From: Tagi@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: PHIL: VR and RL: Beginning a Philosophical Consortium
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 22:18:31 PST
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu



old Thyagi (in response to John's assertion that 'real' and 'virtual' are
   somehow not the same at all):

> Defining them with respect to one another without additional information
> is not very helpful.  Your responses imply exactly what is being
> challenged by the context of the questions.  Unless you offer something
> in defense of your position all it looks like is dogmatic attachment.

t. zier  (ziert@beloit.edu) writes:

No, not dogmatic attachment to theory, rather, human attachment to
environment. Mind does equal body (qua brain) according to Johns'
statement.  You, however, do seem rather attached here to a cartesian
mind-body dualism; and that you assume a context (rather than
circumstance) in this instance does support my assertion (context;
latin, with text). You seem to be speaking only in terms of textual
knowledge.

Response:

This is very interesting to me.  I imply that the real is in some ways
virtual and the virtual is in some ways real (i.e. that there is at
least some overlap). John asserts that the real and the virtual are
separate, and you are saying that *I'm* attached to a cartesian
dualism?

I can see that John attempts to assert the NONexistence of the virtual
and therefore claims unity through the nonexistence of the mind.  You
appear to think I am asserting the REALITY of the virtual, which I am
not.  In fact I am asserting nothing except that I have seen no
convincing argument which resolves the 'mind-body problem' without
resorting to illogic and emotional fanaticism.  Perhaps you can assist
me by giving some reasonable support to John's and your assertions in
this regard.

old Thyagi:

> 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.

t. zier:

That truck in the context of Virtuallity is certainly not going to
splatter your molecules; BUT in the same circumstance a real world
truck certainly will.

Response:

Here is one of the first reasonable arguments presented.  The physical
has direct and seemingly lasting effect upon our physical form.  Thus
the truck mentioned is 'real' because it will 'kill us' if we step
before it while it is moving quickly.

Counter-argument: I agree that the cyberworld does not have the same
effect upon my body.  What establishes it as 'more real'?  Can you
show that cyberworlds (or other MUDs) have NO effect upon us?  So far
you have distinguished the two by virtue of their effect.  Agreed, but
how and why does this qualify one to be called 'more real'?

John:

> > D) Are there some ways in which noncomputer worlds are 'virtual'?
...
> > E) Where do the virtual and real meet?  How do they do so?
> 
> At the interface device. :) The gadgets send signals into our senses
> that simulate the physical characteristics of the virtual world.

t. zier:

See 'readable technologies' in "Space Perception and the Philosophy of
Science" by Patrick A. Heelan, University of California Press, 1983. 

Response:

Thanks for the reference.  If it was intended for me, then please
understand that until I have read it (and I may not for some time)
then I cannot make use of the work you are citing.  If you could
summarize and present its most relevant arguments it would be helpful.

old Thyagi:

> Exactly where does the 'virtual' leave off and the 'real' begin?  How
> can you distinguish between the two?  How do the two influence one
> another if they meet?  If they don't meet, what is between them?
> 
> You'll note that I think this entire dilemma is the same as what
> has been called the 'mind-body problem' for centuries.

t. zier:

Your dilemna; NOT Johns'. 

Response:

Claiming that it doesn't exist or attempting to 'explain it away'
won't get rid of it.  I have yet to see a reasonable argument
supporting what seems to me quite a heap of object-worship.  Yes, John
(and whoever else would like to) can 'define mind to mean brain'.
Does this REALLY resolve the old dilemma?  Can you really dismiss Hume
and Kant so easily?  Some people would like to.  I'd like to hear why
their ideas are untenable.

old Thyagi:

> What are the problems with confusing the two ('real' and 'virtual')?
> Might there be any benefits from such a confusion?

t. zier:

Problem; the truck!
Benefits; the A-bomb (?).

Response:

As I mentioned above, you are correct that the 'truck' does give us a
reason not to confuse the 'cyber truck' with the 'physical truck'.
You have not shown that there is reason to think that the 'cyber
truck', while it has different effects upon us, is any less 'real'.

I don't understand your reference to the 'A-bomb' here.

old Thyagi:

> 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?'

t. zier:

Again you resort to the Roman interpretations of Platonist ideals.
Why?

Response:

Roman Plato?  I don't understand what you mean here.  I didn't
specifically reference Plato, though I can perhaps understand your
assumption that I did.  If you'd like alternative interpretations of
my words, look into Buddhism and its ideas concerning 'Mind'.

old Thyagi:

> There seems to be a bit of controversy on this subject of the 'real',
> I'm afraid.  As I said, people have been arguing about it for many many
> years.  Even 'physicists' (names?) differ regarding the exact nature
> of reality and how this relates to the material realm in which they
> work.  Perhaps you can help me here by citing some sources?

t. zier:

Are you, yourself, not going to invoke the name of Fritjoff Kapra here
Thyagi?

