Re: CD Sales Down

The Repair Guy wrote:
Rufus <not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

The Repair Guy wrote:
--snip--
All the doctors told me that I would probably either
loose all of my teeth, or at a minimum have to have root canal on every tooth in my head because my
teeth are fitted so close together that they had to stitch the wires above my gum line between the roots where there is room instead of between each
tooth. I had my "accident" in 1984. I still have all of my teeth intact, and no root canal work.

The doctors were wrong - not exactly miraculous :-)


Oh, I'm not sure I'd call it a "miracle" either...but I do see it as an "intervention" of sorts. I warned you before hand that you would have to have lived my life in order to see any of the events of my life in my context...same holds in reverse.

--snip--
"Reason ahead of feeling" has kept me from being divorced about four times over, I think. But then again, I've never known what it's like to have a wife
either... maybe if I'd set reason aside one time and went with my feeling that one time might have worked.

Maybe. I went with feelings the first time - it crashed & burned within 5 years. Took my time and thought more about it the second time. It's still going.


Yeah...I guess it's a crap-shoot. But it does seem to work on occasion.

--snip--
Because I believe "evidence" as we've been discussing it is really only "evident" to the individual that believes in it.
Then it's not 'evidence' as the word is commonly used. Evidence is used to convince someone who DOESN'T already believe.
It's only claimed to be "evidence".

Evidence exists - or doesn't exist - regardless of
any claims. The bullet hole is evidence that a bullet
entered the guy's head. What happens after that -
deciding who did it, why they did it, etc. - is in the
world of spin, interpretation, etc.


Objects and circumstances exist, but the interpretation of them as "evidence" is only based on our own perception of them - if our perception is biased (and it usually is) those objects and circumstances may become anything we deem them to be. Or not.

As you point out, it's a tool.

Evidence just IS. If it gets used for something, then
I suppose it might be considered a tool. Tools help
you accomplish something. Evidence is there whether anyone uses it or not.


Sort of...if no one perceives it, it's not even "there".

--snip--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
"Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate
the truth of an assertion."

Key word = demonstrate.
Key word - "truth".

Not to me. My underlying assumption is that you
want to get at the truth, so you look at evidence.


Yes - but the "truth" is just as elusive an ideal as "objectivity", IMO.

What is "truth" in the absolute, really? Anything
you can get enough people to agree upon in aggregate can become "truth".

That's only consensus, and it might be true, false,
or partly either one. 'Truth' means, trivially, 'not false'.
If I say "I'm a 53-year-old man", that's true. If I say
"I'm a 20-year-old woman", that's false. Any number of people can agree or disagree, but facts remain. Yes, facts can be hidden and/or manipulated, but not changed by opinion or belief. How people see
those facts, or _whether_ they see those facts is
another thing.


Yes - or if they manufacture the facts, that's yet another thing. When it gets down to absolutes, all you have is consensus and/or faith that anything is actually "true".

--snip--
I don't have any beliefs WRT a god. You do. Strong atheists do.
Certainly you have a "belief" WRT God - you don't believe because you can't make God "evident" to yourself. That's still a belief, "strong" or "weak".

So the absence of a belief is a belief? You're not
making sense.


You believe to some extent (weakly or strongly) that God does not exist. That is still a belief. I attempted to state a cause for the basis of your belief, but you still have a belief, and that belief is WRT God.

--snip--
I think it's dishonest that the people who publish bibles don't make that clear up front - parts were
left out, parts were added to promote different agendas, no one knows who wrote any of the books, etc., etc. That it can be considered 'the
word of god' is hysterical, IMO.
No, I think they do know who actually wrote them,

Who wrote them, then?


It's readily accepted that the books of the New Testament were written in the original by the Apostles themselves. I'm not versed enough on the Old Testament to know about that, but I think there's historical "evidence" or a trail as to who specifically wrote the chapters.

--snip--
People sometimes argue to me that the Bible was
"written by men whom were inspired by God".

It's claimed by every inerrantist.


I hear the "inspired by" line mostly from Catholics. But even so, yes - most faithful take the Book as the Word.

I always counter that I could be inspired to write their
life story, but that doesn't mean I'd get it all right.

If you were divinely inspired - or even claimed to be - it jolly well _should_ mean that..


Again, we're back to my interpretation of "inspiration". That God speaks to everyone, but He doesn't necessarily say the same thing to everyone. Even if I'm Divinely Inspired, what I'm inspired to write would probably be meant firstly for me, and maybe not for the masses - but even if it were, I'm still only human and therefore fallible. That means I could get it wrong. That's why looking inside one's self is so important in my belief - I believe more answers come from within than from the outside.

I sort of look at the Bible that way - I have to take from it and keep the parts that speak to me personally, and continually look and introspect for myself in order to find what is meant for me. I no longer consider it to be a "complete" document.

Some atheists would call you a "salad bar Christian".
Pick the parts you like, ignore the ones you don't...
The fact that every Christian doesn't pick the same
parts makes someone like me wonder what basis
is used for picking & choosing. If any.


