Xref: utzoo sci.misc:1099 talk.philosophy.misc:935
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!actnyc!jsb
From: jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man)
Newsgroups: sci.misc,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: The nature of reality.
Message-ID: <746@actnyc.UUCP>
Date: 23 Mar 88 05:20:44 GMT
References: <343@thirdi.UUCP> <732@actnyc.UUCP> <356@thirdi.UUCP> <27440@linus.UUCP> <363@thirdi.UUCP>
Reply-To: jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man)
Organization: Diet Software
Lines: 74
Keywords: reality credibility validity

In article <363@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
)In article <27440@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes:
)
)>My map is real.  But my map is not the territory.  I believe my map, to
)>the extent that I rely on it to navigate through the world.  But I also
)>disbelieve my map, to the extent that I expect to find errors and
)>inaccuracies that cause me to walk into walls now and then.
)
)Very enjoyable article.  A lot of people forget that the map is just as real as
)the territory.

I agree that the article was enjoyable.  But the map is only real as 'map 
territory', mapable as meta-map.  Will some Zen master please hit Sarge with
a stick?

)
)In my view, the map may be *more* real than the territory, in that the
)territory (new territory) is constantly being *inferred* from the existing
)map, thus adding to the existing map and resulting in a revised map.  Many
)people have pointed out that the only time when we are acutely aware that the
)map is not the territory is when existing maps break down and need to be
)replaced.  To paraphrase Nelson Goodman: worlds are made out of existing
)worlds.  So the existing map is epistemologically *prior* to any future
)territory that will be experienced by inference from an existing map.
)
)It also seems possible that there is no territory -- only a gradually evolving
)map.

New territory cannot really be *inferred* from a map any more than the existance
of New Jersey is implicit in the existance of Staten Island.  You can debug a
program for syntax errors but without specifications for what the program is
suppose to do, you cannot debug it logically.  1 man's bug is another man's
feature.  Of course, a map is also territory in its own right just as programs
can be data for other programs.  The fact that we are often unaware that the
map is not the territory until it breaks down is because we spend a great deal
of time in our heads.  And for most practical purposes it is more convenient to
deal with an abstraction then the thing abstracted but, in my view, (and while
were at it, please preface all of my sentences with the phrase "in my view")
it is to the extent that we deal with maps that we cannot be destinguished from
a suitibly programmed Turing machine (in principal since AI is not that far
advanced yet) and conversely in so far as we do not use maps to mediate with
reality (uh oh, it's "reality" again) we cannot be simulated electronically.
Since, short of hitting with a stick, one cannot communicate without resorting
to maps (The Tao that can be named is not the Tao-- you know the routine) I
doubt I am making this sufficiently clear except to those who know what I'm
saying already.  

There was a TV show on tonight about the mathematician Ramanujan in which he was
quoted as saying that he got his formula from a Hindu goddess (whose name I 
don't remember but it would really class up this posting).  Clearly this is not
the kind of map most of us have for where our ideas come from, but for me it has
a lot to recommend it:  First of all, it says ideas come from something alive.
That we prefer to think of the mind as something dead (i.e. mechanical) is (in 
my view) limiting and ultimately, if I may get Freudean for a moment, a defense.
Secondly, it recognizes a non-rational source to creativity; that it is not the
result of some fancy search tree pruning algorithm tied to a random number
generator.  (This also has bearing on the paradox of how free will can arise
from determinism.  For some other posting...)  

I also think one has a tendancy to try to understand (i.e. map) too quickly
(just as one easily forgets ones dreams on awakening) until one believes the
map existed before the mapped.

)-- 
)"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."
)
)Sarge Gerbode

"Absolute knowledge means you have nothing to learn"

-- 
			The check is in the e-mail

				jim (uunet!actnyc!jsb)