The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
An article about what we were discussing a couple of weeks ago with Baudrillard "Simulation and Simulacra" and the notions of reality and alternate realities:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3135247.stm
A bloke making a living selling items for a non-existent, online world.
Does this count as an "alternate reality"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3135247.stm
A bloke making a living selling items for a non-existent, online world.
Does this count as an "alternate reality"
Page:
ooh, just to pop this again:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/ sm_812039.html?menu=news.quirkies
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/ sm_812039.html?menu=news.quirkies
I feel I must step in here.
Reality is what you make it. Nothing more, nothing less.
How's that for a media friendly soundbite?
Reality is what you make it. Nothing more, nothing less.
How's that for a media friendly soundbite?
IB. Isn't The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever one of the books you've recommended on this site? That's a very interesting trilogy on the concept of reality.
But I am, YARR!
You're all wrong except me.
You're all wrong except me.
Surely every thing/it is real - from something you can hold it in the palm of your hand to an outlandish reverie [I like that word].
Yes there are undisputable objective facts, but a bull's horns are no more real than the vision of a minotaur. Objective|subjective, who cares? It's all real if you desire it to be.
"Create a new reality today" - this is my motto.
Is this relevant? Probably not, but then again, I'm not Captain Truth.
Yes there are undisputable objective facts, but a bull's horns are no more real than the vision of a minotaur. Objective|subjective, who cares? It's all real if you desire it to be.
"Create a new reality today" - this is my motto.
Is this relevant? Probably not, but then again, I'm not Captain Truth.
What we see is not complete reality. If you look at all the different creatures of the world you'll see many varying ways of sensing their surroundings - bats, for example, use sonar, a snake uses its tongue to smell, I believe. Not all creatures can be sensing reality as it is and nothing less, because they all see something different.
However they can't all be completely wrong otherwise they would not be able to interact with the world. What we, or any creature, senses is a phenomenological view. It's only part of the picture. We don't get everything, which is why it seems like our senses deceive us.
Sorry if that's a bit behind the discussion, I had to leave the computer for about an hour just then.
However they can't all be completely wrong otherwise they would not be able to interact with the world. What we, or any creature, senses is a phenomenological view. It's only part of the picture. We don't get everything, which is why it seems like our senses deceive us.
Sorry if that's a bit behind the discussion, I had to leave the computer for about an hour just then.
monkey_man wrote:
> But that's what I was saying - there's a virtual world and a real
> world. Objects from one can't exist within the other, but ultimately
> the virtual world is meaningless because it can't possibly be touched
> and anything that exists on it came from the real world.
I think it's more the alice through the rabbit hole type thing, which The Matrix twisted. When Alice goes down the rabbit hole she enters a new place, and as wacky as it seems it's still actually within the real actual world, just hidden. The Matrix used the same analogy but to give the impression of travelling between realities, when in fact, it's travelling between places. It's like everything exists in some form all within this one world, but it's the perception based on visual representations which sends it all to hell....
Agh. Brain Overload damnit....
> But that's what I was saying - there's a virtual world and a real
> world. Objects from one can't exist within the other, but ultimately
> the virtual world is meaningless because it can't possibly be touched
> and anything that exists on it came from the real world.
I think it's more the alice through the rabbit hole type thing, which The Matrix twisted. When Alice goes down the rabbit hole she enters a new place, and as wacky as it seems it's still actually within the real actual world, just hidden. The Matrix used the same analogy but to give the impression of travelling between realities, when in fact, it's travelling between places. It's like everything exists in some form all within this one world, but it's the perception based on visual representations which sends it all to hell....
Agh. Brain Overload damnit....
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Missed the point as always and looking for the grammatical
> aesthetics.
Nice to see you keeping an open mind there...you don't seem to like your opinion being contradicted. Why? It's just an opinion.
Just relax and enjoy the debate my dear. If I've missed the point, try explaining it again.
>
> The world is what it is, and different people have different
> experiences of it. Having a different experience of something doesn't
> change what that something was. It changes what it was TO YOU, but it
> doesn't change what it was.
So what was it? Outside of people's perceptions of whatever that was, what was it? You're saying that it was definitely a single real event. I'm saying that, although I think you're probably right, we can't know for sure because we are relying on our perceptions of that event to make a judgement.
>
> I'm not using get-out-clauses. I'm not contradicting myself. If you
> wanted what is my opinion, I'd say it matters nothing anyway, since
> the vast majority of this planets inhabitants likely have a daily
> battle to control themselves and not be washed aside by the tides of
> vacuous, mind-numbing crap fed to them by whatever media it is they
> pay attention to.
You'd be right; it doesn't change anything in the big picture. But your approach of "This is how it is, don't argue, and in any case it doesn't matter" is symptomatic of a closed mind unwilling to accept any possibilities beyond the ones he's already thought of. And that's what I'm taking issue with here.
You are using get out clauses though. As defined by...
IB: I am saying that this state of affairs is unquestionably correct
Me: Prove it
IB: It cannot be proved or disproved, but I am correct.
>
> Put it this way.
>
> A fist-sized rock enters the earth's atmosphere, burning away into
> nothing before it hits the ground. Nothing remarkable. No matter what
> anyone else sees or believes, that's what has happened.
