From: hillman@carina.unm.edu (Dan Hillman)
Subject: Re: *Virtual* Reality
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 05:47:27 GMT
Organization: Cosmic Bob's Spiritual Center and Gun Shop

Matthew J Henken, bilious with righteous indignation, head lodged firmly up 
his backside, writes:

>Let's get one thing straight:  I say "My dog has fleas."  There's my dog,
>and I even point to him as I say it.  Where would you ever get the idea
>that I was talking about my own "interpretation of a visual stimulus"?  I
>assure you that the retinal pattern isn't the thing infested with fleas.
>If you were right, people could never really disagree:  We all be talking
>about our own interpretations.  I say my dog has fleas, you say he doesn't.
>If this were the same thing as my saying "On my interpreation (or, if you
>prefer your own absurd terminology, in my reality) Spot has fleas" and your
>saying "On my interpretation (in my reality) Spot doesn't have fleas" then
>we wouldn't be disagreeing in the least.

That's right, Matthew, people don't go around saying "on my interpretation, 
Spot has fleas." They make an assumption that other people will experience 
the stimuli of Spot scratching and have similar associations of this stimuli 
with the existence of fleas.

That's fine in a universe in which nothing else causes Spot to scratch. 
There are, however, many things which could cause Spot to exhibit similar 
symptoms. In your own flatulent reality, that metaphorical place where you 
interpret things based on your associations, you only think "fleas" because 
fleas are what you associate with the stimuli of Spot scratching. 

Now let's bring in a crusty ol' country vet: Spot scratches and you rub your 
chin in what you imagine to be a professorial sort of pose and proclaim, "My 
dog has fleas. There's my dog, and I even point to him as I say it."

Experiencing the same stimuli of Spot scratching, the vet drawls, "That dog 
ain't got nothing but a patch of dry skin on his ass. If he had fleas, he'd 
be biting at them. You may be ostentatious, Boy, but you don't know shit 
about either dogs or cognition. If our realities were the same, you'd have 
known that." And with a short pause to spit something gooey and brown on 
your black turtleneck, he gives you an incredulous look and leaves.

>Clearly though, in the case of
>"Spot has fleas" "No he doesn't" we have not only genuine disagreement,
>but a logical incompatibility of our two statements.  This sort of
>disagreement can be accounted for only through the fact that we are
>talking about external reality.  In other words, about Spot.

Not quite. The external reality is the *stimuli* of Spot. Individuals do not 
have logical incompatibilities, merely differing interpretations of what the 
stimuli mean. Think about the turning-up-the-heat thread from about three 
weeks ago (if you've been reading a.p that long). Those people are 
experiencing the same temperature stimulus, but in one reality it's too hot 
and in the other reality it's too cold.

As another example, have you ever noticed that only the pompous begin a 
sentence with "clearly?" To the pompous, "clearly" indicates that what they 
are about to explain is readily apparent to everyone and the very epitome of 
learned reasoning. To everyone else, "clearly" indicates that what they are 
about to hear will resemble what covers the streets after the elephants have 
marched by. See, Matthew, same stimuli, different interpretations.

>Your whole
>"philosophical program" with its "individual's reality" as the referrent
>of all discourse is totally bankrupt and sounds like the product of ten
>minutes of thought by the rankest freshman in Philosophy 1.

It's rather simple, maybe even for you. The external stuff is the same for 
both of our points of view, we're merely debating the interpretative 
process. You're talking about a reality in which things are absolute and 
there's no argument because one can see obviously what those things are. I, 
on the other side of the flounder, see reality as an individual construction 
subject to individual interpretation. I'm tired of explaining the same thing 
to you over and over. 

Indeed, you may be rather competent at parroting whatever shrink-wrapped 
philosophy the professor handed to you as an undergrad, but your inability 
to grasp, much less directly refute, this simple idea says much for your 
chances of professional success. One can only hope that your students 
(should they be cursed with you as a TA) read your pathetic arguments here 
and ridicule you as the wanker you are.

I'm sure it just impresses the pants off of the drunkest freshmen cuties 
(from Philosophy 1 perhaps?) when you expound on the nature of human 
knowledge and let it drop that you're not merely a subterranean butt-slurper 
but also a grad student, but we're not impressed. Honest. ("That's an 
amusing point there, Greg, but you've got it all wrong. I'm a grad student 
in philosophy, and I know. Every hear of the allegory of the cave? No? 
That's when Plato proved that a rim job enlightens the soul and lets you see 
things as they truly are. Tell you what, why don't you come back to my room 
and I'll show you some of his writings...")

Go back to your coffee house and get profound on someone else's leg; your 
responses are neither intelligent nor entertaining, and if there's one thing 
we don't need around here, it's a self-inflating humorless dork.
-- 
We've replaced the fine baby Jesus we normally use with Folgers crystals.
Let's see if they notice the difference.
Newsgroups: alt.peeves