From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2025-04-03, D  wrote:   
      
   >> How do modeling/representation phenomena such as   
   >> all that you list leapfrog from what might be called   
   >> "modeling/representation realm" to interact sufficiently   
   >> directly with an alleged "objective/real world" to say with   
   >> assurance that their results were indeed derived from said   
   >> allege "objective/real world"?   
   >   
   > Easy, by confirmation from the senses. I see a table in   
   > front of me. That is ample evidence to me, that it exists.   
      
   Every single word in that sentence means precisely   
   what you believe it does, making their combinations   
   merely statements of faith about a world/cave your mind   
   necessarily limits said reality/shadows to.   
      
   > Note that doubting the evidence of you senses is   
   > self-refuting, since it leads to solipsism. Solipsism   
   > means there is no ground for truth, and discussion is   
   > meaningless. Yet, the fact that you discuss means that   
   > regardless of that you propose to doubt the external world   
   > and the evidence of your senses, at some level you do not,   
   > since you keep debating and arguing.   
      
   I don't doubt that you believe all that - including the   
   "and therefore it's true/real" part, which of course makes   
   is seemingly so.   
      
   Oh, look! Your hallucinations have become so detailed that   
   they even respond to your hallucination of yourself in   
   ways that seem so convincingly real that you're completely   
   certain they're what you believe them to be, and thus   
   that they couldn't possibly be the substance of things   
   hoped for!   
      
   And it gets better. This "other person" you're   
   hallucinating just had the thought (because you believe   
   they're capable of that..) that they're not discussing   
   anything, but rather enjoying vehement yarns on the theme   
   of faith having nothing to do with the seeming reality of   
   its own substance/evidence.   
      
   > See above. The burden of proof is on the person claiming   
   > that sense evidence is not a source of knowledge.   
      
   Faith is its own evidence, aka proof.   
      
   --   
   NPC's dutifully ignored.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)