Okay, let me say a couple things.
First, there's a slippery slope with this kind of reality. We know that the brain deconstructs and filters sense information, forms it into ideas, and then assembles those ideas into an experience. By the time we experience something, it is fundamentally different than whatever reality it may or may not have originated at. But how much does it matter if the data is source to 30ms ago or 30 years ago?
Second, how would we know which case represents reality, and which are ratsetu's other options (or one of myriad others)? How do you know whether you are really seeing something with your eyes, or are just dreamind so? How do you know that your eyes and even your entire life are not essentially dreamlike?
I think our modern age-- of atheism, phsyical monism, and science, is fundamentally ironic. We have used experience-- and only experience-- to arrive at the conclusion that the universe isn't essentially experiential, but has an objective existence outside our experience. We've developed a model-- also an idea-- to demonstrate that ideas are about things rather than vice versa, and that things are responsible for the existence of ideas.
But what is the evidence to support this, really? More experiences? Third-party experiences? The experience of looking through a microscope, or a telescope, or a mass spectrometer?
First, there's a slippery slope with this kind of reality. We know that the brain deconstructs and filters sense information, forms it into ideas, and then assembles those ideas into an experience. By the time we experience something, it is fundamentally different than whatever reality it may or may not have originated at. But how much does it matter if the data is source to 30ms ago or 30 years ago?
Second, how would we know which case represents reality, and which are ratsetu's other options (or one of myriad others)? How do you know whether you are really seeing something with your eyes, or are just dreamind so? How do you know that your eyes and even your entire life are not essentially dreamlike?
I think our modern age-- of atheism, phsyical monism, and science, is fundamentally ironic. We have used experience-- and only experience-- to arrive at the conclusion that the universe isn't essentially experiential, but has an objective existence outside our experience. We've developed a model-- also an idea-- to demonstrate that ideas are about things rather than vice versa, and that things are responsible for the existence of ideas.
But what is the evidence to support this, really? More experiences? Third-party experiences? The experience of looking through a microscope, or a telescope, or a mass spectrometer?
