NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/virtual/4218

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 10.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!news.u.washington.edu!stein.u.washington.edu!hlab
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: PHIL: MUDs and Reality; Reply to Tom (3)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 22:56:25 PST
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 254
Approved: [e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
Originator: [e-mail]



[Part 3 of a 4 part response to t. zier]

Thyagi's model:

> 6. RL and MUDs
>
> RL is mystical experience, since it occurs in the dimension of
> Unified nonduality and it would seem to depend upon the QUALITY of
> its manifestation rather than on the location of particular objects
> or subjects.  We may thus find RL in any MUD, since all MUDs are
> contained by the real world and may include Unitive experiences.

t. zier:

When you say "the dimension of Unified nonduality .......would seem to
depend upon the QUALITY of its manifestation rather than on the
location of particular objects or subjects" you subcribe to a
Newtonian (Platonist) doctrine which is demonstrably inadequate for a
robust description of natural phenomena since uncle Albert did his
thing at the turn of the century.

[other 'knowledge' omitted]

But MUDS have nothing even  R E M O T E L Y  to do with it!

Response:

My goodness, you seem to think that Albert Einstein (whom you
affectionately refer to as 'Uncle Albert') proved the existence of
objective reality!  I'd like to disillusion you.  He only posited the
relativity of time to position and speed of spatial objects.  He no
more 'proved' the existence of objective reality than anyone can prove
anything with thoughts.  He 'showed' that Newton's laws were specific
cases; that they only hold within certain contexts (namely, in our
planetary gravity-sink and among celestial macro-objects).

Kuhn supports my perspective here much more than he does yours.  Why?
Because, as I understand him, he suggests that the nature of
scientific knowledge is currently restricted to ONE paradigm (what I
call the object-MUD) and that Einstein's theory was an example of
expansion within that paradigm.

What Kuhn does not address (I've read little of his writings and so am
only speculating) is that other paradigms are possible to create, and
reasonably.  I can get into this at length with you if you'd like.  It
is only slightly tangental to our discussion here.  I'd call a
'paradigm' the equivalent of a 'MUD' and Kuhn's 'revolutionary
science' a special case of a greater theory which I've already
developed at some length around the scientific method as a learning
process (Batesonian model).

Thyagi's model:

> A MUD is a world of flux, where the real is in some ways beyond change,
> enveloping a 'becoming beingness' that is not usually perceived in
> ordinary states of consciousness.  To encounter RL, therefore, is to
> become unified with the divine, the God of Platonic and Hermetic
> Christians, who is both beyond and within the MUD experience, at once
> transcending and subsuming it.

t. zier:

Precisely the position encountered by early Greek philosophers who
then had to explain how 'change' might be possible.

Response:

This is quite possible, but I don't have to explain it because I've
already defined the divine realm, Unity, as beyond accurate
description. ;>

Thyagi's model:

> A MUD is the equivalent of  Carse's 'finite game', in which we assume
> for the purposes of the game that certain rules are unbreakable
> (i.e. the subject/object division) and that our goal is to somehow 'win'.
> Carse speculates that the goal of the infinite game (the real world)
> is to continue playing, and no foolish notions about 'death' or
> 'morality' or 'identity' get in the way of an infinite player.

t. zier:

Your unbreakable rule of subject/object division is clearly a
Platonist dogma which is VERY suspect at least. See the Scientific
American article from this fall on quantum mechanics observations
(Heisenberg principles?).  So much for the finite game. And the
products of this hypothetical infinite game are, culturally; hunger,
poverty, and deprivation in general for all who do not win.

Unacceptable rules I say, let's rewrite them to establish, at least
intellectually, an ecological relationship with the world (and with
each-other).

Response:

It is clear from these words that you have not taken to time to
understand me very well.  Carse's finite game is the game that YOU are
playing, as I see it. YOU are positing the ultimate division between
subject and object, going as far as denying the reality of the
subjective dimension.  It is not a rule that I would see continue,
philosophically.  If this is Platonic, then so be it.

How could you ever determine what are the products of a nonexistent,
'infinite cultural game'??  This makes no sense!  Look, an infinite
game is a game where the goal is NOT to win (therefore there are no
winners and losers) but to CONTINUE PLAYING.  Your comments are
dreadfully short on substance.

Thyagi's model:

> 7. InterMUD Studies
>
> The 'real' would seem to be approachable by examining all experiences
> and coming to some determination as to their source.  Modern
> Science's objective examination of the nature of matter is one aspect
> of this search.  Mystical exploration and experimentation in the world
> of the subject is another.

t. zier:

Determinism of this sort, and predictability in general, is an
assumption which cannot be empirically demonstrated in any complex
dynamical system; Chaos theory will offer you one example of this
assertion, but a more acceptable example would be evolution (of the
Darwinian sort). The Platonist (Euclidean) linear methods, which you
obviously subscribe to, are but a single strand of predictability
accross a sea of Chaos that can only be embraced descriptively by
letter or number. Your subject /object dualism won't float out there,
of course, you could go to sea in a sieve.

