On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:28:39AM -0700, Miles Parker wrote: > > On the other hand, there does seem to be self-awareness of some kind, so > that we cannot say that we don't exist. If we then simply say, "reality is > whatever context this self-awareness occurs in" then that is > self-referential, but I don't have a particular problem with it. > > On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:14 AM, russell standish wrote: > >> You tell me. Just what is the notion? Reality could mean: >> >> 1) What kicks back. Johnson's stone, or Doug's hammered thumb >> 2) Elementary particles >> 3) Force Fields > ... >> The truth is that the word reality has been debased so much it is >> virtually meaningless, unless very carefully qualified. > > I'm curious what such a qualification would look like? >
RITSIAR is one such qualification. And it is rather similar to what you were talking about in the previous para. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
