Steve Pavlina points out that objective reality, well, ain't. Actually he's on even firmer ground than he thinks.
Now I'm no Sapir-Whorf fanboy, but as it turns out, classical objective reality is also a logical impossibility. Good old Hilary Putnam showed us that.
That doesn't mean there's no there there, just that we can't talk about it without an inevitable subjectivity creeping in. The disembodied AI mind has no experiential frame of reference for creating meaning, but we do, because we experience stuff like up and down, hot and cold, red and blue, in a way that cannot be modelled with set theory (which you kinda need for the objective reality viewpoint). And no, this doesn't mean I think Berkeley was right (now he was one wacky chappy).
In case you think I can think for myself (ha ha, fooled ya!), I'm getting all this from George Lakoff's Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. A bit of a tough read, but right on the money. The main point is that we can choose to make our meanings in the world, and they reflect back on us, determining how we can think. So yes, Steve is right, your beliefs really do create reality.
