"Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy?s Couch"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?pagewanted=2&8dpc

 

Worth discussing I think (well I think its me thinking but maybe there's no me

in me, etc. down a simulated hall of mirrors)

"It's all UNREAL! here in REALTIME!"

 

Go to bed everyday and wonder?? about that statement..

oops! it's go to bed everynight stupid!, I guess it's getting late for me

That I believe is science fiction. One that is tailor made for the movies like the Star Trek and Space Odyssey films.

 

There is nothing that comes to mind except that.

It's a form of inverted solipsism, without the charm of absolute egotism. I'd be surprised if it goes down well around here.

And only a few centuries ago Descartes was asking how we know we're not dreaming. Wittgenstein's thoughts on dreams in Philosophical Investigations might help anyone kept up at night by such matters (kept up, that is, if they're not dreaming they're kept up) rest more easily.

Mr. Anderson, you disappoint me.

Much like the Brain In a Vat argument. that asks how can we be 100% sure that we are not

just brains in vat's getting electrical impulses by a computer that forms our perception of

reality as being real. But we can be 100% sure that we are not brains in vat's 'cause if we

were brains in vats ( or a simulation ) we could never refer to ourselves as being a brain in

a vat. Umph, or <a href="http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/ph29a/putnam.html" >

something like this</a>

The end shot of a number of sci-fi films already out (and old) pan out to shot of earth>solar system>galaxy...picked up and put in somebody's bag of marbles

<blockquote>

<p><em>Of course, it’s tough to guess what the designer would be like. He or

she might have a body made of flesh or plastic, but the designer might also be a virtual

being living inside the computer of a still more advanced form of intelligence. There could

be layer upon layer of simulations until you finally reached the architect of the first

simulation ? the Prime Designer, let?s call him or her (or it).</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>This, of course, is simply an adaptation of the classical theological argument for the

existence of various favorite gods, typically called the “First Cause”

argument.</p>

 

<p>Though not many realized it, it fell flat on its face as soon as Alan Turing discovered

his famous Halting Problem. In short, it’s always possible to build a simulation in

such a way that those “inside” the simulation cannot possibly know for

certain that they’re not being simulated. Super-Ultra-Uber-Prime Designers

don’t magically get a free pass out of the problem; they have no way of knowing if

they’re being simulated, as well.</p>

 

<p>If there’s one thing that science and logic have pounded into us over and over

and over and over again, it’s that there’s no such thing as a

“privileged position,” to use Einstein’s turn of the phrase. There may

well be “others” out there that would seem godlike to us, but merely in

exactly the same way that Bill Nye or David Copperfield would seem godlike to a never-

discovered back-bush tribe. And that holds true regardless of the nature of the reality we

or they inhabit.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

Self-doubt is a normal part of life but if you have any screws in which to build from, you'll get use to it.

 

In truth, there's nothing here.

 

Good movie worth checking out, "Blade Runner." Harrison Ford. A knock off of "Do Electric Androids Dream of Sheep."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F

 

From the end section of the movie. Gaff, (Edward Olmos) uttered these words

 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001579/

 

"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"

 

Many movies on this theme. "Vanilla Sky" Tom Cruise before, my opinion, he became loopy, was one of Tom's best works.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanilla_Sky

 

Arnold Schwarzenegger, in "Total Recall," dances with the NYT's theme.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Recall

 

Can't forget the Moody Blues and "On the Threshold of a Dream."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Threshold_of_a_Dream

 

"In the Beginning."

 

http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/moodies/mxthresh.htm

 

Can't leave "Matrix" off the list of action movies which explores the wonderful world of it's all happening in a computer generated sound stage. :)

 

http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/

 

I'll let others add their Hollywood takes on the above NYT's theme.

 

The NYT's story, after Blade Runner, my opinion, isn't worth revisiting but Hollywood does, movie, after movie, as long as money's there to be made and folks like us are down for being entertained. :)

"The mighty warships of the Vl'Hurg Empire dived screaming upon the unknowing Earth,

where due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was accidentally

swallowed by a small dog." -- Douglas Adams

And then there was the old man who fell asleep under a tree and had a dream that he was a butterfly. When he awoke, he was no longer certain whether he was a man who had just dreamed he was a butterfly, or whether he was a butterfly dreaming he was a man.

<p>

<b>H.P. </b><i>It's a form of inverted solipsism, without the charm of absolute egotism. I'd be surprised if it goes down well around here.</i></p>

<br>

if I had a clue of what that meant, I'd be steaming mad right now.