Response:

Determinism?  Wow are we ever in separate mindframes!  Who ever said
that this 'source' was separated in time?  I think you're just looking
for any possible weakness, projecting them if necessary, and then
attempting to shoot this model down.  You're not even addressing its
internal consistency, which is the main reason I asked for critique.

t. zier:

Please don't put this label of "mysticism" on all 'other' than the
rational realm of Plato; it marginalizes rather than endorses. Which
is fine, I suppose, if you hope to dominate the sensible realm through
obfuscation (as the Catholic church did).

Response:

If you look carefully you will see that I was applying this to the
object-MUD (modern Science) and the subject-MUD (various mystical
discliplines).  Please recheck your calibrations and try again.

Thyagi's model:

> Searches of these types are limited by the techniques used within the
> particular MUD.  We shall not determine a purely physical source
> for experience because experience is not entirely objective.  Likewise,
> we shall not discover a purely mental source because experience
> is not entirely subjective.

t. zier:

But think; if we abandoned our (your) intellectual attachment to the
subject/object complex, then we might actually be able to develope the
necessary techniques (tools), and come to a more thorough
understanding of experience.

Response:

Agreed, yet how shall we 'abandon' this mindset?  Shall we make
certain assumptions about the universe in order to hide our eyes?
Shall we define one end of the spectrum out of existence so as to
make-believe that the dilemma just 'goes away'?

I'm all for your approach.  Please show me why it is logical and how
you shall decide to ally with one end of the spectrum.  Show me why it
can't be done many ways instead of just one.  I'm pressing the point
because I think you and John are dogmatists who need your assumptions
challenged.  Most of modern Science is stricken with object-MUD
blindness, as I see it.

Thyagi's model:

> When my 'reality' is comprised solely of objects, of surface tension
> and physical principles, I cannot then see the veracity of descriptions
> regarding subjective referents.  'Soul', 'spirit', 'emotion' and even
> 'mind' are to be described in physical terms if they are to have any
> meaning for me.

t. zier:

This network of inferences is your baggage I believe, Thyagi; not
mine.

We MAY (soon) come to some understanding of 'emotion' and even 'mind'
through an empirical examination of the sensible realm not subject to
the ontological requirements of Platonist doctrine, don't be surprised
when it happens.

Response:

Unbelievable.  You first assert that my 'inferences' are my own
suppositions and then you go on to exemplify them!  You say 'mind' may
be defined in terms of 'empirical examination' (i.e. object-oriented
descriptions), reflecting exactly my comments about how your language
can be seen from the corresponding MUD.  If you don't see this, then
there is nothing I can do about it.

Thyagi's model:

> Those who speak of objects in 'abstract' terminology as if they
> were in any sense 'real' are either mistaken or confusing to me due to
> their 'abstractness'.  'Abstraction' is indeed a relative qualifier which
> describes one's position and one's relationship to the qualified noun.

> If I say that 'mind' is an abstraction, then the MUD of my entrenchment
> does not contain direct associations with what is being called 'mind'.
> If I say, on the other hand that 'brain' is an abstraction due to the
> relativity of subjective experience, then I find my position identical
> yet I am inhabiting a different MUD (the subject-MUD).

t. zier:

First; Mind does not exist within the subject/object dualism EXCEPT as
an abstraction. And WHAT do you mean by direct?

Second; The brain is clearly NOT an abstraction, given that it is
concrete and biological. The 'word' brain may be but ...............
so what? All words are.

Response:

You are clearly entrenched in the object-MUD, from my perspective.
I'll try to describe what I think of it and what I mean by my terms
here.  When I said 'direct' associations I meant that for you the term
'mind' does not have an objective application.  'Mind' is 'abstract'
and this means that the term 'mind' relates to an object called
'brain' with which it may be associated.  'Direct' in the object-MUD
is an object.

Also, you seem to have a very difficult time switching to the
perspective of someone who is entrenched in the subject-realm, but
this is not surprising.

I doubt that you can even conceive of it without some prodding.  From
the perspective of a world of dreams, feelings, sensations and
thoughts 'brain' is an 'abstraction', a supposition that some 'thing'
(an object) may exist apart from subjective elements (subjects).
'Direct' in the subject-MUD is a subject.

Thyagi

(Part 3 of 4)