I’ve become some kind of a Platonist
Mind consists of Forms: The brain is a machine running a software programmed with the language of Forms, and the living mind is best conceived of as a virtual reality — a continuously updated model of external reality (among other things).
Another name for the Realm of Forms is “Ideality”. But I think “virtuality” is a lot more suitable. One, because this word makes evident the connection between Platonism and computationalism, and two, because the word evokes an immersed, subjective point of view (through association with computer simulation).
Virtuality, then, is understood to be the very substance of mind. This is opposed to external reality, which is transcendent, i.e. entirely incomprehensible unless translated into the language of the Forms. Reality can’t be accessed at all except as a virtual model, constructed as an interpretation of raw sense data. In other words, we never interact with our environment directly: All of what you take for granted as external reality is in fact more correctly viewed as an incredibly powerful “virtual space of orientation”, continuously updated to fit with incoming information.
This picture seems to present an answer to the question of why physics is unable to describe reality with perfect accuracy: Because our minds are restricted to the simplicity of Forms. Our virtual models are necessarily simplistic, because of their computational restraints (limited time, energy and hardware size). Because of this, we can only hope to approximate truth. There’ll always be aspects left out by our descriptions.
I think it’s useful to think of reality-modelling as something that can be approached in a spectrum of ways, from the mathematical and unambiguous to the mythical and ambiguous. Both of these extremes have serious weaknesses, but their strengths complement eachother: Mathematics offers precision, while Mythos offers meaning. Therefore, the two approaches need to be reconciled. This, I think, is one of the most important tasks of philosophy today. And I think virtualistic epistemology can accomplish it.
Seems about right. Reality is an ever-changing subjective construct courtesy of each individual brain and sensory apparatus.
Interesting blog, by the way.
Posthumanist
19 May 08 at 22:25
Thank you. But I don’t approve of your rendering of my view: It is virtuality which is the subjective construct, not reality. This is a very important distinction to make, to avoid falling into an absurdly idealist position.
Gorm
21 May 08 at 15:31
Damit, man, i see where you’re going, but i can’t see the chasm between virtuality and reality. Like, virtuality is an outcrop of reality, or can be assumed to be an outcrop of reality. What i mean is, i do not have conscious access to the chemical reactions that happen when the insulin levels on my blood are higher than the glucose ones, i only have access to my hunger, but that doesn’t mean they are disconnected. This frontier can be explored further and further (in a devote-your-life-to-true-Yoga sort of way, for example), but i guess what really bakes my noodles is the properties of the outcrop: the properties of virtuality. And i have a feeling (though i might need to work the argument much more to be consistent) that assuming the separation to be complete (instead of a gradient of realvirtual) makes the measurement harder, maybe even impossible. An interesting case to ponder about such issues is something like when you are hungry and you know there’s nothing on the fridge but you open it up without thinking about it, well, just in case. Sometimes you will end up opening the fridge over and over again before finally going out and eating that cheeseburger you promised to not eat again. Well, it happens with me. By the way, i have a similar pet-theory, but i call it “The History of Abstraction”. See you!
Marcio Rocha Pereira
3 Jun 08 at 17:35
“gradient of realvirtual” was supposed to be rendered with an arrow, something like real↔virtual (will it work this time? ;-), but i guess joined together is OK too…
Marcio Rocha Pereira
3 Jun 08 at 17:39
You seem to get the basic picture. Great! We have a lot to talk about now :)
I agree with you, there is no chasm or absolute separation. Its a gradual spectrum from single atoms through molecules, amino acids, cells, to neural networks and finally self-conscious qualia as some kind of emergent property. All things organized has an element of virtuality to it. Patterns that reproduce themselves live in some sense of that word. Patterns that can model external reality has at least a rudimentary form of subjectivity. And finally, patterns that can reflect upon patterns (even self-referentially) and manipulate patterns in some kind of a mental workspace — has, if you don’t me using the arcane word for it, a soul.
I’ve written a related post that might be of interest to you, where I attempt to give a physicalist account of the history of the universe (which oddly results in kind of undermining physicalism).
I’m looking forward to read more about your theory. I read your post on leaky abstractions, and find this TCP metaphor very interesting, but I hope you’ll write up a more detailed post later, because I don’t really see the outline of your theory yet. Specifically, I’m interested in why you focus on history (and in what sense), and what properties you believe abstractions can have (the examples you give are abstractions within realism, and with obvious practicality to them, but what are the extremes?).
Gorm
3 Jun 08 at 19:33