paradox- 28 days ruined the term "insanity" for the public. :/
Main Entry: in·san·i·ty
Pronunciation: in-'sa-n&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable
The real point is that we have NO absolute view
of any proposed objective reality. All that is
meant by it is some model based on our
perceptions. It would be insane, if our
perceptions disagreed (even through
our own choice) not to change the
model, in accordance. This is the
type of thinking that fundies tend
towards - holding onto strict
creationism, when the evidence
is wholly against them.
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. The models of perception we generally have now do not change according to who views them; a basic example here is the fact that although we cannot be certain everyone "has the same yellow," we can still call a banana objectively yellow. Even if there is a colorblind person who cannot see the yellow, so long as most of us see what we call yellow, we call the banana objectively yellow. There are also things which lie outside of our senses but which we can still comprehend and think about, and which tend to be the same no matter what; for example, mathematics is basically independent of tangible experience.
Having said all that, perhaps you're working with a broader definition of "perception" than I am.
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")
Semicolon, where are you? We miss you!