OT: Crazy Programming

[Huaiyu Zhu]

On Sun, 19 May 2002 15:20:00 -0400, Steve Holden <sholden at holdenweb.com> wrote:
>"Huaiyu Zhu" <huaiyu at gauss.almadan.ibm.com> wrote ...
>>
>Well, perhaps he was arguing that such instruments represent an extension to
>the human senses. Before charging the epistomological barricades, however,
>you should consider whether Christopher isn't trying to represent the same
>point of view promnoted by (for example) Bertrand Russell. The point is that
>the only basis we ever have for knowledge is the interpretation of
>sense-data - quite simply, the human organism isn't built to accept
>information in any other way.

I actually understand his point (but I really dislike his argument).

>Thus, no matter how sophisticated the "amplification" of our senses provided
>by instrumentation, there is really no way to conclude whether our
>interpretation relates to an "objective reality", since even if we assume
>that there *is* such a thing as objective reality we have no way to perceive
>it other than by interpretation of sense-data.
>
>But we have no way to distinguish between physical properties and social
>interactions, since the only ways we can communicate involve agreement about
>the ground-rules. It is, for example, very difficult to engage in
>philosophical discussions with a determined solipsist, who sees all
>perceptions as generated by the operation of her own senses - that is,
>"objective reality" is produced by the operation of the human brain.
>Therefore you are, to a solipsist, simply a manifestation of their own
>thought processes, and have no objective (i.e. external) reality atr all.

I would not want to argue with a solipsist at all.  I would just agree
completely with her, that the whole world, including myself, is merely an
illusion generated in her mind.  But it is very interesting to observe that
these "illusions" have certain patterns and predictabilities.  You could
reason about them *as if* they are real objects.  Of course they are all
illusions, but you could observe that some illusions are more likely to be
confirmed by your later illusion than others.  For example, if you have the
illusion that you are puting your hand in fire, it is very unlikely for you
to experience an illusion of not being hurt afterwards.

If she plays with illusions as a scientist observing nature, she might get
some illusions as if she discovered some laws of nature.  If she played with
illusions of persuing consistency in her reasoning, she might get the
illusion of studying mathematical structures.  Illusions with such
properties are intriguing and interesting and useful as precursors of other
satisfying illusions, such as humans being able to build machines that work
for them.

Of course all these would just be her imagination, and I'd completely agree
with her.  I'd just like to drop the word illusion from all these sentences
for brevity, as they are everywhere and can be pasted back whenever
necessary.  At this point she might get the illusion that her illusion of me
have been arguing with her all the time.  Of course, my tricky stubbornness
is only in her imagination.

Huaiyu