Not it, really. Not so much the part that I "like" as the part that speak to me - and even then, WHEN they speak to me. The whole Book may not speak to me at the same time, but there may be a part or parts of it that speak to me at a certain time. Because of that I have to take and keep the Book as a whole, but also in a temporal sense.

I've heard that the entirety of the Dead Sea Scrolls
isn't released because there are things in them that challenge the very foundation of Judaism... I for one would like to know what they say.

Me, too. But is there any reason to think they're any more honest than the bible?


Depends on what they say, I'd gather...if only because they pre-date the Bible and presumably were not subjected to editing by committee. But we'll never know any of that unless we see and are able to read them for ourselves in their entirety.

--snip--
Most laws that directly affect us - traffic laws, petty
theft, grand theft, manslaughter, arson, etc - have
understandable or easy to find consequences.
You're stretching, IMO.
Nope. I got rear ended sitting at a stop light once...
the guy was uninsured. The cops wouldn't even come file a report for my insurance because there
was no bodily injury involved.

The cops were negligent, then. The problem wasn't
that the law - or the consequences of violating it -
was too hard to understand. It just wasn't enforced.


Which is just another way of punishing the innocent.

--snip--
Besides, our discussion has been centered around
the totality of law, not just "familiar" or "common law".

Since no one knows every law ever written, I used
common examples. So did you.


I followed your lead, but I was thinking our discussion was far deeper than that...

Ignorance excuses no man. Period.

http://tinyurl.com/2jpyu2
Ignorance of the Law Can Be an Excuse, Justices Rule By LINDA GREENHOUSE, Published: January 12, 1994
People who keep their cash transactions with banks to under $10,000 to evade Federal reporting require-
ments cannot be convicted without proof that they knew such action is illegal, the Supreme Court ruled today.


....to quote the Bard - "the law is an ass". So, they've decided to make it easier to get away with laundering money, have they? I'm in the WRONG damn business...

At least it's not supposed to... in my cited example
total familiarity on the parts of both parties involved seems to have excused the guilty and punished the innocent - I got stuck with an $800 bill for the repair of my truck.

Was it because the law, or the consequences of breaking it, was hard to understand? It doesn't sound like it.


It was because as you mentioned, the enforcers are lazy. If the whole of the law is not going to be enforced, then there is no equity under law, and that just one more argument against the system.

--snip--
Give me an example of the punishment for a specific violation of a specific law follows
through generations, please.
Gun control. I am being specifically punished and my "right" to bear arms is being specifically
infringed even though I've never shot anyone.
If you're nailed for carrying concealed without a license, are your kids or descendants punished? Yes __ No __
Yes. Because they don't have the right either - a "right" which is supposedly guaranteed under law.

That wasn't the question, Guncho :-) Would your kids
get nailed for YOUR specific violation? Quit dancing. No, they wouldn't, and you know it. The law may sometimes punish the wrong guy, but it doesn't go after descendants and punish them.


My answer stands - in the gun control argument, YES. In fact, if I were to go out and shoot someone some bleeding heart (presumably not the guy I shot...) would only come out of the woodwork to punish them further by leading a charge to even further restrict their Constitutional "right".

--snip--
For me He's something different.
Apparently he can be whatever anyone wants him to be. There aren't many real-world things
like that. Almost enough to make one suspicious...
Yes - but as I've said before, that's the "nature of being God", IMO. I might become suspicious of other people (and am), but I see no reason to become suspicious of God.

Hard to show that something exists, if no one can
agree on its attributes. Almost like fantasy...


Not really. I haven't met many people that agree on the attributes of love, yet everyone (including yourself) agrees that it exists.

There are lots of situations in the "real world" where people become whatever they want to be - acting is probably the most prevalent. Just plain
growing up and choosing a career is another.

The existence of these people isn't in question. They get actual checks, cash them, and buy
actual stuff. They're seen by others who have no reason to have previously believed they exist.


That wasn't what we were talking about - it's not that anyone has to believe in these people, it's that these people go out and make their world whatever they believe it should be.

--snip--
"Objective" to whom?
'Objective' means 'whom' is irrelevant. Are you
being difficult on purpose?
No. But I'm pressing the point that "objectivity" is highly dependent on POV in the "real world".

Yes, ->objectivity<- is. Objective evidence is not.


Like I said, I don't believe you can have one without the other - no "objectivity", no "objective" evidence.

To the individual that believed in it maybe. To someone that doesn't believe maybe not.
"Objective' means belief is irrelevant.
I'm saying that that isn't possible in the absolute - it's only an "ideal", like you said.

You're still mixing them up. I agree that objectivity is rare. Objective evidence - the bullet hole - isn't.


....but it's still all based on the "proper" interpretation of any "evidence". I still hold that's not that simple a prospect. Not in absolute terms.

