Re: virus: Re: The saga continues!
Nathaniel Hall (natehall@lgcy.com)
Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:23:42 -0600
Nathaniel Hall wrote:
>
> Tim Rhodes wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, David McFadzean wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that you and Nate would actually agree on
> philosophical
> > matters if you could only agree on semantics (and it
> doesn't appear that
> > either of you are trying to define terms).
> >
> > We all live in the same space-time universe right?
> > However no-one experiences the universe in exactly the
> same way, we
> > all have our unique perspectives which necessarily means
> we all
> > experience different subjective worlds.
> > Our senses don't show us raw reality, rather we experience
> the
> > interaction of our environment with our own hardware and
> software.
> > Seeing is not believing, seeing is (merely, often very
> good) evidence;
> > only a fool believes everything he sees, especially if he
> has a TV.
> >
> > Can we agree on this much before progressing?
>
> Easily, since you said it better than I could have.
>
> -Prof. Tim
>
> In what sense do you mean believe ? In the mere experiance of the
> raw input or the evaluation of it? For example 1) you see little
> squigles on the screen in front of you is that the level of belief?
> 2)You process these squigles into letters and then into words, is that
> the level of your belief?3) You take all the words in and wieght the
> grand total, is that the level of your belief? I'd be inclined to
> believe in 1) absolutely 2) mostly. (This is something we had to
> learn. A child dosn't have 2) down very well and even as an adult one
> can come across unknown words. As for 3) that's where the fun really
> begins.
>
> The Nateman