Response:

I hadn't planned to.  I don't even know that he is a physicist. My
admiration for his writing doesn't have to do with his competency as a
physicist.  I'm sure that there must exist at least a segment of the
large body of physicists who don't follow the 'physical world is the
only world' mentality.  Do you think that all physicists are agreed
regarding this philosophical issue?  I'd really be surprised if this
were the case.

Thyagi's response to John's flames:
 
> I'm glad to hear you say this.  No, I'm not 'on the acid'.  Nor am I
> reading any 'golly-gee-whiz' books on quantum mechanics (I gave that
> up a while back ;>).  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.

t. zier:

Flame off again, please. You are both, no doubt, valued members of the
general intellectual community; and have every right to disagree. But
character assasination serves no purpose what-so-ever.

Response:

Did I deliver a flame?  Goodness, if you think so, you ain't seen
flames. ;> I'm not about to stoop to such inanity.  I'm going to
continue with cool, rational challenges until I find someone who can
match me seriously regarding the subject matter at hand and who ALSO
has some breadth of vision.

old Thyagi:

> Good.  I'm glad that you refer me to someone who can explain more
> about what you are saying.  I'm not interested in simulating the
> whole universe, however.  I'm wondering exactly how we can determine
> what is reality and what is virtuality.  You seem to know very much
> about this, so I ask you to explain it for me.  If you can't, perhaps
> you can get 'Shannon' to do it.

t. zier:

If you care to make a sufficiently "extensive" argument you must be
prepared, Thyagi, to simulate the "whole" of the universe. That,
indeed, is the obligation of a philosopher, whose PROOFS must be both
necessary and sufficient.

I, personally, will settle for a substantial demonstration rather than a
proof. 

Response:

I confess to not understanding these assertions.  Why need one
simulate the whole universe to illustrate the substance of a 'virtual
world'?  Simulation would seem beside the point.  What is at issue
here is LOGIC.  WHY and HOW are the real and virtual different from
one another?  Does the 'virtual world' have SOME type of existence?
If so, of what order?

Also, if one does not define what one MEANS by 'reality' (which I have
done, apparently to your and John's distaste), then we cannot honestly
come to compare ideas.  Why don't you define 'real' the way you like
it defined so I can see where you're coming from?  Real = physical?

old Thyagi:

> Interesting that the 'angels on the head...' always come up when I
> begin to challenge people's dogmatic assumptions.  I'm listening to
> you, and I heard your argument, but I didn't hear anything
> convincing in it, except perhaps that you believe it very strongly.
> 
> Not all of us who question consensus reality are in nonordinary,
> chemically-induced states of awareness, John.  In fact, some of
> us just like to point out where our knowledge is and isn't.  I hope
> you can show me some more persuasive material than the post you've
> made so far.  Thanks.

t. zier:

It seems to me that you, Thyagi, are participating in a dogmatic
exercise also; and the ontologies which you appeal to are wholly
governed by Platonist ideals. If you take the window-dressing of
radicalism off of your statements, then the mechanics of knowing which
you propose are very common to western rationalism. Read some 'real'
philosophy, then lets' talk.

Response:

Please elaborate on this.  I'd like to know to what 'Platonist ideals'
you think that I'm appealing.  Were there no philosophers who came
after Plato that pushed the subjective paradigm (Hume?  Kant?
Schopenhauer?)??

No doubt that 'western rationalism' posits certain assumptions which
are contrary to my approach.  Upon what, precisely, is this
'rationalism' based?  Please examine the roots of your assumptions
(rather than suggesting I study 'real philosophy') and perhaps you can
show me why you know what is 'real' and what is 'not real' instead
making blatant appeals to your superior knowledge.

old Thagi quote:

> "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."
> 
> James P. Carse, _Finite and Infinite Games_

t. zier:

It AINT a game!  Please understand at least that much of what John has
to say.

Response:

Oh I understand that this is what you are both saying.  But simply
SAYING it is not very convincing.  Please back up what you say with
some reasoned assertions that I can understand or just ignore my
posts.  Thanks.

Thyagi


[MODERATOR'S NOTE:  For those who have followed this discourse this
far, I want to offer some words of advice:

        (1) Don't argue about the ineffable.  It demonstrates
        hubris and resolves nothing.

        (2) Keep your postings to one or at most two screens
        of information.  No one can follow these long ramblings
        and few will take the time or make the effort.  If you
        want your complex thoughts read, break them down into
        digestible bites.

        (3) We have been down this road of what is real and 
        what is unreal about eight times, in varying degrees of
        painful detail...often leading to flame wars.  I have
        heard the voices of the participants and will suggest
        that pure philosophy, as is being debated here, has its
        place in the philosophical newsgroups.  Here we talk 
        about goings-on in the material world and implications,
        if any, for the immaterial internal world...but always
        with referents back to the material world, where
        experience is shared.  

                Thanks for tolerating my pedagogy.

                                -- Bob Jacobson]