@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:
That is a low trick you pull just because we have arrived at a place where my point is clearly communicated, and you see that it has merit.
A low trick? Not at all. I insist upon strict reciprocity when it comes to answering questions. Why would I do otherwise?*
Cyracuz wrote:Quote:If "reality" is whatever we're experiencing, isn't that the same thing as "experiencing?" What's the difference?
I do not know. I have no way of truly knowing if there is a difference or not, because I cannot have reality without experience.
If there's no difference between "reality" and "experiencing," then you really are a brain-in-a-vat. As such, you have nothing to say that has any validity for me, considering that I am
not a brain-in-a-vat.
Cyracuz wrote:Quote:I know the Taj Mahal is real even though I've never perceived it. Do you think it isn't real?
No. I think the Taj Mahal is real. I think so because others have shared that experience with me, which was an experience in itself, in which I was made aware that there exists such a thing as the Taj Mahal.
I can't imagine why you'd put any credence in the reports of others. If "reality" and "experiencing" are the same, then what you haven't experienced isn't real, and it matters not that you can obtain experiences second-hand from others. You, after all, are a brain-in-a-vat; if you didn't experience it, it didn't happen.
Cyracuz wrote:Those were your questions in your last post. Now will you answer mine?
Of course.
Cyracuz wrote:Given what I said about rainbows in my last post to you, in a reality where everyone was blind, would rainbows exist?
That depends. Where is this land of the blind? Is it here on earth? Then I would say that rainbows exist, because it is a well-proven fact that rainbows exist on earth. Is it on another planet? Then I would say that it is unknown if rainbows exist. There are certain meteorological conditions necessary for the formation of rainbows that may not exist on other planets.
But whether rainbows exist is a different question from whether they are observed. You, evidently, don't think those are different questions, but then you still haven't come up with an adequate response to
Thomas's example about bacteria before the invention of the microscope. A moment's reflection on that conundrum would demonstrate how faulty your reasoning is.
*That was a rhetorical question. Don't feel obliged to answer it.