you can call me crazy for denying its existence. Until then be a little more courteous and respectful of other people's opinions and don't accuse them of confounding variables.
- brg 17y ago
  Experimentation: Reality is different from your memory of perception in that one can always go back to re-examine it.
RevRal 17y ago
Crap. The world is not very colorful in an objective reality. The world is very colorful in an objective reality, is what I meant.

Tycho 17y ago

One word: corroboration. You know reality from hallucination/dream because one survives objective verification, the other does not. Let me turn the question back on you: what use is there in NOT drawing this distinction? (ie. what use is denying that there is a knowable reality, and then our interpreted knowledge. territory/map)