From: Tagi@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: PHIL: MUDs and Reality; Reply to Tom (1)
Date: 23 Dec 92 06:29:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1hp50gINNd6f
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu



[This is 1 of a 4 part response to t. zier's review of my MUD model]

t. zier, reviewing my model, writes:
[some commentary omitted throughout]

...The tendency of many 'cyber-philosophers' like Thyagi is to adopt
the classic arguments of Plato as a foundation for the structures in
VWs, or VWs relationships to reallity.  It is a very reasonable thing
to do I suppose. I am not a pedigreed philosopher, but I have done my
best to evaluate his submission and inform him (as well as anyone else
who decides to wade through this BS) of the flawed and/or severely
limited propositions which he puts forward.

Response:

An interesting motive and analysis.  I submit that your attachment to
'being right' may have clouded your ability to reason.  Let's let our
arguments decide just what is 'BS' and what is not, shall we?

t. zier:

At least submissions of this sort will be better written. In the
future amateur philosophers will understand how close the scrutiny can
get. (It could have been much more ruthless Thyagi.)

Response:

I am fully aware that it was not Final Draft material.  I'm sorry if
you got this impression.  I intended it to be taken as a 'model' to be
critiqued.  If you have more ruthless logic available I'd certainly
like to see it applied.

t. zier:

The suggestion has been made (by John as a matter of fact) that we
take portions of these posts and create an FAQ on this topic. It may
prevent many Flames from erupting. We can list Thyagis' address as a
contact point, or whatever............

Response:

I think that this is a good idea, especially if the consensus of the
newsgroup participants is represented by you and John.

I do think that it is rather humorous, however, that such a 'FAQ'
might include your responses.  They don't seem to have scratched the
surface of this very deep philosophical issue.  I'd would also note
that the 'flames' have been coming from those who are proposing the
FAQ.  This seems somewhat indicative to me of the worldview challenge
I'm laying out and where the illogic and uncertainty lies.

I'm a philosopher, charged with challenging your worldviews.  What I
see is some physicists struggling to hold onto their assumptions with
little reason to back them up.  How can a 'FAQ' cloak such blatant
dogmatism?

t. zier:

This is an ancient debate, predating "cyberMUDS" by over 2000 years;
and part of the reason, Thyagi, that this debate is so long lived is
that everytime someone begins this discussion, they begin with a
primary reference to reality. It seems unavoidable, and ought to be
unnecessary for you if this thesis were valid.

Response:

I don't understand you here.  What do you mean by 'a primary reference
to reality'?  There is no 'thesis' to validify in my long article.  It
is a model which is proposed as a useful way of seeing universe.  If
you don't like it, don't use it.  If you find that it might be
improved through reconstruction, please offer your criticism.

t. zier:

Further, don't bring Socrates into this; he would never have argued
with other "cyber philosophers"(?). His methodologies were based upon
disputation among diverse viewpoints rather than agreement among a
small group.

Neither are you engaging in Socratic method now; as you make
statements rather than asking questions.

Response:

I never met Socrates.  I'm only familiar with what is called the 'Socratic
Method'.  No, in presenting a model I cannot engage in this method, nor did
I state I was doing so.   I do agree that this method consists of disputation
amidst diverse viewpoints and that is what I engaged in cyber environments.

Thyagi's model:
> ------------------------------------
> The MUD as a Basis for Western Mysticism
> by Thyagi NagaSiva
> 
> 
> 1. Realms and Worlds
> 
> 'Realm', 'world' and 'MUD' (Multi-User Dimension, to be defined below),
> are here synonyms.   They describe a bounded sphere of perception.
> A 'virtual world' is a realm which is apparent to some senses but
> not to others (whether or not they appear within all dimensions of
> sensation).

t. zier:

You should always avoid stating the eventual conclusion within a
premise as you have done here; it creates a tautology of sorts.
Philosophically speaking this is called begging the question. Also,
your assertion that "A 'virtual world' is a realm which is apparent to
some senses but not to others (whether or not they appear within all
dimensions of sensation)" seems to be internally inconsistent,
devaluing its definitive nature.

Response:

This is interesting.  I have not stated any kind of 'premise'.  I have
only begun defining my terms.  I have no 'conclusion' because it is a
MODEL.  You see?  I'm not establishing any 'truth'.  I'm detailing a
model which can be taken and used in various disciplines (herein
applied to the field of western mysticism).

I don't understand how 'virtual world = ...' is internally
inconsistent.  Perhaps I can restate it in a different way that will
be more approachable for you: Virtual = Incomplete; World = Dimension,
sphere of perception, or Realm of Measurement (see below for more on
World/Realm/Dimension).

Thyagi's model:

> 2. Multi-User Dimensions (MUD),
> 
> More specifically then, by MUD we refer to a realm of measurement
> (dimension) which makes possible or allows more than one (multi)
> locus of change (user).  Where 'realm' and 'world' are fairly ambiguous,
> MUD is a technical term with specific meaning and synonymous
> application.

t. zier:

You're kidding, isn't this a contradiction; "specific meaning and
synonymous application"? Unless, of course, meaning is distinct from
usage. Oh boy. You better explain this one more thoroughly.

Response:

Again, this is a MODEL.  Here I am defining terms.  The terms 'realm'
and 'world' are ambiguous in meaning.  The term 'MUD' is a technical
term which has specific meaning within the confines of this model
(defined above) and synonymous application WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THIS
MODEL.  Is this any more clear to you?

