From: Tagi@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: PHIL: VR and RL: Beginning a Philosophical Consortium
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 23:14:49 PST
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu


 
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.

John Costella writes [much flammage omitted]:

Yes, it's called SCIENCE ...! 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.

Response:

Yes, this is Solipsism and/or Descartes' 'Evil Genius'.  I'm familiar
with it, though Descartes did not go very far with his
self-examination.  For a more convincing analysis of this type of
thinking and more staying power try some Hume, Kant, or, more
modernly, try Smullyan (IN THE WEST).  In the East, try just about any
Buddhist philosopher.  Fascinating concepts and very difficult to
dismiss out of hand, even by 'rationalists'.

John continues:

(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.

Response:

Yes, this is a variation on (1) in some ways, and very much favored by
theologians who posit the literal and historical creation of Earth and
its inhabitants, as you say.  I agree that this perspective offers
little except as a theoretical challenge which can never be
demonstrated.

John:

(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.

Response:

While (3) is certainly the favorite of Western philosophers and
pseudo-philosophers, your conclusion is fallacious.

At least (1) IS distinguishable from (3) when it is given a greater
and more intense debate.  As I said, other Western philosophers who
approached more Eastern ways of thinking can be of reference here.  If
you think that their ideas are somehow 'flawed' or 'juvenile', then
that is fine and well.  It is rather unimportant what the history of
philosophy is, given that you and I seem to differ so radically about
so many things.

What IS at issue is: What pertinent arguments have you given in
response to my questions and assertions?

Your assertions have amounted to little more than rabid attacks, 
including:

A) An argument from emotion (which I countered rather coolly)
B) An argument from authority (which I put down here)

Please address my challenges with more respect and in a reasonable
manner.  If not, then discontinue engaging me and let someone with
more interest in substantive debate take your place.  Thanks.

old Thyagi:

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

John:

You're (for once) right. Rid yourself of that `dilemma' and you're on
the way back to mental health. It's a furphy.

Response:

Thank you for acknowledging the fulcrum of my challenge.  I am asking
HOW you can possibly 'rid yourself of this dilemma'.  Please instruct
me as to how you can possibly have resolved so fundamental a
controversy in the history of scientific and religious philosophy.
What is your reasoning?  What alternatives have you considered?  Why
have you rejected them?  Etc.
 
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?  ...'Proof?'

John:

Go to any physics library.... Ignore the 95% of publications that are
mere work-creation schemes, and examine the evidence in the rest.

Response:

This is fairly ambiguous.  Perhaps you can simply state what
'evidence' you think that such physicists have found which confirms
your assertion.  If not, why can't you?  I'm attempting to help you
with your side of the debate here.  Offer me some substance or let's
end this, eh?

old Thyagi:

> 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.

John:

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:

Finally you begin to answer some questions directly.  Before you
define what you mean by 'exist' you assert that 'the virtual world
does not exist' and then say 'it is a creation of your mind'.  Besides
being self-contradictory you are making my case for me.

How are we to determine precisely what IS and what is NOT a creation
of our minds?  Do minds exist?  Did you mean to say 'a creation of
your brain'?  Can anything which is created fail to exist?

You have not logically shown that the 'computer program' is not real.
I can see a disk and I assume this has a 'computer program' on it,
composed of little blips of energy ('ons and offs' or 'ones and
zeros').  Does its composition somehow subtract from its reality?  I
am composed of little cells, little neutrons and electrons and such.
Does this mean that I am somehow not 'real'?  I might support you
here, so watch out! ;>

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

John:

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.

Response:

No thanks.  Here is fine.  You don't give me grounds to think it'd be
worth my time.  Thanks for the offer, though.  Any others out there
who'd care to approach my questions with more alacrity and respect?

old Thyagi 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_]

John:

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.

Response:

I'd like to let the moderator speak for the group, thanks.  So far
only you have received a warning regarding your content, and I'm
thankful for the moderation.  If my time is wasted here then let
silence be the response.

Thyagi
---------------------------------------
"The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie.
Through pastures green he leadeth me the silent waters by.
With bright knives he releaseth my soul.
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.
He converteth me to lamb cutlets,
For lo, he hath great power, and great hunger.
When cometh the day we lowly ones,
Through quiet reflection, and great dedication,
Master the art of karate.
Lo, we shall rise up,
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water."

Roger Waters (Pink Floyd), Animals: Sheep, 1977.


[MODERATOR'S NOTE:  Actually, I tend to agree that the "virtual world"
is more than a mere creation of the mind; perhaps it is a reflection of
the mind, a built-in mirror.  I don't know.  It's worth continuing
discussion.  But perhaps we can bridge from the philosophical to the
scientific and not die in the process?  It has been done before, you
know. -- Bob Jacobson]