Do you mean psychoneurosis...?
Or something else, such as perception of reality in the mind of the observer being reality in and of itself, regardless of how much this differs from actual physical reality.

The second one, sort of. I'd change it ever so slightly though:

Perception of reality in the mind of the observer is A reality in and of itself, regardless of how much this differs from actual physical reality.

All we really have to work with are perceptions. Since this is the case, we have to be willing to say that they reflect some sort of existence if we're going to take the notion of existence of other things seriously.

poom, my brain just explode
but yeah rememberthe famous sig,

---

never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to there level and beat you with experience

---

"All we really have to work with are perceptions. Since this is the case, we have to be willing to say that they reflect some sort of existence if we're going to take the notion of existence of other things seriously."

quite right, Code. well done on pointing that out. it moves the debate on quite nicely.

We also have other things to work with beside perception--reason, for example. Logic, which comes naturally to some.

Prove something - other than the "self" - exists using only reason/logic then. Go on. I double dog dare you.

you should have kicked his arse

One can't. But one can't use perception either, because without reason one cannot know whether the senses are fooling you. Merely seeing something is not proof of its existence--you do not even need eyes to see. You need a brain, whose synapses generate unseen imagery in your head every time you sleep. So, for instance, I see a pencil sharpener in front of me now, I can pick it up and feel it in my hand--but what if this is all an illusion? Using mere perception, one does not truly know the existence of anything...your brain can easily fake it all. Which is where reason steps in, and one says, logically, if this was a dream or some other mentally conjured image, I would be able to alter that which I did not want to happen, as is possible in a dream.

Edited by - Wilde on 3/27/2005 8:41:25 PM

you go french on me wilde you enter the war zone....What did he say? france and quebec will be destroyed once i learn

ehh, I misread Code's question and answered with the famous Cartesian phrase---Cogito ergo sum . But I read it over again and changed all that.

@Wilde: Brain in the vat....

---

Merely seeing something is not proof of its existence...

---

Yes it is. Something may not exist as a corporeal object which may be manipulated physically but it still exists. Things can exist as concepts and ideas.

---

Using mere perception, one does not truly know the existence of anything...

---

Actually, using mere perception one knows the existence of everything. This, of course, is just as useless as relying on the cogito alone. We need a way to distinguish between corporeal and non-corporeal reality, and a way to determine whether the difference is significant given the circumstances.

Logic without perception is blind, perception without logic is stupid.

perception can be fooled but its all we ahve, logic is based on our perception...

There is natural logic, DS. This is the idea of the abstract vs. the concrete that Mr. F has been trying to pound into our heads. Logic operating in the concrete requires perception. In the abstract, it does not.

---

Things can exist as concepts and ideas.

---

Agreed. Platonic forms. But that isn't physical existence, it transcends physical existence.

And Code--guess why I hate both Empiricism and Rationalism?
And now, I think I shall depart to bed...when I blink, things flash greenesss....heehee.

__)_*()_(
my cat was trampled by a packaderm...