h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi, Sneaky. I don't say that blindsight shows reality to be separate from perception and belief. My point in mentioning it is that perception and belief are physiologically and conceptually separate. The same just happens to be true of meaning and language processing; Broca's and Wernicke's areas in the brain. Comes in handy to be as psych as well as a phil!

Belief will tend to depend on perception, so when they tally it is no coincidence. My point was that different perceptual modalities (vision, touch and hearing; for example) tend to convince us to believe.

I offered that silly limerick to suggest that perception and reality aren't too intimately related.

toxx

Oops, the gin may have influenced my words. Ok, it definately did. I tried to say that you said (this is starting to get convoluted) that the blindsight was an example to seperate perception and belief, but that could have been the gin talking. Did I mention I've been drinking gin? Tanquerey #10 is great stuff. Kinda tastes like oranges when the ice melts a little. New Year's Eve probably isn't the best night for me to talk philosophy. 'Specially when it's hard to make the letters stay put. The fun part, I'm at work .

Always setting bad examples.

Guess it's a tad costly then, Sneak. Gin should taste of juniper, should it not? If I want other flavours, mixers are cheap. Can't afford flashy stuff I fear.

toxx

Yeah, runs $30-$35 a bottle. I can only afford it on rare occasions. The main flavor is juniper berries, but when the ice melts, there is this nifty orange taste (aftertaste?) to it. Tanquerey #10. Better than Bombay Saphire.

I've just posted this on the God Fact or Fiction thread (bear with me toxx) but thought it was also a good quote for here, more or less describing the Phred concept, but way better than I ever could:

"Wizards don't believe in gods in the same way that most people don't find it necessary to believe in, say, tables. They know they're there, they know they're there for a purpose, they'd probably agree that they have a place in a well-organised universe, but they wouldn't see the point of *believing*, of going around saying, 'O great table, without whom we are as naught'. Anyway, either the gods are there whether you believe it or not, or exist only as a function of the belief, so either way you might as well ignore the whole business and, as it were, eat off your knees." (Terry Pratchett)



az

Happy new year folks

A wand'ring minstrel I, a thing of Phreds and patches . . .

Hardly appropriate Toxx calling Chai's "no-I" solipsistic? Is there a word for it? Nonipsism? Ah yes -- selflessness.

Happy New Year to you too, Neddy.........

I fink I've gawn and lost the phred of this argument, and I don't even have the excuse of gin.

More chai, wallah! More chai I say.

*sigh*

Given Tibet's long history of practical philosophising, John the Gardener and I are planning to set up an H2g2 Friends of Tibet club. Anyone interested? Some of you already have taken the action sugested by the link in my name-line. Please spread the word. OK, Phreds?

Of course all you big guys are, well, all 'big guys' who have studied philosophy and theology and surely *know your stuff* , whereas I am but a mere woman (ha!) who has not studied these very important matters in depth. But really, the most important thing is that you are all enjoying yourselves.

have fun, boys!

az

R'Man. As usual the dafter subtleties of my inane wafflings have been studiously ignored! I suggested that one would have to assume a position of solipsism in order to draw a further inference from Chai's penetrating observations.

I think, if I were sober, I would characterise that inferetial position as 'nihilism'. Phredism will do though, or no-nuffinkism.

toxx

Dear Toxx,

It might amuse you to know that approx 1,000 years ago, Tibetan Madhyamika ( an extremely severe branch of Buddhist philosophy ) philosophers, while insisting on the non-existence of a personal self, and on the utter emptiness of all form, constantly warned of the two philosophical pitfalls of "emotional wishfulness", on the one hand, and "mere nihilism," on the other. Nice to know that our game has such an ancient lineage, innit?

Yo, Chai. Dem guys were clearly indulging in the worst kind of sophistry or casuistry (never can tell which is which) in order to avoid the likes of me drawing the obvious conclusions from their musings. Well, tough! I done it anyway.

toxx

Have you? I don't find it obvious that the denial of a personal self is nihilistic, or that it requires solipsism to draw conclusions from it. enlighten us.

Babblefish6
Wiser is he who accepts his limited knowledge and tries to improve on it than he who boasts of what little he does know!

Quille

I love the Ender Series, I just finished reading Ender's Shadow, great book. Quite philosophical, made me think quite a bit. If Bean had the sense of duty to know that his little simutations were real yet he never told people and was able to not object when Ender sent so many people to their deaths shouldn't that make him a bad person. Like he said he never knew the Buggers and therefore felt no sympathy for their deaths but still I feel sympathy when I head about a car crash on the news and someone died and I never knew them. Is it just me?


Babblefish6

Never heard of it, but just read part of the first chapter at
http://www.hatrack.com/osc/books/shadow01.shtml

Street kids in futuristic Rotterdam going through hard times.

RMan. You're latest post alerted me to this thread again. It seems that you agree with me that the denial of a personal self does not automatically lead to solipsism (just the opposite!) or nihilism.

toxx

Hmmmm. Having read that again, I'm not at all sure that I know what's at stake here. Too many negatives and disjunctions being flung about!

toxx

It's had six weeks rest, pity to reawaken it now?