--snip--
You've been saying the law and the consequences
for breaking it aren't understandable, then you used
the speeding ticket example. The speed limit laws are obvious - there are signs every X hundred feet, seems like - and it's not hard to find out the fine is $X for X MPH over, $Y for Y MPH over, etc. Where's
the 'hard to understand' part?
I only used the speed limit as an example. I live out in the middle of nowhere, so no, there aren't limit signs every X feet. Yet you're still liable.

Are there a lot of people who don't know there's a
speed limit? Don't you learn stuff like this before you get a drivers' license where you live? Of course you're still responsible. If you're ignorant this law, you shouldn't have gotten a license.


You learn there are limits, then you move to someplace like the middle of the Mojave where you can die of thirst in the sun if you break down on the highway and speed limits become less of a concern for both the people and the cops...and the state saves money by decreasing the number of signs posted...

But what I meant is that for every one you do understand there are a million more that you don't, and probably have never even heard of.

Of course there are, but 99% probably don't affect
either of us.


....never know, do you? And that's the problem.

Are you aware that if you sell your PC out of the country and it has the wrong thing on it, or is a certain
type of device that you could be liable for heavy
fines and/or imprisonment for violation of export control or maybe even trade in arms treaty, depending on the technology involved? Probably not... and you're probably not the only one - yet you're still liable.

Crypto - yes, I was aware of that. If I had a business
that was crypto-related, you can bet I'd be a lot MORE aware of that, and related laws. Someone who doesn't own a car and doesn't drive doesn't have to be real
knowledgeable about traffic laws. The point is, most people are aware of the laws - and the consequences of breaking them - that directly affect them evey day.


Uh...no. A LOT more than just crypto. Under the law, there are all sorts of regulations about secondary usage of tech related to a whole host of items - being able to take something apart and rebuild it into something else. End use, international treaty, local law at the end users location...WAY more complex than just crypto.

Someone that doesn't own a car and doesn't drive still has to knowledgeable enough not to step out in front of that bus...

--snip--
I've got an interesting CD with William S. Burroughs reading a passage about Egyptian mythos and "the death beyond death - soul death". I think the concept was pretty clear, even if it wasn't our concept.
There are lots of 'concepts'. Do you think every one is worth serious consideration? If so, you have
your hands full. If not, how do you differentiate?
Yes - I've always believed in "learning as much as
you can about as much as you can". And yes, that's a handful. I don't "differentiate" as much as "catalog".
Then as I've said, I take away what speaks to me, and leave the rest.

You read up on every new (claimed) perpetual motion machine? Every new miracle weight loss plan? Every new psychic hotline? Are there no ideas too stupid for you to waste time on? There are for me.


Not for me...I may not actively seek them out, but when I do trip across something interesting I look into it and file it away. Anything even oddly interesting. Annoys the hell out of people...

--snip--
Facts can be verified. If it's a 'fact' only to you and it can't be verified, it's more of a 'notion'.
Not always - verify the exact time of the origin of the universe. It's a fact that the universe exists. Verify how and when it came into existence.
* I don't have to. I made no claims WRT the origin.
That wasn't the point of my example...
What was your point? The exact time of the origin of the universe is not a fact. It's unknown, AFAICT.
Yes, it's a fact that the universe exists. Anyone can verify that.
Then it should also be a "fact" that the universe came into existence at a precise time,

That doesn't follow. Is there something that makes
you think the universe hasn't always existed (besides creation stories)?


Yeah - physics. And Genesis.

and you should be able to verify it as such.

Roger. Right after you show it's a 'fact'.


I just did. It's a fact it's here, right? Then it had to come into being, and had to do so at some time. If you're postulating "everlasting to everlasting", you're getting dangerously close to God, my friend...

Yet that "fact" remains unverified and unknown and people just take it to be true on faith... based on the "fact" that we "know" or "perceive" that a
thing we call the "universe" exists to us.

'The universe' includes everything by definition. It's a label for 'everything'. If 'the universe' doesn't
exist, nothing exists. You're mixing up two separate problems - showing
that the universe exists, and showing when it came
into existence. You assume it hasn't always existed.


Nope. One is predicated on the other. If something "exists", then it had to somehow be made manifest - "universe" or void.

Physics "assumes" that the "known universe" had a beginning. Trying to answer my question is a major pursuit of modern physics. Where's your "objectivity" gone?..unless you're trying to sell me Genesis...

"Fact" is whatever people take it to be, really.

Only for 'reality is whatever I believe it is' people.
Facts are verifiable. "There is a planet Earth" is a
fact. "There is a god" is not.


"Facts" are the most easily "verified" to anyone that believes in them. Doesn't mean they are "truth" in the absolute. When it come down to it all that remains are belief and faith. In anything. Some people still believe the earth is flat. Some more still may not even believe there is an "earth". That's up to them.