"if I had a clue of what that meant,..."

 

A kinda dyslexic "Romeo and Juliet" if you will but Juliet is up in the balcony and it's the parents that are killing themselves instead of the kids. :D

A kinda dyslexic "Romeo and Juliet" if you will but Juliet is up in the balcony and it's the parents that are killing themselves instead of the kids. :D

 

Need that edit feature. Doh!

 

...with Romeo up in the balcony and it's the parents that are killing themselves instead of the kids.

 

Double Doh! :D

Three guys in a mental institution sitting next to each other making motions with their

hands.

 

Two are making identical motions and the third is walking his fingers up his arm.

 

Doctor walks over and says to the first, "What are you doing?"

 

He answers, "I'm taking the stars from the sky and putting them in my pocket."

 

Doctor asks the second guy, "What are you doing?"

 

He answers, "I,m taking the stars out of my pocket and putting them into the sky."

 

Doctor asks the third guy the same question, "What are you doing?"

 

He answers, "I,m getting out of here, these guys are crazy!"

Bill got the point IMO. As for me, it looks as if somebody trys to get lost in one tree forest, cannot manage and then trys to get as many other do the same just to see what if anybody can do. Clear cut picture of common confusion on the ground of laziness and catatonia. Gentlemen! There is you in you. Othervise, who would be typing all this? The use of you or self does not consist in thinking of is it or is it not. It consist in taking inspiration. Can your take an inspiration?

Phylo - the brain in the vat article was fascinating. It was hard for me to follow, as I don't usually attempt to understand such abstract and intellectual ideas presented in the article. I thought Putnam's ideas added to the N.Y. Times piece, and I also think, if I understood Putnam, there is some comfort in his words, because while we may be alone in our own world, we don't exist in someone else's head.

Ilia,

 

'if I had a clue of what that meant, I'd be steaming mad right now.'

If you will allow me a little solipsistic freedom here I'll explain myself.

 

"Okay Mr. Proud but no more flippancy. Is that understood?"

 

Myself answering myself in a humble manner, "Okay."

 

"Fine, then continue."

 

Myself beginning, "There are two reasons why I stay away from the philosophy threads. I

was educated as an engineer. In the engineering world it is hammered into your brain that

there is only one answer to the fourth decimal place. So it is hard for me to relate to the

philosophic because in the philosophic there are many answers. In fact there are no right

or wrong answers."

 

"Interesting", I mused, "continue."

 

"Well if there are no wrong answers then everyone is correct. But doesn't philosophic

thought lead to chaos?"

 

"Well yes it does, but consider engineering and the second law of thermodynamics. The

second law in lay terms is the entropy of the universe is going up, S=delta E, sometimes

known as the chaos theory.

 

So you see even in engineering everything leads to chaos."

 

"So philosophy and engineering are tied together by the common thread of chaos?"

 

"Absolutely," I answered myself. "Here is an example."

 

"The bridge in Minneapolis-

 

aside, how do you spell Minneapolis?

 

"It collapsed because of entropy not because of faulty design. Faulty design would have

occurred in a short time, not after 40 years of use."

 

"So what does all this have to do with this thread," I asked myself?

 

"I don't know," I answered, "You are the philosophers, you tell me what it means."

It might just be it has no particular meaning at all. A interplay of physical processes in time much longer then human life or history. But people seems to like to entertain themselves, also with an apocaliptic visions so it seems ...

I find engineers MORE philosophic than non-engineers.

 

They verbalize about "meaning" and "reasons" and are uncomfortable with paradox. They hope to resolve paradox, rather than enjoying it.

 

Non-engineers may chuckle lightly at daily life, may not be as interested in "comedy."

I find it hard to beleive that some guy on a couch would give us the senses of sight, smell, hearing, touch to be used on things that are not real. I would think that this guy(s) on the couch would want us to experience his creation. If a camera that is a mechanical man made creation can capture these things, then you can say that these 'things' are real, or maybe not so real ! Wait a minute, what did I just say ?

 

'Aristotle for Everybody' a philosophical book that contains passages written 2500 years ago, attempts to make sense of this mistery without delving too deep into religion. It might not explain everything, but it's a good reference point.

 

As photographers I think we are more deeply involved on this so called 'outside world' than most, as we try to capture it for what it really is.

I think John is right. Engineers mast repent and learn to enjoy the paradox.