Thyagi's model:

> 4. Reality, Virtual Reality, and Real Life (RL)
> 
> The term 'reality' is commonly used as a substitute for 'realm',
> yet we reserve it for a specific meaning.  Here the phrase
> 'virtual reality' is an oxymoron, and this will become apparent
> below.

t. zier:

By whom is "the term 'reality' ... commonly used as a substitute for
'realm' " ? No one that I know of; except yourself. Give us a
reference to a community, intellectual or otherwise, which could serve
as an example.

Response:

I was unclear.  The term 'reality' is often used in phrases like
'virtual reality' (VR).  If this doesn't mean 'realm' (rather than
some ontologically substantive place) then I'm at a loss to see what
all the hubbub is about my ideas.  This point is fairly easy to
accept, I think.  If not, please detail why it isn't, especially when
used in such phrases as 'VR'.

Thyagi's model:

> The common assumption is that cyber realms are MUDs and NONcyber
> realms are NOT (i.e. that NONcyber realms are 'reality').

t. zier:

Again, whose common assumption is this? There are many exceptions to
this ill-formed RULE; paintings, drama, good literature.

Response:

This is an excellent question.  What I meant by 'common' is among the
bulk of people who engage in cyberMUD games and the like (IRC, Usenet,
etc.).  People I've spoken with almost unanimously assume that their
time in the MUD is spent in a NONreal place.  They use terminology
which indicates this such as 'I am a Computer Programmer in RL' or 'I
just read a book in RL', or even 'I just saw as Van Gogh painting in
RL'.  There is seldom the association either between MUDs or between
the cyberMUD and other MUDs.

Thyagi's model:

> However, given the definitions above we can posit that what most
> people call 'real life' (RL) is actually an experience within a
> NONcyber realm of subjective or objective dimensions.

t. zier:

In the above reference to a "subject/object" dichotomy it is
inappropriate to use the word "or"; in this context you must use "and"
because they are mutually dependent posits, that is to say,
complimentary elements of a philosophical schema.

Response:

This IS excellent.  Here you display a difference of viewpoint which I
am challenging with the model, I think.  I later describe the
difference between the subjective and objective dimensions (MUDs).
Here I allow for the possibility that EITHER subject-MUD or object-MUD
(NONcyber) is what people generally refer to as 'real life'.  I don't
understand why I would need to use 'and' here and force a combined
choice.

I don't think I understand what you mean by 'a subject/object
dichotomy'.  I was here explaining the cyber/NONcyber dichotomy and
how it is used in common parlance to distinguish what is 'real'.
Please explain how what you've said applies to this or helps my
explanation.  Thanks.

Thyagi model:

> We have multiple selves, arising from the combined complex of our
> social roles, that vie for supremacy within the dimension of our
> personal mindspace.  This is the subject dimension, the 'me-MUD'.
> It includes feelings, thoughts and the entire range of subjective
> experience.

t. zier:

Isn't this a straight-forward Freudian interpretation? (Could a real
psych person help us out here?) If it is, you ought to site him.

Response:

Actually I'm not sure if it applies to Freud specifically.  Our
subjective roles and their multitude are quite common ideas in the
field of psychology.  If it relates to any one individual of
meritorious citation I'd be happy to bring up their name.  Unless you
can show me that this is true, however, I'm happy to neglect such
citation.  The concept stands on its own, and as it is indeed only a
model ("It's only a model."  "Shhhhhhh.") then citation is rather
unnecessary.

Thyagi's model:

> There appears to be a world of shapes and objects around us.  We
> maneuver, physically, through the familiar subrealms of 'height',
> 'width' and 'depth' and manipulate or interact with entities and
> objects within them.  This is the object dimension, the 'space-MUD'.
> It is the one which people assume to be more 'real' based upon their
> perception that it contains cyberMUDs and gives rise to the me-MUD.

t. zier:

What? Not clearly stated or developed.

Response:

Such criticism is difficult to address.  Unless you have specific
questions or pointers for clarification I cannot address your
confusion.  I thought it was pretty clearly a parallel between the
subject-MUD and the object-MUD (subjectivity and objectivity).  If you
still have trouble with this then you'll have to be more specific if
you'd like elaboration.

Thyagi's model:

> Taking one (NONcyber, space-MUD) as pre-eminent based
> solely on the grounds of origin (cyber realms seem to originate
> from NONcyber technologies) is quite common.  For example,
> many people  assume that NONcyber personalities are somehow
> more 'real' than their cyber counterpart, even if these personae
> (socially imagined constructs deriving from communication
> styles and appearance) are comparable in all respects save origin.

t. zier:

Not acceptable grounds to me, that they are "pre-eminent based solely
on the grounds of origin", and not acceptable to any responsible
philosopher either. You clearly haven't demonstrated this in any
particular (even general) respect; or to whom it is common.

Response:

My impression is that you have not understood the bulk of my words nor
my main intent.  We are in AGREEMENT regarding the acceptability of
these grounds, at least by your words above.  Maybe if I elaborated
more about what is being accepted you could understand why I'm saying
it is a common assumption.

People assume that the physical world (object-MUD) is more 'real'
because it apparently gives rise to the cyberMUD.  You and John
blatantly assume that this is so.  That you do is evidence (along with
the many many people with whom I've discussed this) for my conclusion
that it is a 'common' assumption.

WHY you do so is what I'm challenging in another thread.  

ln THIS thread I'm proposing the value of NOT doing so. ;>

Thyagi 

(part 1 of 4)