From: ziert@beloit.edu (Tom Zier)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: PHIL: VR and RL: Beginning a Philosophical Consortium
Date: 19 Dec 92 04:46:35 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu


If I may gentlemen;
> From: portal!cup.portal.com!Tagi@uunet.UU.NET
> Subject: Re: PHIL: VR and RL: Beginning a Philosophical Consortium
> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 17:03:44 PST
> 
> 
> 9212.16 e.v.
> 
> John Costella (quoting and answering me) writes:
> 
> > *** Taking the literal definition of terms (NOT the specialized ones), ***
> >
> > A) What makes a computer world 'virtual'?
> 
> It's not real.
> 
> > B) What makes the world of our everyday noncomputerworld life 'real'?
> 
> It's not virtual. ;)
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> 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.

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. 

> 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.

Countless ancient Geniuses (?) are STILL (embodied by you?) struggling with
a Platonist interpretation (via Simplicius) of Parmenides' heritage; the
rational realm.

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. 

 
> John:
> 
> > D) Are there some ways in which noncomputer worlds are 'virtual'?
> 
> Er .. yes, my opinion is that various technologies, not just computers,
> can be used to make virtual worlds, to various extents. But none of the
> real world is 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.

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

> Response:
> 
> 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.

Your dilemna; NOT Johns'. 

> John:
> 
> > F) What is the value of assigning rigid definitions and labels to
> >  either computer or noncomputer worlds?  How do we benefit from them?
> 
> So I can tell you if I mean something happening in the real
> universe or in a computer simulation. Physicists call their
> virtual worlds `models'. So what. Whatever word is easiest.
> As long as the theoreticians never start to think that their
> theories *are* the real world. There is one, objective, physical
> universe out there: I want to give it a label.
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> I agree that labels are good for communications.
> 
> What are the problems with confusing the two ('real' and 'virtual')?
> Might there be any benefits from such a confusion?

Problem; the truck!

Benefits; the A-bomb (?).
 
> 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?'

Again you resort to the Roman interpretations of Platonist ideals. Why? 
 
> John:
> 
> > Obviously this really involves the formulation of some concepts of
> > 'virtual' and 'real' which transcend the simple realm of modern
> > 'VR' headsets and gloves.  It extends into the realm of MUDs and
> > applies to philosophical concepts as broad in range as Psychology,
> > Mysticism and Philosophy, East and West.
> 
> 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. ;>

Flame off guys!

Or put some real boxing gloves on! 

> John:
> 
> [some omitted]
> 
> Physicists know exactly what is the real world and what is not.
> Sure, there are plenty of things we don't understand exactly. There
> may be all sorts of weird new particles, dimensions, or whatever
> else you like out there, that we don't know about. But if they're
> there, they're part of the real world too.
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> 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?

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

> John:
> 
> If you're on the acid, then you can believe whatever you like;
> good luck to you. It won't change anything. There is no `blurry
> line' between the real world and virtual ones, despite how many
> gee-whiz-golly-gosh books on quantum mechanics by Paul Davies
> you may read.
> 
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> 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.

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. 

 
> John:
> 
> Of course, our *senses* may perhaps, one day, be completely fooled
> into thinking we're in the real world when we're not. So we're
> imperfect beasts. But you cannot simulate the *whole* universe
> using material from that same universe ... Shannon will tell you
> why. So sufficiently intelligent / capable beings can ALWAYS tell
> the difference between the real and virtual. One day we might not
> be sufficiently intelligent or capable. Oh well, that's life.
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> 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.

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. 

 
> John:
> 
> > I don't expect that anyone will have 'the' answer, but some speculation
> > and/or train-of-thought responses would be welcomed.  Thanks.
> 
> Yes, the answer is above. Sorry Thyagi, I think `angel on the head of
> a pin' type arguments like the (old) one you raise are the sorts of
> thing responsible for giving Philosophy such a bad name.
> 
> ..But please allow those of us without too many
> hallucinogens flowing through our veins to have a word for
> distinguishing the real world from Fantasyland: that's all we ask.
> 
> 
> Response:
> 
> 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.

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.  

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

It AINT a game!

Please understand at least that much of what John has to say.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
t. zier                                            ziert@beloit.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------