Is Transhuman Space a "silly" genre?

[longhorn]

Originally Posted by xeniac

In my experience you can spot silly Games by their silly covers, or by the Kovalic illustrations. Transhuman Space doesn't have any silly covers made by Kovalic.

Suddenly the desire is kindled within me for Transhuman Space covers by Kovalic.

-Grant

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Molokh

The problem with viewpoints is they're completely subjective.

I think that's a misuse of the term "subjective." As it's used in philosophy, it would mean that I was free to take any viewpoint I wanted: to choose, at whim, to see the world through the eyes of Bill Stoddard, or those of Sean Punch, or those of the senior cat in our household, or those (figuratively) of the planet Neptune. And I'm not. There's only one viewpoint I am able to take.

Now, certainly, viewpoint is relative. I have my viewpoint; you have yours. But that's not the same issue.

And from another angle, so what if viewpoint is in some sense "subjective"? My existence is as a subject; my survival is as a subject. If my subjective viewpoint ceases to exist, so do I.

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I think that's a misuse of the term "subjective." As it's used in philosophy, it would mean that I was free to take any viewpoint I wanted: to choose, at whim, to see the world through the eyes of Bill Stoddard, or those of Sean Punch, or those of the senior cat in our household, or those (figuratively) of the planet Neptune. And I'm not. There's only one viewpoint I am able to take.

Now, certainly, viewpoint is relative. I have my viewpoint; you have yours. But that's not the same issue.

And from another angle, so what if viewpoint is in some sense "subjective"? My existence is as a subject; my survival is as a subject. If my subjective viewpoint ceases to exist, so do I.

Bill Stoddard

I mean that a 'viewpoint' cannot be measured or detected in an objective way, especially in a world where the mind (as in, ghost/xox) is not the same thing as the viewpoint. At this point, you talk about a viewpoint like it's some sort of soul.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Molokh

I mean that a 'viewpoint' cannot be measured or detected in an objective way, especially in a world where the mind (as in, ghost/xox) is not the same thing as the viewpoint. At this point, you talk about a viewpoint like it's some sort of soul.

You obviously are perfectly capable of dealing with viewpoint. Your sentences that I just quoted use the word "I" and the word "you" entirely correctly, to distinguish which of us you are talking about. You say (falsely, by the way) something that amounts to "whswhs talks about a viewpoint like it's some sort of soul," and you do not suppose for a moment that what you have said is "Molokh talks about a viewpoint like it's some sort of a soul." In other words, you use linguistic forms whose whole point is to distinguish the speaker (and the speaker's viewpoint) from the listener (and the listener's viewpoint). So you have already implicitly accepted that conceptual structure, and internalized it. Your entire argument amounts to a refusal to identify explicitly what you are doing.

And tying it to "soul" is just confusing yourself . . . and it is you and not me that you're confusing; I have no use for the soul hypothesis. I don't consider consciousness to be an entity, but a relationship.

Bill Stoddard

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

You obviously are perfectly capable of dealing with viewpoint. Your sentences that I just quoted use the word "I" and the word "you" entirely correctly, to distinguish which of us you are talking about. You say (falsely, by the way) something that amounts to "whswhs talks about a viewpoint like it's some sort of soul," and you do not suppose for a moment that what you have said is "Molokh talks about a viewpoint like it's some sort of a soul." In other words, you use linguistic forms whose whole point is to distinguish the speaker (and the speaker's viewpoint) from the listener (and the listener's viewpoint). So you have already implicitly accepted that conceptual structure, and internalized it. Your entire argument amounts to a refusal to identify explicitly what you are doing.

And tying it to "soul" is just confusing yourself . . . and it is you and not me that you're confusing; I have no use for the soul hypothesis. I don't consider consciousness to be an entity, but a relationship.

Bill Stoddard

Of course I use human constructs. I'm flawed too.

As for the soul comparison, I'm using it because like a soul, 'viewpoint' seems to be just as intangible and unprovable in any objective way. (Compare: can one prove to a solipsist that everyone else is real/really a person?)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Molokh

As for the soul comparison, I'm using it because like a soul, 'viewpoint' seems to be just as intangible and unprovable in any objective way. (Compare: can one prove to a solipsist that everyone else is real/really a person?)

No, of course you can't prove it. It's an axiom: That is, it's an assumption you have to make in order to make any coherent claim to conceptual knowledge.

There is no conceptual knowledge without language. But language is not something that a solitary mind can devise for itself. Language inherently involves communication between two or more minds that both understand language as referring to a physical world that they can both perceive.

If you don't assume the validity of logic, of the senses, of memory, and of language, and the existence of other minds, then you don't assume the validity of any beliefs that rest upon them. Those beliefs become, not objective truths, but arbitrary faith.

Bill Stoddard

[b-dog]

Well, I bought Changing Times and so far the writing style is serious and I like it. The science fiction stuff is pretty good too. It is sort of like Popular Science, Chemical and Engineering News, Scientific American and Discover magazine articles put together to make a game world along with a dose of the Economist. Pretty neat.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

No, of course you can't prove it. It's an axiom: That is, it's an assumption you have to make in order to make any coherent claim to conceptual knowledge.

There is no conceptual knowledge without language. But language is not something that a solitary mind can devise for itself. Language inherently involves communication between two or more minds that both understand language as referring to a physical world that they can both perceive.

Language indeed does require minds to communicate, but since unlike minds, viewpoints are not measurable or detectable scientifically, the link breaks down.

Originally Posted by whswhs

If you don't assume the validity of logic, of the senses, of memory, and of language, and the existence of other minds, then you don't assume the validity of any beliefs that rest upon them. Those beliefs become, not objective truths, but arbitrary faith.

Bill Stoddard

Yes, but to that you added the 'viewpoint', as if this shaky ground wasn't enough.

Hmmm. I wonder how much of a relation between the understanding of 'viewpoint' and of the ever-changing understanding of self-awareness (with people trying to push the definition to a less-and-less detectable one).

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Molokh

can one prove to a solipsist that everyone else is real/really a person?

One can punch them until they admit they want you to stop, then keep punching.

More seriously, solipists should never be proven wrong. If your belief shapes reality, then what you believe IS reality. So when you think of the modifier for a given RoF is +5, and I show you that it's +6, I prove that your belief, at least, is not the belief shaping reality.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Language indeed does require minds to communicate, but since unlike minds, viewpoints are not measurable or detectable scientifically, the link breaks down.

What, you're saying that the fact that this message originated from me and not from someone else, and is based on the content of my mind and the information available to it and not on anyone else's, is not detectable? How then do you know who you're talking to?

My viewpoint is certainly detectable to me; it's the starting point for all my knowledge. And yours is detectable to you; you can hardly be unaware, for example, that as you read this you are sitting in front of your computer screen, and not pacing in a zoo cage, or lying on a surgical table waiting for the anesthetic to take effect, or playing guitar before a crowd of thousands . . . and yet at the instant when you read this there are surely other conscious entities doing all three. You know which one of us you are, and where you are, and when.

And the ability to perceive consciousness in other people is one of the most basic human capabilities, one found even in infants. According to one theory, its lack is a specific abnormal developmental path, called "autism."