Quoting Christophe Grandsire <[log in to unmask]>:

> En réponse à Andreas Johansson :
> >But the notion that different people might possibly perceive the same
> object
> >differently presupposes the existence of objective reality
> Nope, since nothing proves that there *are* any other people besides ego.

[expletive deleted]!

Attack what I'm saying! You can't defeat an objection by denying the
assumptions implicit in the statement objected to!

If there are other people, we don't need any proof there is! It's simply
_true_, by definition! And if there aren't other people, they're not there to
have different perceptions, wherefore the point is frikken moot!

Excuse my exlamation marks, but that made me angry.

> >  - otherwise we
> >won't have any the same object,
> Could be. See above about my experience and my friend's. Even assuming that
> we both exist, it is obvious that our subjective realities only partially
> map together. As such, it is very far-fetched to base the existence of an
> objective reality from such shaky evidence.

Explain to me what meaning the identity of one thing in your friend's
subjective perception with one in yours could possibily have if the thing does
not have an 'objective' existence? The very identity as such is objective, or
so it would seem to me.

(And it's _you_, not me, who assumed an identity between the things, despite
you and your friend's different perceptions thereof.)

> >  nor would the non-sameness of our perceptions
> >have any meaning.
> But does it?

Zhang apparently believes so.

Also, I don't see your problem with believing in hammers or whatnot. To
believe in a hammer means to believe it exists - just like believing in God is
to believe He exists. And while my belief in the existence of various hammers
certainly isn't proved beyond every reasonable doubt, that has just about zero
practical interest. Experience suggests I like the results better if I believe
in the existence of any hammers I perceive, and that's all I have to go by.

Further, you certainly do seem to believe in objective reality as I understand
the term - the Cartesian ego has to _exist_ to make sense. And assuming it
doesn't exist doesn't make much sense, as you yourself has demonstrated in
earlier discussions on this list.