RE: Determinism

From: Vincent Campbell (v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 17 2001 - 14:29:58 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: The Tipping Point"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA07669 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:33:25 +0100
    Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745DA0@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
    From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Subject: RE: Determinism
    Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:29:58 +0100
    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    If we're talking films for philosophers, then someone suggested to me that
    Terrance Malick's 'The Thin Red Line' was, for them, about as close as
    you'll get to Heidegger on film. I kinda saw what they meant...

    Seems to me to be a film, in its treatment of individuals responses to
    events, that isn't irrelevant to this discussion.

    Vincent

    > ----------
    > From: Scott Chase
    > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 12:17 am
    > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > Subject: Re: Determinism
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    > >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    > >Subject: Re: Determinism
    > >Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:00:14 +0100
    > >
    > >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.
    > >
    > OK, maybe Berkeley wouldn't have set the noumenal apart from the
    > phenomenal,
    > but at least for the context of the computer as taking the place of an
    > Absolute Mind which generates reality, Berkeley might partially apply.
    > Those
    > objects that one experienced while hooked up within the Matrix were mere
    > ideas implanted into the mind. They were immaterial and IIRC Berkeley was
    > a
    > hardcore immaterialist. Implanted ideas generated by a computer could not
    > be
    > distinguished from the material objects they represented. The objects
    > weren't really there.
    > >
    > > > Maybe I'm shoehorning idealism where it don't belong....
    > >
    > >I think so. Sorry!
    > >
    > >
    > Sans Schopenhauer's wanton pessimism, maybe _The Matrix_ is more
    > Schopenhauerian. I'll need to delve back into Schopenhauer, but I think he
    >
    > had a spot for Berkeley in his philosophy. The world as idea...generated
    > by
    > a computer and implanted into one's mind.
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 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 : Tue Apr 17 2001 - 14:36:29 BST