I'd agree if our perceptions were known to be both reliable and valid. We do indeed have models based on our perceptions, but the widely-accepted models aren't based on the perceptions of just one person. For example, one scizophrenic is in a room with 99 "normals." Should we base our reality on the voices he hears, or on the silence everyone else hears.
Depends if we are the schizophrenic or not. Because, in the end, we base our model
on our OWN perceptions, even though those perceptions might be second hand. I
certainly sometimes doubt that what I propose is possible, based upon the utterances
of those uncertainly real critters known as others; nonetheless, when logic is fully
applied to the issue, my views seem stronger. They're just difficult to have the
requisite faith in, as we are brainwashed (or trained?) early on to believe that
these 'others' are indeed real and similar to our own reality.
for example, mathematics is basically independent of tangible experience.
I beg to differ. Mathematics is either a pure construct of one's mind, OR it is something
which is based largely on our perceptions, depending on whether we want it to
be applicable to our model. There are many perfectly consistent mathematics, which
serve little purpose, as they don't reflect our model well. This is actually where the issue
of will comes in - if one can change the mathematics to a model which is different, and believe
it entirely, the underlying reality becomes effectively something new. My own tactic lies in
that branch of Mathematics known as logic - wherein I believe that ~(A ^ ~A) is not an
axiom.
Might I add, speaking of the "fundies" is obviously an attempt to get a certain amoutn of emotional appeal to your side of the argument. However, both you and I are arguing for things which cannot be proven. You cannot prove that reality can be altered by altering perception, unless you redefine reality. I find nothing in the definion of "real" here: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/real that matches your definition; in fact, one defintion seems opposite: 3b c : having objective independent existence (Also, reality is definied as the quality of being real, or " a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily")
depends on what is meant by proof. Convincing myself is sufficient.
Definitions, if not part of the objective reality which I define, are unimportant.
If I am all that is necessary, then my will and view become so, as well.