* You're confusing 'explain' with 'verify'.
Nope. You can give me any explanation and/
or answer you like - verify it though, please.
See above. You verify claims, statements, or facts; not unknowns.
You claim that it's a fact that the universe exists -

We're here. If the universe didn't exist, nothing would exist. Now, I suppose, you'll start playing
around with what "exist" means...


No...we perceive a thing we call a "universe". Tell me when it got here for us to perceive it. Not how, just when.

then by extension it also has to be a fact that the
universe came into existence at some precise
time, in some precise manner -

No. Can you show that the universe hasn't always been here? This should be good...


Yes, actually. I think cosmological physics has a pretty good handle on the known universe being at least a cyclic system. But even they can't answer the "when" question because theoretical time breaks down as you approach the beginning.

verify that "fact" for me, please.

We haven't agreed that it's a fact. You saying it's a
fact doesn't make it one. How about if you list a few
other things you call "facts", just for comparison?


Gotta leap some logic - if it's here, it came from someplace...even if it came out of a void. When did that occur?

--snip--
You're assuming that 'having bias' means 'having bias toward the situation you're apathetic about'.
No - any bias at all, because that bias has the potential of becoming relevant to your decision.
Not if the bias is completely unrelated.
Oh yeah - even if it's supposedly "unrelated". The defendant is wearing a red tie, and I hate red. Red ties have nothing to do with breaking the speed limit, but I might totally hold that against him.

That's related, albeit indirectly. You "tied" them
together yourself :-)
Suppose I have a bias against vanilla ice cream, and NOTHING in the trial has ANYTHING to do with vanilla ice cream. Do you think THAT particular bias affects my opinion of the defendant? How?


Maybe...if the defendant wears a white shirt, and that shirt reminds me of vanilla ice cream, and I get a gut feeling I shouldn't trust him or anything he says - even if I can't quite say why.

I've been wrestling with something like that - I took a trip to Finland and Switzerland a couple years ago. For some reason I REALLY liked Finland...I've spent two years trying to figure out why, and I can't. Want to go back someday...

--snip--
What I'm getting at is that "reality" itself is only a construct. People (including you and me) create their own "realities" to suit their own needs and desires. Back to the "unreasonable man" hypothesis.
See the part about the bus. Create a personal force field in your reality, then stand in front of the bus. If the bus is only 'someone else's reality', and if you can make it insubstantial by believing, there's no way you'll be hurt. But solipsists never seem to want to test this... :-|
...but who really knows what was on the minds of those whom do, or might still be there?
Those who do what? Might be where? Are you going to test the bus example or not? :-)
[side note: you're mixing up 'who' and 'whom']
Ok - WHOM stand in front of buses. And get killed. Or jump off buildings...and get killed. Or even just die of natural causes. Nobody knows, really.

Doesn't matter what was on their minds. If they step
in front of a bus, they'll be hurt or killed. They might
believe they're frying sausages, but the bus won't
care.


....and neither will they. That's their "reality".

...I'll get to test it one day... I just won't be standing in front of a bus. I'm waiting on a call back from my doc right now...

I started testing it when I was a kid. I found out early
that there are things - real things - that can hurt you.
Believing that they're not there, believing that you're
invincible, believing that if you close your eyes they'll go away - doesn't help in the least. Reality
isn't kind to 'belief'. Reality is fact. Reality is the bus.
'Belief' is a bucket of sand to bury your head in.


I have never believed in my life that I'm "invincible" or indestructible. In fact, a whole lot of my skydiving was sort of about a reverse excuse to go on living - if it didn't kill you that day, there must be some reason it didn't kill you. If it did kill you, then it was your time...I know a few jumpers that think that way. Bring on the bus, cause I'm about sick of the "reality" everyone else thinks is "real"...just don't let me see it coming.

--snip--
My whole life became nothing but trying to avoid arguments... and I couldn't more often than not, she'd
just pick an excuse for one...

Ah... I avoid arguments like that, too. When I say I like to argue, I mean constructing and picking apart arguments; not screaming and throwing stuff.


Yeah. A real argument requires thought. She hates to think...turns her reality into a nightmare when she does.

--snip--
Regardless of what the bullet hole means
to you, it's still there, and it's still objective evidence - whether anyone looks at it objectively or not.
That's really hard to say, isn't it? If I look at it with bias, it's not really objective, is it?
If you look at it with a bias, YOU'RE not being
objective. The bullet hole is objective evidence. Your perception of it is subjective.
The bullet hole doesn't look at itself, stand up, and make a statement.
No one said it did. It's passive.
And therefore also can't defend itself.

It can't tap dance, either. So what? It is what it is, no matter what people use it for.


Not really...a lot of times it is what it ain't.

Some biased individual does. And another biased individual may say something different.
Yup. That doesn't change the bullet hole, though.
Changes it's "relevance", though.

Yup. But that's not the bullet hole.


Yes it is. A bullet hole that is no longer relevant ceases to exist.

--snip--
Whoever you send for, the hole hasn't changed. This is the point.
Sort of. The hole "changes" depending on how it's perceived.

Only the perceptions change.


