Me, neither. We agree that senses are reliable...that the equipment of our eyes
and ears functions in a consistent and useful way. But sensing something and
percieving it are not the same thing. Your brain processes the raw data of
the senses to assemble perception. What happens when you see a mirage?
Your senses reliably report incomming visual data...it is the processing
system which incorrectly percieves the existence of something substantial
and the Supreme Court of consciousness that throws this perception out as
"unconsitutional". The senses cannot be "in error" becuase the senses make
no decisions, they are simply reporters.
But at every level of data processing thre is the potential for error and it
is within these levels that meaning and existence are generated.
>Apparently there are people who claim there are
>other ways. When you ask them they tell you it takes 10 to 30 years of
>study (or an MS Flip).
Could you give that strawman a rest?
>>What is wrong with subjectivity, anyway?
>
>Nothing wrong. It's just not useful and a waste of time.
Talk is cheap.
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------