Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA16563 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:49:31 +0100 Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:00:14 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <20010409110014.A845@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <F152MzfoV1qdiixjnzi0000107e@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <F152MzfoV1qdiixjnzi0000107e@hotmail.com>; from ecphoric@hotmail.com on Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 10:05:24AM -0400 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 10:05:24AM -0400, Scott Chase wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose you're not intrigued by the plot of that wondrous Berkeleyian
> >(the
> > > idealist not the university) movie _The Matrix_?
> >
> >I very much enjoyed that film, but no way is it "Berkeleyian". People are
> >fed a false reality, but there is a real reality out there. (Otherwise
> >there couldn't be a false one, could there?)
> >
> It's been a while since I read Berkeley, so I'm hesitant to go out too far
> on a limb, but I did get the impression that you could co-opt his arguments
> for God as the Mind which generates our reality with an argument based on a
> virtual reality generating computer "mind". For Berkeley, to be is to be
> perceived (*esse is percipi*). For some to exist, it must be generated by a
> mind, based on the argument that we can't distinguish objects from ideas.
> Berkeley cannot be acccused of solipsism is that the reason thing do not
> cease to exist when we close our eyes is that they are being generated in
> the mind of God. Again, substitute a computer in the place of God and IMO
> you end up with _The Matrix_.
If you're saying that the notion of such a pervasive and persuasive
virtual reality is Berkeleyian, then I guess it could be called that.
But my point was that what I take to be the most significant thing he
said -- that there is no other reality -- does not apply to The Matrix.
Of course, what's significant for me isn't necessarily significant
for you.
> Added to Berkeley would be Schopenhauer's modification of Kant's
> phenomenal/noumenal distinction by hybridizing it with the web of Maya ala
> the Vedas. The computer network ("web") in _The Matrix_ generates a Mayan
> veil of illusory appearance. Only a few actually manage to wake up and
> experience the *ding in sich*.
Which is decidedly unBerkeleyian.
> Maybe I'm shoehorning idealism where it don't belong....
I think so. Sorry!
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 09 2001 - 15:55:28 BST