And perception is everything.

If I'm a really savvy lawyer and get it thrown out, then to the jury it's not even supposed to be there.

So what? It's still there, jury or no jury.


Not in the jury room, and not someplace removed from the circumstance.

--snip--
You keep implying that bias in interpretation means that evidence is no longer objective. My point is that the evidence itself doesn't change.
My point is that the perception of the evidence
is more important than the "evidence" itself. Particularly when it comes to basing any sort of decision or action on it.

Without evidence, there could be no perception
of it. Without perceptions, the evidence would still be there. But at least you admit they're two different
things - that's a start...


They are co-dependent, at the very least. If I fail to perceive the evidence, then it simply does not exist for me. If I perceive it to be something it's not, then what is it really?

--snip--
Who's reality?
Reality. The bus that hits you when you step in front of it, whether you think you're invincible or not, or whether you believe the bus is 'real' or not. It doesn't matter that in 'your' reality the bus might be a cream puff. It'll still knock you down, and the stuff getting mopped up won't be cream.
Depends on what happens to consciousness
after death.
No, it doesn't. Even if your 'soul' ascends to the planet Boron in the Noxema galaxy, the bus still killed you.
Has it really? If I still exist on Boron... I've only changed form.
Unless there's any evidence for 'life after death', you've only 'changed form' from alive to dead. Maybe your 'soul' was absorbed by the bus. You can 'maybe' your way into anything.
And that's my point. Nobody really knows for sure, do they? But we'll all get to find out for ourselves one day...

Not if we're so wrapped up in fantasy that we can't tell what's happening, we won't...


What if that's what's supposed to happen?..

--snip--
There are many realities...
Let's start with the bus, then. That reality. Can you show me another 'reality' where the bus would just pass through you like you were a cloud, instead of slamming you to the pavement?
Yeah - virtual reality. Virtual reality is so "real" that people use it to train to go kill "real" people,
learn to drive "real" cars, have "2nd lives", learn
to fly "real" airplanes. And that's just one example.
The word "virtual' in your example means 'not real'. Can you show me another reality where the bus would just pass through you like you were a cloud,
instead of slamming you to the pavement? Short answer: no, you can't. You can IMAGINE all
sorts of fantasies where natural laws don't apply,
but that's not the same thing.
But the distinction is that "virtual" reality is still real enough to make someone believe enough to make
it "real" in the "real" world. If that's the case, how "virtual" is it, really?

The answer is in the name. By all means, stand
there in front of the bus wearing your virtual reality
helmet on when the bus comes by. It'll probably protect you - there are many realities, after all...


"Protect" is just as much a construct as "reality". It's all about what you believe - if "virtual" reality is "real" while you're in it, "real" enough to make you air sick, then it's as real as you've made it.

if there were only one, life would be MUCH easier.
I think people manufacture 'realities' because
the 'real' one is unpleasant for them, too hard
to figure out, doesn't make them feel powerful enough, etc.
And I'd agree.
But you've said there are numerous realities.
Yes - "virtual" reality is one, delusion is another,

By definition, neither of those are reality.


No, both of those are examples of tow different instances of "reality". All that's really changed to form each is a POV.

culture is yet another.

You haven't shown that. I think culture is only a
socially accepted way of handling or seeing reality; not a unique reality.


If you travel a bit - and by travel, I really mean live somewhere for about a year as I've done 11-odd times - you'll find culture alters "reality" significantly.

But I still stand by my statement that life would be easier if there were just one... but there ain't.

You haven't shown that there is more than one.


You've encountered them yourself...I don't have to show any. That "unsettling" feeling when talking to a schizophrenic that you've experienced. That's as "alternatively real" as it gets.

As I've said, I've witnessed that much closer than I'd like to have. But that doesn't make that reality any less "real".
A dream is real to the person having it. We don't call that 'reality'. Why not?
"We" ain't "me".

Are you saying dreams are reality? Hoo boy...


They can be, while you're having them...enough so to cause one of my former bosses to regularly thrash his wife in his sleep. After a while they put him in the sleep lab and figured out how to stop that.

And that's why there's more than one "reality".

If you count dreams, hallucinations, mental illness,
sensory deprivation, etc., then yes, there is more than reality. Go ahead and use any of those to
navigate your way through actual reality. It won't
be pretty.


Don't forget culture. The "reality" of living in the slums of Juarez is certainly different from the "reality" of living in Manhattan.

Finally figured out that I've been making a big mistake thinking there is only one reality.
I'd really like to hear the 'thinking' behind that one.
Not so much thinking as bearing witness -
trying to pull someone out of a "false reality" that is nothing but "real" to them being the most personal I can "think" of.
If the 'reality' is only real to them, it's not reality.
Reality can be verified by comparing your perception with the next person's.
It may be able to be confounded, but it can't be "verified" if the other individual is "secure" in their own version of it.

Then ask the next ten people. If they're all seeing
the same thing, odds are it's real.


To them. But not to my ex.

In my ex's "reality"

We're definitely using the word differently. I would
have said "my ex's situation", meaning her part of
reality.


Nope. Her reality. She even referred to it that way. There is one and only one way to look at the world and people - her way. You can line up as many witnesses as you'd like, reason as much as you'd like, and her response would only be that you were a manipulative *** and trying to trick her. And if you won't change your mind, then she'll throw a tantrum until you just go away...so after 3.5 years of that, I went away.

the brutality of being used as a prostitute served a "higher good" within the context of a culture.

What was the "greater good"?


"Helping" the poor Mexicans to find a "better life" in the USA.

But let her hear a story on the news about someone being tortured, or even hear the news at all - present her with the "verifiable facts" of prostitution, and get ready for mood swings and tantrums...

How does her opinion affect reality?


It creates a reality - hers. That's the only one there is to her. There's another one to us.

Two political parties live in different "realities"... unfortunately no one questions either of them to the point of coming up with a viable third. There are countless such examples.
And all of them equally valid. The two parties may see reality differently (debatable), but that doesn't mean there's more than one reality. This is just a variation on two people looking at the bullet hole. No matter what the two people see or think, the hole does not change to fit their beliefs.
Sure it does. It's all just a matter of who comes out on top as to who's "reality" wins.

Nope. One opinion might wind up convincing more people about what happened, but that's all.


....and that majority gets to enforce it's version of reality on everyone until the mood changes and the next fashion comes out.

--snip--
Yes - it gives me pause to think that my senses are not always accurate and/or reliable, and they aren't. No one's are - not always, in all circumstances.

True. But you can ask the guy next to you "Did you
see that?" There are other ways to double check.
99% of the time, I trust my senses.


I routinely put myself in situations where I specifically need to NOT trust my senses. I'd say I only trust mine about 75% of the time.

Another example is flying on instruments - I'm also a pilot. You have to learn to completely ignore your senses to do that,

Not all of your senses. You're still reading the
instruments.


Right. But you need to completely ignore your sense of balance because your inner ear is relaying false acceleration and rate information. You also need to ignore your sense of kinesthetic feedback in some instances, and learn to override it based on your sense of sight only.

Used to also have to do that when I was a gymnast on the trampoline, and when skydiving - you have to rely on your vision only, and ignore sound, what your inner ear is telling you as to spatial orientation, and to some extent touch.

because your perception of reality may become totally misinformed by them when you are deprived of one of them. Yet both what the instruments tell you and what you feel are "real" - you have to make a choice.

The instruments are only acting as an extension of
your senses.


Actually, they are acting as a backup - particularly for attitude and orientation. Your sense of rate and acceleration go completely out to lunch without a horizon.

--snip--
I agree that being objective is difficult-to-impossible. We've been disagreeing on objective evidence.
"Objective evidence" requires "objectivity" to
interpret or comprehend.

Any kind of evidence can be interpreted by anyone
in any way. Interpretation doesn't affect the quality of the evidence.


Yes, it does. If it's truly "objective" evidence, there should only be one available conclusion from it.

One without the other is pointless,

No. At least with objective evidence at the start, you have a chance of getting at what actually happened.
If there is no evidence, only various opinions, how do you evaluate them?


I believe you can gather all the "evidence" you like, and very little of it will be truly "objective".

and the latter is "difficult to impossible" in your own words. So "objective evidence" is pretty tricky to come up with.

The bullet hole is objective evidence. Almost any physical evidence is objective evidence. The tricky part is interpreting it, knowing what you're seeing, how you spin it, what agenda you have, etc.


If it's tricky to interpret, then I'd contend it's not truly "objective".

--snip--
Objective evidence can exist without observers.
Perceptions can exist that have no basis in reality. The two are independant.
I think they are highly dependent - you would have to assume a pre-drawn conclusion otherwise.
Explain that. Coherently, if possible :-)
In your description, only one conclusion can be drawn from truly "objective evidence" - that assumes a pre-drawn conclusion.

ANY conclusion can be drawn from ANY kind of evidence, depending on bias, motivation, etc.


Yup. And that's why it's not "objective".

I hold that many differing conclusions might be drawn from any set of evidence based on the POV of the individual interpreting it.

Agreed. But that doesn't affect the evidence itself
one bit.


It doesn't alter it physically, but the whole point of the evidence is to affect an action - so in altering the interpretation, the action may be altered, and thus the evidence is "altered", even if only perceptually.

If there are no observers, the "evidence" doesn't even really exist, because no one is there to perceive it.

This is SO wrong I have to wonder if you're serious.
Are you saying you believe the old "if a tree falls..."
crap? Of course it makes a sound. Trees and sound waves don't care if anyone happens to be listening.


Yes, to an extent. The tree may fall, but if no one cares it doesn't matter one whit. So it's irrelevant to that set of people and might as well not have fallen.

You can't have one without the other,

You certainly can. The guy gets shot, the killer runs away. Do you think the hole immediately heals if no one looks at it? That's insane.


