Humankind
TodayI picked up a package sent to me by my regular chess opponent and sometime correspondent Blaine Myhre. We had discussed his father's poetry and Blaine kindly offered to send me a booklet of said work. I couldn't understand why our postman could not get a 'slim volume' through our letterbox. I have spent most of this evening enjoying the poetry and the accompanying material that Blaine has sent, and forgiving the postman. I am tremendously touched by this insight into other lives, and by the generosity of good people half a world away.
posted by MikeS at 8:34 pm
3 Comments:
Boofy-
I need your help. The other night I watched Vanilla Sky. And it did my head in. And made me think about the storyline behind the Matrix. And that made me think about summat I've heard concerning Moore's Law and the future of humanity.
Apparently computers are getting so fast so quickly that there are serious scientists saying that we are actually a simulation being run by the real humans in the far future. And that the chances of this not being the case is like 10^-100000.
So. Am I dead and my frozen brane is just imagining the entire universe? Am I dreaming of electric sheep? Am I just a cunning little algo-rhythm? Is there any school of thought which has looked at these delusions and provided a simple, common sense explanation?
Or should I just stop smoking so much w33d and disavow all mushroominous behaviour?
Well, you might look to G.E.Moore for your answer, or perhaps to Dr.Johnson who is said to have refuted Bishop Berkeley's anti-realism by kicking a rock. What you should not do is ask me, because I think that most sceptical arguments are both valid and true. Bayesian probability seems to be the current favourite solution to the problem of induction amongst analytic philosophers, but you probably know this anyway. Choose your axioms carefully and, if your choices correspond with Carlos Castaneda, you can keep on with the herbs and fungi.
Bastard. You referred to G. E. Moore deliberately didn't you?
There's two of the bastards! I feel mocked!
I came here for answers dammit! You've just redoubled my confusion.
To be is not "or not to be", but to be perceived. And be drawn in pencil... 2B, preferably.
Post a Comment
<< Home