From: jpc@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au (John Costella)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: PHIL: VR and RL: Beginning a Philosophical Consortium
Date: 19 Dec 92 22:17:29 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu


Look, I realise this bloke's just trying to create a shit-stir,
and I wouldn't like to start a flame war over his provocations.
Judging by the unexpected applause to by mailbox after the last
round (and no flames) I gather that there is little support for
this line of `angel on the head of a pin' argumentation in this
sci.- prefixed newsgroup.

In anticipation of a close of this discussion by our honourable
moderators, my parting words:
 
> John:
> 
> > C) Are there some ways in which computer worlds are 'real'?
> 
> Nope. Mathematicians fall into this trap all the time. There is ONE
> real world, full stop. You can have theoretical / virtual worlds
> if you like, but they are created with equipment made *from* atoms
> and the physics of Real Reality.
> 
> Response:
> 
> Fascinating.  You have apparently resolved the philosophical dilemma
> with which countless ancient geniuses have struggled.  Please elaborate
> on your methods to determine what for you seems to be certain knowledge.

Yes, it's called SCIENCE, pinhead! All experience leads to one of
three conclusions:

(1) I'm alone in the universe, and some being is manipulating me
    to make me think that I experience the rest of the universe,
    including trying fools like yourself.

(2) The universe is really artificial, but it's just been mocked
    up to `look just like' *all* of science really *is* consistent.
    The Creationist wackos in the southern US are experts on this
    crap. The universe was created in 4004 BC, but `God' (sic)
    put everything *just right* to make it look as if the universe
    had been around for at least 10 billion years.

(3) There is an objective universe out there. We don't understand 
    much of it yet, but it's there. We're trying.

(1) and (2) are indistinguishable from (3). There is nothing I
can do about it: if (1) or (2) are, in fact, true, then I will
never know. THEY ACT JUST LIKE (3). So we assume (3) because it is
no worse than assuming (1) or (2), and my decisions could never
be different either way. 

People with nothing better to do with their time (obviously,
including yourself) can idly consider the ramifications of (1)
or (2). Everyone else can worry about questions of non-vanishing
importance (including *real* philosophy, not this rubbish).

> You'll note that I think this entire dilemma is the same as what
> has been called the 'mind-body problem' for centuries.

You're (for once) right. Rid yourself of that `dilemma' and you're
on the way back to mental health. It's a furphy.
 
> Please provide your evidence or reference for your assertion that
> 'there is one, objective, physical universe out there'.  If you
> cannot offer evidence, then why do you assume this?  Please be aware
> that the fanaticism of your words reminds me very strongly of the
> dogmatic theist who tells me 'there is one and only one God (often
> Jehovah or Jesus Christ)'.  All I do in such cases is say: 'Proof?'

Go to any physics library, dickhead. Ignore the 95% of publications
that are mere work-creation schemes, and examine the evidence in the
rest. If you're not convinced, then pick the bottle back up and take
a LARGE swig. And please don't forget to take the sleeping tablets
first.
 
> Crap. Look, I, for one, am pretty tired of this hippie / moonie /
> greenie bullshit. [Flames to NUL: ...:] Please don't attach my name
> to such threads.
>
> Response:
> 
> I've never heard of 'hippie/moonie/greenie bullshit' and really don't
> understand your comments here.  I only attached your name because
> you commented about the 'real world', as I remember.  I figured you
> would be a good person to include since you seem to represent some
> sort of authority (even if just yourself).  Don't post here and you
> don't have to worry about your words being used in my posts. ;>

If you've never heard of hippies, moonies and greenies, then you
will be MOST pleasantly surprised by recruitment agents in the
near future. You are the perfect wally.

OK, I assumed I was talking to someone reasonably familiar with
the ideas of literary fair play: you don't name-drop. So my even 
low judgment of your character was too high. By all means, dispute 
any dodgy statement I make that is relevant to Virtual Reality 
(emphasis on the `relevant'), but don't take random phrases out of 
my postings to legitimise worthless off-shoot threads. If you
haven't got the balls to start a thread off your own back, then
don't come tugging at my feet.

I represent no authority. I call the shots as I see them.

> I am interested in hearing people like you tell
> me PRECISELY where the 'real world' ends and the 'virtual world'
> begins.  If you cannot, then please stop making such claims.

THE VIRTUAL WORLD DOES NOT EXIST. It is a creation of your mind,
It is a `computer program', if you like, in your brain, even 
though the brain does not quite work like today's computers. 

``Where does the computer program end and where does the real
world begin?'' Think about it. Don't blow a blood vessel. 
 
> Response:
> 
> Interesting that the 'angels on the head...' always come up when I
> begin to challenge people's dogmatic assumptions.  I'm listening to

Shit, I WONDER why that is? Can't for the life of me figure
that one out. 

> I hope
> you can show me some more persuasive material than the post you've
> made so far.  Thanks.

I'd be pleased to discuss this in person, by e-mail, by snail-mail,
or (better) by homing pigeon, without submitting the readers of
the group to your inanities. In fact, I encourage you to channel
your future responses on this topic to my e-mail.
 
> Thyagi
> ---------------------------------
> "At its root all language has the character of metaphor,
> because no matter what it intends to be about
> it remains language, and remains absolutely unlike
> whatever it is about."

Ah, so you *do* realise that you're playing word games. So give
up the joke, eh? There must be some sort of group like 
alt.meaningless.word.games for this pastime. IMHO, I would guess
that the rest of the group do not appreciate them, and are 
probably quite upset at me for taking your bait. 

So fuck off, little boy.

John

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John P. Costella              School of Physics, The University of Melbourne
jpc@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au         Tel: +61 3 543-7795, Fax: +61 3 347-4783
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Insert std.moderator.warning.on.flames here.  ---Mark]