[pcp-discuss:] Re: Fwd: Comments on _One Half Of A Manifesto_by

From: Menno RUBINGH (rubingh@delftnet.nl)
Date: Tue Nov 21 2000 - 01:05:34 GMT

  • Next message: Don Mikulecky: "Re: [pcp-discuss:] Re: Fwd: Comments on _One Half Of A Manifesto_by Jaron Lanier"

     Hi John & others !

     I've had a look at


     and to my sorrow I am unable to read it without feeling annoyed by it,
     I'm sorry. I have a feeling that what the text deals with I'd
     pragmatically better leave to people who like these things better than I
     do, and that meanwhile I'd better get on with the things on which I
     think I *can* think and create meaningfully. To each person his/her own
     fields of exploration.

     *If* there is in the text anything that points towards making PRACTICAL
     use of these insights (I mean: to create new technology), then please
     make these things more clear to me. I have not found any of this in the
     text; it seems to me that ALL of the text is rather exclusively
     theoretical, even extravagantly so -- in my eyes (I'm sorry) it even
     borders on the mystical, e.g. this :

    > We could also, of course, speculate on the broader humanistic and
    > religious aspects of the view presented. It provides many openings
    > for traditional and non-traditional spiritual thought, especially
    > Eastern metaphysics. It suggests the possibility of abstract
    > universes, eternal time, and light singularities in a domain that is
    > removed from the material world of observation. In an abstract
    > realm, where many worlds are possible, many beliefs are also
    > possible. Since the model is based on a causal relationship between
    > these domains, beliefs themselves are significant. Can we not see
    > the physical results of specific beliefs in the world today? Such
    > thoughts were, in the recent past, dismissed from science using the
    > assertion that all thoughts come directly from the world, and
    > therefore can be ignored in its causal explanation. The view here
    > says they do not, although there is clearly the means for mutual
    > influence. While the potential for spiritual interpretation may be
    > bothersome to some, the habit of scientific materialism has been
    > bothersome for others. In the quest for truth one should not feel
    > impoverished if it is found that different paths can begin with the
    > same concept of reality.

     I'm again sorry, but I am unable to interpret this as almost pure
     religion. You seem to want to base models/science/philosophy/technology
     on ''mystical'' things -- where I try to do the reverse: I am rather
     intent on explaining everything that might *seem* mystical from
     mechanical explanations. I believe strongly in my axiom/assumption that
     everything is mechanical, you seem to beleive quite strongly in your
     assumption that basically everything can not be mechanical.

     Everyone his/her own tastes. IMO it's useless to discuss with people
     whose opinions are TOO MUCH fundamentally different -- in such cases,
     I think that e.g. tolerant coexistence might be more (mutually) useful.

     Best regards,      Menno (rubingh@delftnet.nl)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ir. Menno Rubingh, Scientific programmer, Software designer, & Software documentation writer Doelenstraat 62, 2611 NV Delft, Netherlands phone +31 15 2146915 (answering machine backup) email rubingh@delftnet.nl http://www.rubinghscience.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ======================================== Posting to pcp-discuss@lanl.gov from "Menno RUBINGH" <rubingh@delftnet.nl>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 21 2000 - 01:05:38 GMT