No. I'm saying that to some set of people the event never even happened in the first place.

and you can't assume a conclusion based upon a single POV.

I have no idea what you mean by that.


You can only draw a conclusion based upon the consensus of a group of individuals viewing the "evidence". Sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't. Because you can't assume a conclusion from the outset, the evidence is not truly "objective".

--snip--
For those that don't care, it was never there in teh first place.
There's our difference: 'for those that don't care'. There's a hole in the guy's forehead or
there isn't.
Yes - to some there is, to some there may not be, and to still more there "may" be.
Those are viewpoints. Think about the bullet hole. Does it appear or disappear depending on who's thinking about it? No.
Yes, it does. If I cease thinking about it, or am
instructed not to think about it, it might as well not exist. But only for me.

Not "might as well', not "only for me" - does the hole appear or disappear at someone's whim? Yes or no. You're starting to worry me...


Yes - if the judge throws it out, it's supposed to disappear as far as the jury's concerned. They are not allowed to consider it.

--snip--
I have known a few. No, it doesn't matter to them what 'reality' is outside their heads. They've gotten so involved with their fantasy that it seems
real - to them. But the fact that they believe something doesn't make it real outside their heads.
Doesn't make it real to US outside their heads,

It's real or not real whether we're there or not.


Still, only not "real" to US. To them it's the only thing.

but only because we refuse to share their "vision". It's only "fantasy" from our POV.

It's fantasy if it differs from reality. That's practically
the definition of 'fantasy'. We can share it or not; it
doesn't affect how what they see relates to reality.


It's "fantasy" to us if it differs from our "reality", and our "reality" is only formed by our consensus, really. Theirs is just as valid to them as ours is to us. To them it IS the only "reality".

--snip--
>From theirs it's their reality.

Our perceptions of reality are, or can be, subjective, but our perceptions are not reality.
I'd contend that our perceptions are reality, and that without them there IS no "reality".
So... before humans, there was - what? Static?
I think you have a lot of your eggs in this 'reality
is whatever I say it is' basket.
Everyone does.

I haven't thought like that for most of my life. Since
around the time I found out there is no Santa Claus, I think.


I think you've just never stopped to think about it, or to think hard and deep about how other people think about it. You have to do both.

There's a lot of us, so yes - there's a lot of eggs. but I still hold that without perception, "reality" is simply nothing. No matter who or what is there to perceive it - humans, animals, it still has to be perceived to be "real" within a context. Or even to be given context.

I think you're wrong. The bus can even smash a
dead guy - he's past perceiving anything - if he
happens to be lying in the street.


So, his reality is either over, or exists in ignorance of the bus. It's us that perceives a bus smashing a dead guy - that's just our thing.

--snip--
Usually what tips you off that there's something awry is a situation that does exactly that - their 'reality' has bumped up against actual reality, and shown a gross misalignment. It's unsettling (to me) because people who are seeing some other 'reality' are unpredictable.
Define "actual" in context between two such
individuals.

One person believes he can step in front of a bus
and walk away unharmed. Another person believes if the bus hits him he'll be hurt or killed. Do you need to be told which 'reality' is 'actual'?


No. Not for myself. But I'll still contend that if you tell the guy that totally believes nothing will happen that something will, you'll just be wasting your breath.

Each has their own perception, and yours is just as unsettling to them as theirs is to you. If you lived in their world, they might be completely predictable - and that's why you have to put yourself in their place in order to deal with them, weather that's unsettling, or "real", or not. That takes practice.

There is no "their world". What you're seeing is
how they cope - or fail to cope - with reality.


Not really...yes, there are coping strategies - Dissociative Personality Disorder is a coping strategy. But that doesn't mean that each one of the dissociated personalities doesn't exist within it's own "reality" or world, and that that world isn't "real" to that personality. That's exactly why the personality fracture occurs in the first place. Another one (three, actually...) that I've had some personal experience with - dealing with someone affected, that is.

--snip--
My ex was a cutter during her childhood, which was pretty brutal. I've probably known more than one...
I know I've corresponded with a few in a support group I used to frequent. What I mostly recall is that some cutters cut themselves because "reality" fails
to provide a required amount of stimulation.

"Fails to provide"? What made them think reality is supposed to "provide" anything?


All people have needs and drives - some cutters have an overly obsessive need for sensory stimulus, and to obtain it any way they can...even if that way is through pain. If they don't get what they need from the "reality" of the world around them, they take action for themselves.

There are others that do it because they live through situations that teach them that brutality and pain are
"normal". I could probably say something similar about anorexics. But they all have their own reasons.
Anyway, the only diff is that some turn outward, and some turn inward.

These are examples at the end of the curve, and
hopefully there aren't a lot of them. I don't see how
you can make statements about reality based on
people who obviously can't cope with it.


Actually, there's a LOT more people like this than most of us would like to think, or think about. In my little town in the middle of nowhere we seem to have quite an abundant concentration of such.

