@Thomas,
Quote:I agree that perception of reality is species-specific, but perception relates to reality as maps relate to territories.
That is precisely the kind of comparison enabled by the belief in absolute reality.
Another comparison might be that perception relates to reality like books relate to stories.
The book itself is not reality, and neither is the reader. But the way they come together in the reading is reality.
Or perhaps perception relates to reality like images on a computer relates to binary code?
Maybe our brains are like computers interpreting this code. In that case the code would not be reality any more than the code for the image of a flower is the actual image.
Quote:In my vocabulary, reality is whatever is out there. It is not species-specific, although our experience of it, if any, undoubtedly is.
Then our disagreement seems to be a matter of what precisely we each think of as being real. "Whatever is out there" does not disqualify any of the comparisons I made above.
Quote:"Illogical"? What's the logical contradiction?
As you seem to agree to, any experience is species specific. It is also a requirement for something to be considered real that it is a demonstrable fact.
The contradiction then is that an idea of reality that cannot under any circumstance be demonstrated is understood as fact. It does not contradict intuition,but it contradicts the logic from which these concepts get their meaning. I don't know what you call that kind of fallacy, but it is a fallacy.
Quote:Dictionaries describe clearly what is meant by the term when conventional speakers of English use it; what they mean by it is consistent with my usage and clearly inconsistent with yours.
Could you clarify how my use of the term 'reality' is inconsistent with the dictionary definition?
The dictionary definition relies on our ability to observe and experience that what it says is true. It does not rely on a belief in absolute reality.
Quote:Second, I think statement 2 confuses maps and territories by calling them both "realities". By doing so, it obscures what is meant by "reality" rather than making it more precise.
No. It calls your 'territories'
potential reality or informational code, and sentient interaction with it
reality.
In other words, I am arguing that reality might include the processing of the code, not just the code itself. There might not be anything but unread code on a universal hard drive somewhere if there were no code processing.
Quote:Did bacteria spontaneously spring into existence from one hour to the next?
There had always been something to make people sick. But when these things were identified and described and named, bacteria became a reality. Before that it was god's will or whatever other explanation that was available.
