A solipsist may insist that there is indeed nothing beyond the 
distinction of self. I tend to a more ontological point of view. I 
believe that there is a "rex extensa" beyond the boundary of my self. 
(I am, therefore I think so.)

My objective perception of reality, the rex extensa, is indeed a 
simulation of that external reality. The very easily demonstrated fact 
that I am not omniscient leads to the conclusion that my experience of 
reality is at best a simulation of the whole she-bang. In fact, my 
sensation of reality has such limited resolution that I usually think 
and act as if cups and saucers are solid objects instead of mostly 
empty space in which an extraordinary number of Schroedinger wave like 
vibrations are superposing.

An incomplete model, but very potent when used to calculate the effects 
that may be consequences of my actions. The only basis for these 
beliefs is that there is such a striking correlation between my 
expected consequences of actions and the subsequent perception of 
change in the world.

So I would suppose that you may categorize me as a phenomenologist, in 
that I can't prove that you are any more real than I am, but it 
certainly suits my purposes to behave as if that were so.

:-}> John Sarkela

On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 09:18 AM, Lothar Schenk wrote:

> John Sarkela wrote:
>
>> Our only understanding of and access to reality is a simulation. 
>> Period.
>
> A simulation of what? Reality? But since _all_ you have access to (as 
> per
> your premise) is the simulation, how would you be able to know that 
> there
> is something beyond this simulation, something different from it, on 
> which
> it is based?
>
> -- Lothar
>
> "Walk this world with me"
>