My statement was about people creating their own alternate "realities", and they do. They do it because yours either doesn't suit them, or as you say they can't cope with it. But for them, their view is just as valid and "real" as yours.

--snip--
All any "reality" IS is someone's hallucination -

That is just plain wrong. Maybe you and everyone you know hallucinates, but I don't, and no one I know does. People deal with reality with different levels of success, but they're not all making up their own versions.


How do you know? Real is real, and maybe "hallucination" is a stong word for it, but how do you know in the absolute - you just believe you know.

Easy test: I can ask the next 100 people I meet if they'd feel safe stepping in front of a bus. How many do you think will say, "Sure, ten tons of metal
slamming into me won't bother me"? How many do you think would look at me like I was an idiot for even asking?
If ANY of them agree to step in front of the bus,
they would be the ones hallucinating, and they probably shouldn't be out on their own.


All that means is that you've found 100 people that perceive the world the way you do. Somewhere, there is someone that does not, and your 100 people won't change that.

--snip--
Suppose I though I was a fish, and jumped into a river and drown because I can't swim. In my mind, I died a fish... what's the "reality"?
Fish can swim. You're not a fish. Your perceptions were whacked. No matter what you believe in your head, it doesn't change reality. If you say "it's real to ME", that's great. Just don't expect it to work
for anyone else in the real world.
And I don't. But if I die because I can't swim because I'm not a fish, I'm still a fish in my mind and no one will ever prove any different to me.
And that all that mattered in my world, and my version of reality.

Call it what you want, but a 'version of reality' that
far removed from actual reality is fantasy.


Only to you, and those whom agree with you.

And from who's POV, because in the end it's only the POV that provides the "reality".
Reality is there with your POV, my POV, or none. We're only perceiving it.
Correct.

Then a POV does NOT provide the reality. We can change reality by acting on/in it, but not by wishing it was different. When I was little, I spent a lot of time
wishing I'd been born rich. I wished I had superhuman
strength. Guess what? Reality didn't change. Maybe
my faith wasn't strong enough, or something...


I guess that's what I'm getting at - to these people, it's not a "wish". It's the REAL thing...just as "real" as your "real". Period. Yeah - your faith is elsewhere.

--snip--
We have two "realities" between us - God exists/
God doesn't exist. Independent of the question or the answer, that is each of our "realities".
There is one reality. We look at it two different ways. You look at it and think it includes a god. I don't. Hopefully your 'reality' agrees with me on the bus, at least.
It may today, it may not tomorrow...that's the nature
of reality.

We're stuck, I guess. The bus will flatten you today,
tomorrow, or next year, whether you 'believe in' the bus or not. You seem to think it will only nail you at
certain times, or if you think the bus is 'real' in 'your
reality'. Do you go out of the house much? :-)


No - I think that if I think/believe it won't then whatever you perceive that the bus will do to me simply doesn't make any difference.

Actually I don't go out much anymore. I keep running into scary people like my ex...I gotta move out of this town before I'll consider going out like I used to. I've had enough.

--snip--
People alter their "realities" constantly, and through many means.
They alter the way they look at reality.
Same thing - it's all about perception.

Perception is. Reality isn't.


Sure it is. Perception creates reality.

Culture alters reality - BIG time, and is probably the single biggest reason Americans have such a hard time "understanding" the rest of the world.
Culture at least partially determines the way we
LOOK at reality.
I think it determines "reality" to the greatest extent. The "reality" in the USA is certainly not the "reality" of Juarez, Mexico - or any of the border towns across the Rio Grande if you've ever driven Route 10 through El Paso and glanced across the river.

I think you're misusing the word. Reality isn't tied
to a location. Different realities don't spring into
existence every time you take a step.


I only cited the location as an instance of culture. But yes, in that respect "reality" can be tied to location. The "reality" of living in Cincinnati was certainly different from the "reality" of living in the high desert of California.

If you can't be "rational" enough to both perceive and step into someone else's reality from time to time how are you gonna find any understanding of them?
Not rational; empathetic.
"Rational" enough to know how to make the attempt, "empathetic" enough to try and understand.

It's not all one way - they have to make an effort to
pull their head out of their fantasy, too, if they expect
anyone to relate to them. Or maybe they just don't
expect that.

The Repair Guy repairguy1993 dot netfirms dot com

It sort of is one-way, in the case of mental or emotional disturbance, and that's what makes it so disturbing. At least it can be at the outset - I should have known better when my ex repeatedly told me that "some people don't want your help". That's REAL reality.

If you can cross the line it gets a bit more "understandable" but you can also run the risk of losing or damaging yourself...you have to remember that in order to keep yourself safe. In cases of such disturbance there is no such thing as "fantasy". At least not as we would perceive fantasy.

But once you get past a situation like the above, applying the principles to interchange with someone merely separated from you by culture or rational belief becomes altogether different. And easier.

--
- Rufus
.