Really? How do you know that has happened? You've given us your perception of that event. I'll say it again; you cannot possibly know what the reality, the truth of the matter is.
You're also making a point of taking things in isolation; a flipped coin here, or a burnt up rock there. How did the rock get to the earths atmosphere? Is that part of the reality, or does your reality only extend to single events. Why was the coin flipped, who flipped it, and what are the background circumstances? You might say "That doesn't change the fact that the coin was flipped" but it does; if it wasn't for a particular event, and people's perceptions of it, then the coin may never have been flipped in the first place.
Life is never about single events happening in isolation from one another; different events are connected to other events. So how do we fathom which is the single reality? Assuming there is one?
>
> But to one person, it lights up a memory of a lost love that sparks
> up old feelings andleads to him/her making contact with the person
> they lost.
>
> To someone else, it's the answer to their prayers, a quick nod rom
> God saying "do it, it'll be OK".
>
> To someone else, it's the beginning of an invasion by aliens.
>
> People can put whatever slant they want on it, but at the end of the
> day, those slants don't change the fact that all it was was a piece
> of rock burning up in the atmosphere.
No, and it doesn't change the fact that your thoughts on reality are formed by what YOUR perception of reality is. You've given us an opinion and the mere fact that people are willing to logically argue and dissect that opinion shows that it is not a universal truth.
You're of the opinion that reality, shorn of human perceptions, has a single constant value, correct? But if we need to lose all human perceptions to know that for sure, how can what you're saying be fact?
> Missed the point as always and looking for the grammatical
> aesthetics.
Nice to see you keeping an open mind there...you don't seem to like your opinion being contradicted. Why? It's just an opinion.
Just relax and enjoy the debate my dear. If I've missed the point, try explaining it again.
>
> The world is what it is, and different people have different
> experiences of it. Having a different experience of something doesn't
> change what that something was. It changes what it was TO YOU, but it
> doesn't change what it was.
So what was it? Outside of people's perceptions of whatever that was, what was it? You're saying that it was definitely a single real event. I'm saying that, although I think you're probably right, we can't know for sure because we are relying on our perceptions of that event to make a judgement.
>
> I'm not using get-out-clauses. I'm not contradicting myself. If you
> wanted what is my opinion, I'd say it matters nothing anyway, since
> the vast majority of this planets inhabitants likely have a daily
> battle to control themselves and not be washed aside by the tides of
> vacuous, mind-numbing crap fed to them by whatever media it is they
> pay attention to.
You'd be right; it doesn't change anything in the big picture. But your approach of "This is how it is, don't argue, and in any case it doesn't matter" is symptomatic of a closed mind unwilling to accept any possibilities beyond the ones he's already thought of. And that's what I'm taking issue with here.
You are using get out clauses though. As defined by...
IB: I am saying that this state of affairs is unquestionably correct
Me: Prove it
IB: It cannot be proved or disproved, but I am correct.
>
> Put it this way.
>
> A fist-sized rock enters the earth's atmosphere, burning away into
> nothing before it hits the ground. Nothing remarkable. No matter what
> anyone else sees or believes, that's what has happened.
Really? How do you know that has happened? You've given us your perception of that event. I'll say it again; you cannot possibly know what the reality, the truth of the matter is.
You're also making a point of taking things in isolation; a flipped coin here, or a burnt up rock there. How did the rock get to the earths atmosphere? Is that part of the reality, or does your reality only extend to single events. Why was the coin flipped, who flipped it, and what are the background circumstances? You might say "That doesn't change the fact that the coin was flipped" but it does; if it wasn't for a particular event, and people's perceptions of it, then the coin may never have been flipped in the first place.
Life is never about single events happening in isolation from one another; different events are connected to other events. So how do we fathom which is the single reality? Assuming there is one?
>
> But to one person, it lights up a memory of a lost love that sparks
> up old feelings andleads to him/her making contact with the person
> they lost.
>
> To someone else, it's the answer to their prayers, a quick nod rom
> God saying "do it, it'll be OK".
>
> To someone else, it's the beginning of an invasion by aliens.
>
> People can put whatever slant they want on it, but at the end of the
> day, those slants don't change the fact that all it was was a piece
> of rock burning up in the atmosphere.
No, and it doesn't change the fact that your thoughts on reality are formed by what YOUR perception of reality is. You've given us an opinion and the mere fact that people are willing to logically argue and dissect that opinion shows that it is not a universal truth.
You're of the opinion that reality, shorn of human perceptions, has a single constant value, correct? But if we need to lose all human perceptions to know that for sure, how can what you're saying be fact?
Goatboy wrote:
> Besides, it's 5pm.
> And my reality says go home.
Safe journey.
> Besides, it's 5pm.
> And my reality says go home.
Safe journey.
Personally?
There is an argument that the economy is a false one, there is no defecit etc etc but that's waay beyond my understanding of it all.
Besides, it's 5pm.
And my reality says go home.
There is an argument that the economy is a false one, there is no defecit etc etc but that's waay beyond my understanding of it all.
Besides, it's 5pm.
And my reality says go home.
Page: