From: Jason Joel Thompson (jasonjthompson@home.com)
Date: Sun Sep 03 2000 - 12:51:03 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
I snipped some stuff here where Techno talks about the philosophy of
representationalism.
I'm not familiar with this 'philosophy,' but I can tell already that it
isn't what I'm talking about, although at first glance it appear remarkably
similar.
In fact, the position I hold is one I believe is relatively uncontested--
when I look at an object, I receive signals bounced off of it's surface that
reveal it's properties. This is not a philosophy, it is a verifiable
observation.
The philosophy arises from the conclusions that we may choose to make about
this state of affairs.
> Another flaw with representationalism is that once things are pushed back
to
> the representations, there is no need of the external object. In fact, it
> one cannot be aware of the external world and can only be aware of images
in
> the mental theater, how can one be sure there is an external world at all?
> One can't if representationalism is granted as true.
Why is this a flaw?
> > I could go on. Alien beings may perceive 'reality' in a totally
different
> > fashion from us. What you call an orange pen, they may describe in
> > radically different terms.
>
> I agree, but this does not invalidate perception -- ours or theirs.
I don't think it 'invalidates' perception either. It simply is an
illustration of its inherent limitations.
A
> colorblind person still perceives the same reality as me.
Except the reality of color.
She is missing an
> aspect of it that I can experience. Yet given enough information, she can
> come to see color exists though for her it will never be directly
perceived.
I don't quite understand this. What sort of information are you talking
about?
> It will be akin to me using an infrared camera.
Yes, and when you use and infrared camera, you're -not- seeing infrared.
The camera is taking infrared signals and interpreting them into visible
light.
>
> > "We" (my mouse and I) are simply brains in a
> > box, sending and receiving signals to and from existence. When we are
> able
> > to disassociate ourselves from our physical models of the universe, we
> > enable our brains to penetrate deeper into the substrate. We cling to a
> > tactile conceptualization of reality-- objects 'moving' around, etc.
Hey,
> > it's a very good working model for our current condition, but it is a
> mental
> > construct that is ultimately limiting. We might dismiss the theoretical
> > physicists who want to describe reality as vacuum fluctuations, or
> > collapsing wave forms, but these people are pointing at deeper
> > constructions.
>
> What you are doing here is setting up the notion that perceptions are
false
> and models that abstract from them are true. But the models are built up
on
> perceptions. So, if the former are wrong, so are the latter.
I'm not exactly saying that perceptions are false... simply that perceptions
are limited.
> > And I do not. I am of the understanding that on this planet we are
barely
> > of the intelligence to walk around upright and dress ourselves. I'm not
> > quite prepared to make definitive statements about the nature of
> everything
> > just yet.
>
> Awareness is always limited, but this does not mean it is not aware of
> reality. A young child might be aware that it's a sunny day without being
> aware of how the sun produces energy, how far away it is, what drives the
> weather, and how her sensory systems work. You appear to be setting up a
> false dichotomy from either knowing everything or knowing nothing. If so,
> how can you know your senses are limited? Or that we are barely aware?
Actually, I am trying to topple a false dichotomy- one absolute reality vs.
nothing is real. To be clear, I don't think we know nothing! I think we're
at an interesting point in the journey. Our monkey brains are starting to
run into some problems, that much is certain-- our classical understanding
of reality is being challenged by the increasingly abstract interactions of
sub-atomic particles and quantum mechanics. We've been equipped with the
tools to understand reality on a particular level, and we've really done a
great job with what we have. But our sensory mode of existence can be a
handicap, insofar as we persist in intepreting events in the context of a
physical universe.
A child on a sunny day is receiving information about her environment. That
information is not the environment.
Let us suppose that there -is- an external reality out there. That reality
is sending the child a signal. The child's mind interprets that data and
forms a lattice of sensations-- a group of mental constructs that allow the
child to navigate the information. It is her interface with reality.
To repeat: her mind/computer is interpreting data and creating a mental
world that acts as her interface to reality. That mental world is not the
reality itself, but rather a very useful representation of a particular
slice of it.
> > Ah, you see, now you've started this conversation down what I consider
to
> be
> > the interesting road. I -do- believe in a type of reality-- the realm
of
> > mind.
>
> Why?
Well, I would like to discuss this with you, because it's a topic of great
interest to me. But I'd be opening a can of worms. :) A lot of very
intelligent people on this list would start to post some very intelligent
objections to what I was saying and, well, to be frank, I'm extremely busy
right now.
In fact, I'd like to state right now for the record that you folks are way
too damn stimulating and you've successfully robbed me (again and again) of
precious hours that I could have more judiciously applied towards the
development of a revolutionary entertainment property.
As a personal favor to me, I hope that you will all agree to reduce the
quality of the ongoing discussions on this list to a point where I am able
to reclaim significant portions of my mindshare.
As a jumping off point, I would like to propose the following two topics:
a) Needlepoint, a retrospective: our ancient heritage, and b) Baseball.
Thank you for your cooperation.
--
::jason.joel.thompson::
::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:44 MST