The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
So, would you consider the stock market to be dealing with things that don't exist, i.e. stocks and shares? I know you get certificates for proof of ownership but the stock and shares themselves are 'untouchable'.
Missed the point as always and looking for the grammatical aesthetics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My lord.
A long, on-topic intelligent discussion about the notions of perception and reality.
A long, on-topic intelligent discussion about the notions of perception and reality.
The one reality I do realise is that when the universe ends, none of this will matter. It's a bit of a booger if you ask me.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> I'm confused as to what the issue is here. People are arguing that
> reality is variable depending on who is sensing it, which I agree
> with. All I'm saying is that when you take away perceptions, take
> away experiences and preferences and all of the human methods of
> understanding the world - our senses, there is one reality.
>
> The proverbial coin, if you like, where any given "perceived
> reality" is but one side of it. Everyone has their own way of
> viewing it, but at the end of the day, it's the same coin.
>
> If people are arguing that the coin is actually different because
> people are seeing it differently, then I'm going to leave you to it.
The issue for me personally is your assumption that you cannot possibly be incorrect on this particular issue despite the fact that you have only your opinion for evidence.
Take away all our perceptions and preferences? Okay...but you use a coin as an example; if you take away all human preferences and experiences then you wouldn't have a coin to view in the first place.
And that's my particular point; you're trying to use a get out clause when there isn't one. You're saying "Ah, but I'm talking about reality as it really exists, outside of human perception". And I'll repeat to you; you do not and cannot possibly have the tiniest inkling of something that is outside of human perception. You're saying that outside of human perceptions there is only one reality? If you can explain to me how you can know that, I'm listening. But as it is, as far as I can see all you've done is put forward a theory that cannot be proved as correct or incorrect, and tried to pass it off as unquestionably true.
As a side note, isn't it funny how despite your saying you can't understand why we have these big long debates, you've ended up in a big long debate?
> I'm confused as to what the issue is here. People are arguing that
> reality is variable depending on who is sensing it, which I agree
> with. All I'm saying is that when you take away perceptions, take
> away experiences and preferences and all of the human methods of
> understanding the world - our senses, there is one reality.
>
> The proverbial coin, if you like, where any given "perceived
> reality" is but one side of it. Everyone has their own way of
> viewing it, but at the end of the day, it's the same coin.
>
> If people are arguing that the coin is actually different because
> people are seeing it differently, then I'm going to leave you to it.
The issue for me personally is your assumption that you cannot possibly be incorrect on this particular issue despite the fact that you have only your opinion for evidence.
Take away all our perceptions and preferences? Okay...but you use a coin as an example; if you take away all human preferences and experiences then you wouldn't have a coin to view in the first place.
And that's my particular point; you're trying to use a get out clause when there isn't one. You're saying "Ah, but I'm talking about reality as it really exists, outside of human perception". And I'll repeat to you; you do not and cannot possibly have the tiniest inkling of something that is outside of human perception. You're saying that outside of human perceptions there is only one reality? If you can explain to me how you can know that, I'm listening. But as it is, as far as I can see all you've done is put forward a theory that cannot be proved as correct or incorrect, and tried to pass it off as unquestionably true.
As a side note, isn't it funny how despite your saying you can't understand why we have these big long debates, you've ended up in a big long debate?
I'm confused as to what the issue is here. People are arguing that reality is variable depending on who is sensing it, which I agree with. All I'm saying is that when you take away perceptions, take away experiences and preferences and all of the human methods of understanding the world - our senses, there is one reality.
The proverbial coin, if you like, where any given "perceived reality" is but one side of it. Everyone has their own way of viewing it, but at the end of the day, it's the same coin.
If people are arguing that the coin is actually different because people are seeing it differently, then I'm going to leave you to it.
The proverbial coin, if you like, where any given "perceived reality" is but one side of it. Everyone has their own way of viewing it, but at the end of the day, it's the same coin.
If people are arguing that the coin is actually different because people are seeing it differently, then I'm going to leave you to it.
Light wrote:
>
> Can't you even consider that maybe your opinion is wrong?
Sorry...poor choice of wording there. Can't you consider that your opinion is just that; an opinion? You're treating it as if it's immutable and universal truth.
>
> Can't you even consider that maybe your opinion is wrong?
Sorry...poor choice of wording there. Can't you consider that your opinion is just that; an opinion? You're treating it as if it's immutable and universal truth.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Light wrote:
> But how is what is real defined?
>
> Do you think reality is something defined by humanity? What is real
> isn;t for humans to choose.
All very profound, but unless you've figured out a way to look at reality from outside of human perceptions, or unless you're trying to tell us that you're not actually human, I'll ask again; how the hell do you know what reality is? I say one has to judge it by humanity's perceptions of it. And, as I've also said, those perceptions vary from person to person. Ergo there is no one universal truth due to the infinite number of perceptions that mould an event.
You've come up with a pretty convincing theory concerning the original VR debate...and then destroyed it by saying that no matter what arguments people may come up with, it doesn't change the fact that you're right. The sophist argument you've used notwithstanding ("I'm not saying you can't believe any different, I'm just saying that if you do then you're wrong"...erm, what?!), that's a level of closed-mindedness that any churchman would have been proud of.
Can't you even consider that maybe your opinion is wrong? After all, to prove that you are correct you'd have to be the greatest genius in the history of humanity, or not actually human. Or are you going to be happy to restate your undoubtedly well thought out opinion over and over again, and simply dismiss anyone who disagrees?
> Light wrote:
> But how is what is real defined?
>
> Do you think reality is something defined by humanity? What is real
> isn;t for humans to choose.
All very profound, but unless you've figured out a way to look at reality from outside of human perceptions, or unless you're trying to tell us that you're not actually human, I'll ask again; how the hell do you know what reality is? I say one has to judge it by humanity's perceptions of it. And, as I've also said, those perceptions vary from person to person. Ergo there is no one universal truth due to the infinite number of perceptions that mould an event.
You've come up with a pretty convincing theory concerning the original VR debate...and then destroyed it by saying that no matter what arguments people may come up with, it doesn't change the fact that you're right. The sophist argument you've used notwithstanding ("I'm not saying you can't believe any different, I'm just saying that if you do then you're wrong"...erm, what?!), that's a level of closed-mindedness that any churchman would have been proud of.
Can't you even consider that maybe your opinion is wrong? After all, to prove that you are correct you'd have to be the greatest genius in the history of humanity, or not actually human. Or are you going to be happy to restate your undoubtedly well thought out opinion over and over again, and simply dismiss anyone who disagrees?
It's like that condition where some people can see sound as colour, synthasesia (sp?).
Now to them, their reality is a wash of different colours emanating from sounds all around, and they can taste colours as well.
To me, I can see "normally", and that is my reality.
But to a person suffering from that condition, their reality is markedly different, but exists at the same time as mine.
Now to them, their reality is a wash of different colours emanating from sounds all around, and they can taste colours as well.
To me, I can see "normally", and that is my reality.
But to a person suffering from that condition, their reality is markedly different, but exists at the same time as mine.
And that's exactly the notion of percieved reality.
Page: