Loki the Liger

One day my roommate at our Heffalump (!) apartement, Lokifluff Clarity, was wearing a Liger avatar. I guess a Liger is taxonomically somewhere between a Tiger and a Lion. Doesn't it look amazing? By clicking the picture you can see it in full screen size :

Here is another shot. The kitty on the floor was the package for the liger Avi.

The liger could roar and jump and do all the things a real life liger would do...if only it existed

Aww...isn't it cute!!!

smiles
Q

Q&A about Dar Innis's metaphysics

I managed to get Dar here on my blog and he was kind to do a Q&A session about his metaphysics essay:

QS: Hi Dar and welcome! I’m very glad that you got the time to visit my blog, how have you been?

DI: I've been doing well, thanks.

QS: Thanks for letting me publish your thoughts about “Being Is Not Relative, And Perspectives Of Being Are Relative”. I was very impressed when I read it. I think that although your basic idea is deceptively simple, it is at the same time extremely clever! But first could you clarify more why did you choose to use the word “Being” rather than “exist”?

DI: It's not really my idea. It's Parmenides idea. I simply take it a step further than he was able to. I actually used to refer to that which I here call Being as existence. Existence didn't work so well as I want to talk about what unconditionally is, and I found that people strongly associate the word existence with things that conditionally are. Being also suffers this problem, but people seem more willing to get beyond that with 'capital B Being'. I personally prefer the word truth, next I prefer 'capital T Truth'; yet, with the word truth I have to clarify that I am not speaking of propositional truth and the like. I've even tried making a new word: isness. Lao-tzu made a good point in the Tao Te Ching when he referred to this subject as unnamable. Yet, we have to refer to it in some way. He went with the Tao. Currently I favor 'capital B Being'.

QS: One of the reasons I personally liked your writing is that it seemed to suit my personal views on metaphysics. According to your definition, it is not only physically directly observable things that can exhibit Being, but anything that can be stated in some form including things like logical truths, fictitious statements or even dreams. But do you think it would be still possible to categorize the different types of being in some more “fundamental” levels of existences? For example, it seems to me that many physicists seem to rank the being of physically observable things more “real” than our thoughts, even if the thoughts were about what we make of our observations. I, on the contrary, have always thought that logical truths are somehow more fundamental than physical observations =).

DI: I do not think it useful to regard any real thing as any more real than any other real thing. Everything that is, is. There is not anything that is in a way that is more or less than anything else is. In understanding how different things relate, I would agree that logical truths are more fundamental than physical truths. I think physical truths are a manifestation of logical truths. However, I also think that thinking and the development of logic depend upon having something like a brain which depends upon physical truths.

QS: You make a separation between perspectives of being and being itself. Being exists in every way it is possible for it to exists, allowing different perspectives. But aren’t the perspectives themselves some sort of beings? Like the notion “A is shorter than B” is a sentence that is being, at the same time it is a perspective to the being of A. Do you see any contradiction that a thing is at the same time being and a description of a perspective?

DI: This is really an excellent question. Being itself is sort of it's own universe of discourse, and it cannot be related to anything else. Perspectives of Being constitute another universe of discourse. All perspectives of Being are Being, but no single perspective of Being is Being itself. Sort of like A is a letter of the alphabet without being the alphabet itself, or a circle is geometrical without being Geometry itself. No, I do not see it as a contradiction for a sentence to both be and to be a description of a perspective.

QS: Ok, so perspectives are something that get shape through our cognition, right?

DI: No, these perspectives I am talking about are not shaped through our cognition. Being itself seems to have a crude awareness of itself. From this awareness arise the singular and continuum perspectives of Being. Betwixt these two extremes there lies a continuum of intermediate perspectives where the singular and continuum perspectives relate with each other. It is this relativity of perspectives that give rise to physical phenomena and the complexity necessary for human cognition.

I realize it seems odd to consider non-human perspective, or that Being itself has a crude sort of awareness. This is likely the most fantastical seeming aspect of this metaphysic. If being did not have some sort of awareness of itself, the perspectives of Being would not arise. If the perspectives of Being did not arise, nothing resembling us or the world in which we live would arise. At least, that is the case if this metaphysic is correct. I suspect that human awareness is like a spike in the crude awareness of Being itself. Augmented by sense organs and a brain for memory and computation, our awareness is much more advanced than the crude baseline awareness Being as of itself.

As for actual Beings, I do not think there are any such things. Being is indivisible, singular. It cannot be separated into Beings. There does not be such a thing that is other than Being by which Being could be divided.

I'm much more in line with the Buddhist view of the world. We would not consider the blinking of an eye as a Being. The blinking of an eye has no independent being or substance of its own. The blinking of an eye arises, occurs, then ceases, so is impermanent. The blinking of an eye only is while the eye blinks, so is dependent upon and conditioned by the eye blinker. The blinking of an eye is an act, and we consider the blinker of the eye to have a greater claim to be a Being than the blinking of an eye.

Well, I am an act done by organs. Organs are acts done by tissues. Tissues are acts done by cells. Cells are acts done by organelles. Organelles are acts done by molecules. Molecules are acts done by atoms. Atoms are acts done by subatomic phenomena. Some subatomic phenomena are acts done by other subatomic phenomena. Other subatomic phenomena seem elemental. We do not know what does these elemental subatomic phenomena. We do know that these elemental subatomic phenomena are 'quanta of energy'. Quanta of energy is a scientific way of saying 'discrete packets with measurable activity'. Discrete packets of with measurable activity is a verbose way of saying 'acts'. We are acts, just like the blinking of an eye is an act. I may occur longer than the blinking of an eye, but this makes me no less empty, impermanent, or conditioned than the blinking of an eye. It would be inconsistent for me to regard myself a Being so long as I do not consider the blinking of an eye a Being. Furthermore, I have yet to encounter anything else that I could consistently regard as a Being. The Buddha speaking of things in the phenomenal world would say 'All is Dhukkha'. I would say, also regarding the phenomenal world, 'All is activity'.

QS: I see! But the “act” that we call our cognition does seems anyway to interact with other cognitions through language , so could it be said that the relationship between “universe of discourse (about perspectives)” and “universe of actual Beings” is in some way similar to relationship of language and the true essence of perspectives of beings, that Wittgenstein, existentialists and others have been trying to study?

DI: Our language developed in response to the world as we had to engage it. Rarely did we have time to consider the nature of things. Things like mountains, people, and hammers seem to long endure. From a practical perspective likening them to acts such as the blinking of an eye seems absurd.

I think that existentialist projects have a great deal going for them; however, I do think that many existentialists confuse their primarily epistemological projects with metaphysics, or think that they allow them to make proclamations about metaphysics that I would classify as categorical errors. I covered one such instance when I spoke of Heidegger's lecture, 'What is Metaphysics'. I certainly do not think metaphysics is a linguistic confusion as some would suggest. If it were, it should be much easier to find the right words to express metaphysical claims.

I haven't explored existential philosophy perhaps as much as I should. To me, its enough that I experience anything at all to know that it is Being that I experience something, and that it is not Being that I do not experience something to establish that there is Being.

QS: What do you think is the implication of your metaphysics to the definition to causality? If Beings of things are not related to each other, they probably can’t be causes to each other? So is causality also all about perspectives, too?

DI: What I mean by Being is quite different than what we mean by the being of a thing. In perspectives where there are many things, these things can relate with other such things. Perspective does seem to me to be close to the root of causality though. The crude physical theory this metaphysic lead to uses the two basic perspectives of Being, and the need to make them consistent with each other in intermediate perspectives, as its basis. As for Being itself, that is beyond causality.

QS: In light of your metaphysics, do you think that the lack of something, or the not-being of a thing, can cause a perception of something else being? So that that not-being could be cause of something (even a perception?)

DI: If a thing is not, it is not even a thing. A thing cannot not be. The basic perspectives of Being might seem a sort of nothing, but they are still perspectives of Being, and that is not nothing. I called an earlier form of this metaphysic 'Nothing and the Void', as a point without anything beyond it would seem like a sort of nothing, and an undifferentiated infinite continuum would seem like an endless void.

QS: You made nicely provocative statements that your metaphysics would make quantum mechanics less unintuitive….here is what came into my mind: When you say things are either Being or not, they become being only when they get some sort of stated form. And stating how things are Being needs someone to do it, there must be someone doing it. I understood the analogy to quantum mechanics, so that we know that physical things exists only when by observing them, but the observation is always part of the interpretation of a specific consciousness. We don’t know about the Being of things unless there is a conscious observer…or how would you describe the analogy?

DI: Well, perspective is the most mysterious aspect of this theory to me. For there to be the basic perspectives, and for them to interact, there must be some sort of awareness to in some way perceive them. For there to be motion at the speed of light or gravity or electromagnetism, according to this metaphysic, there must be some sort of awareness. I do not want to suggest this awareness is anything like human awareness. In the case of the basic perspectives, there does not exist enough complexity for even a crude half baked notion, no less self reflection, in either one of them. To get to the aspects of quantum strangeness this metaphysic seems to help resolve, I'd need to go into more detail on the crude scientific theory this metaphysic leads to. Some of it comes down to how the basic perspectives must interact in the intermediate perspectives. Some of it will come down to how different perspectives become more or less significant in determining how phenomena unfold. When we make an observation, we alter that dynamic.

QS: What about the concept of emergence? Does it become useless in light of your metaphysics? Since beings of things are not related, the whole question of reductionism vs. holism is only about perspectives?

DI: Well, the way the perspectives must interact in order to remain consistent causes all sorts of things to emerge. I guess you could put me more on the holism side. I think that awareness is inherent in Being, which enables Being to perceive itself in different ways. I tend to think of human awareness as sort of spikes in this awareness, where our physical bodies have enabled more detailed sensing with organs and an ability to record, organize, and ponder what is sensed with brains. Sometimes I like to think of consciousness and life as Being seeking to take a more active role with itself. I do not believe in disembodied thought, even if I think Being itself has some sort of crude inherent awareness.

QS: What do you plan to do next? Are you planning studying specific applications?

DI: I'm still working on expressing this understanding better, and I need to work on expressing the scientific theory it leads to better. Trying to pummel it into words is not easy for me, and most of my attempts seem to fall short. I need to get it polished to a point where it falls short slightly less so.

QS: Thank you!

Strider Villota discusses SL applications

Strider Villota is my friend from Education Island. Since he has lectured to business people in SL, I was eager to hear his opinion about the thoughts I wrote in “what did Rosedale really say”. I knew he had a lot of great insight in how SL is actually perceived today so I had to ask for an interview for the blog and he was very kind to go for it, so here it is!

QS: Welcome to my blog Strider. It’s a privilege to have you here!

SV: Thank you very much, Quintessential. I am very happy to be part of your blog. Though, according to some of the studies in your happiness articles, it is not my being here that makes me happy. I guess it is in my DNA… but I digress. I enjoy the variety of topics explored in your blog and I am honored that you asked for my opinion on SL.

QS: You have been following SL for quite a while and even lecturing here to information management professionals. What is your feeling, is SL still a hot topic or do you see the interest fading or changing now?

SV: I think the interest is changing, but it depends on the group. In general, I believe SL has followed the classic Gartner Hype Cycle (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle). In this model, the interest in a new technology climbs until it reaches a point of “inflated expectations”, disappointment follows and the hype decreases until it reaches a “trough of disillusionment”, and then the hype increase again through a gradual “slope of enlighten.” Judging by the recent press as mentioned in your earlier article, I think we are probably close to the trough of disillusionment.

QS: You have lectured both to industry CIOs (Chief Information Officers) as well as to University information system administrators. Were there any differences in their interest in SL, and if there was, why?

SV: Yes, I have talked about SL with industry CIOs and other high level managers in IS, as well as people associated with universities. From my experience, there has always been a different level of interest between the groups. In a presentation I made in 2007, I had both groups in the audience. SL was receiving a lot of press at the time. The university administrators were very enthusiastic about the possibilities. They asked many questions about using SL for recruiting students, teaching, alumni relations, and creating a social network among students. During the presentation, my colleague passed me a note to pay attention to the industry representatives. When I focused on this group, I found that they were extremely bored. Through my questioning, I discovered that they found little or no value in SL. They could not see how to attract customers with SL (in fact, they didn’t think universities could either), saw some minor possibilities for training, and felt there were much better 3D modelling tools to illustrate their products on their web sites. The industry representatives were also concerned about adult content in SL.

QS: What do you think were the initial expectations about SL in professional use? Do you think
SL has lived up to those expectations so far?

SV: While some companies have experimented in SL, most of the companies I talked with (with a few exceptions) were never interested. The few that were interested saw it as a possible vehicle for training. Some, though, were just experimenting with such things as virtual offices. I don’t know that the expectations were ever that high in the first place. A few years ago when companies had budgets to experiment, some would try new things like SL to see if they could discover a use. Judging by the number of companies that have left SL, I think most companies have not really found a use. In addition, although there are some interesting stories about university use, on the whole it has not really taken off in that market either.

QS: How do you see the future, how could SL offer the best value as an extension to RL business communications?

SV: Wow, this is a tough question. I think it probably depends on the industry. In general, I have difficulty seeing where SL might be a leading platform to support RL business communication. Usually, voice, text, charts, and tables are fine to support business communication. Where video is important, Skype or similar products that are not based on avatars would work better. The SL world allows activity in addition to communication. I think its unique feature is that it supports virtual physical interaction. That is why universities see it as a possible place for teaching and some businesses see possibilities for training. I’ve talked with some businesses that are interested in developing better robots in SL. I think they are interested in this because it would support controlled training exercises. I think there might also be some opportunities in SL for companies to offer activities like virtual social gatherings for customer groups. They could sponsor a band and a dance, for example, as a way to promote customer relations (this might be a bit farfetched). On the other hand, people at Philosophy House seem to like to sit around and talk. So, you never know how the desires of different groups may evolve.

QS: What about the technology? Do you think SL software supports the HW used in PCs (like graphics cards) efficiently or do you see room for development?

SV: One of the biggest problems I face with SL is that it runs best on only certain graphics cards. The Intel cards that come with many laptops these days are not supported. Although the laptops can sometimes run SL, SL frequently runs poorly (e.g., grind to a halt when there are many avatars or sculpted prims in the area). Consequently, it is difficult to hold a class or develop a training exercise when most of your students have laptops that do not run SL at least moderately well. Most students are only thinking about running word processing, presentation, and web browsing software when they buy their laptops…not SL.

QS: SL has several groups talking about metaverse, which I believe means the interoperability between different virtual worlds (besides SL I know of Open sim at least). There is even a discipline called metanomics! Do you think there exists any actual use of metaverse applications yet? What could be the benefits in the long run?

SV: I have not followed the discussion on metaverse applications, so my answer will be somewhat general. Normally, in IT interoperability is a good thing. One reason the web became so successful is that the user could jump from site to site regardless of the web server used and the information being displayed. If you needed a different browser for different web servers or different types of information, the web would be very difficult to use. Following that line of thought, it would be very convenient to easily jump from one virtual world to another. Ideally, you could do this with the same avatar and have some of the same features (inventory) of that avatar also work in the other world. In this case, different companies might create different specialized worlds. Some worlds could be geared toward gaming and others geared towards RL real estate, for example. Of course, SL may like it if it is all done through them, but different companies may evolve the technology in different directions.

QS: I understood you were slightly sceptical about my argument that anonymity would be one of the main benefits in SL communications (at least for people working in private companies). Could you tell what do you think would be the main benefit for NOT being anonymous in SL? If your avi just represents your RL self on-to-one, why would SL be preferential to an existing RL on-line communication system like Adobe connect Pro, or Skype even

SV: First, I think you do have a valid argument about anonymity. Even within a company, a discussion where participants are anonymous could generate more effective brainstorming. There are technologies that support that now, though, so you don’t necessarily need SL for that. My point on the anonymity feature of SL is that it seems to be counter to the way the world is moving. Teenagers, young adults, and even older adults seem to want the opposite of anonymity. That is, though cell phones, Twitter, and Facebook, people like to share information about their real life self. From a practical standpoint, as a teacher I would prefer to see my students’ real names in SL. As another example, if you were to hold an alumni event in SL, it would be much more fun to spot a RL friend by their RL name. I think SL does not offer an advantage over Skype of Adobe connect when the focus is primarily a business meeting. However, I don’t believe that you can hug a friend, dance, ski, or enjoy a virtual drink together while watching the same TV show on these other platforms.

QS: You mentioned to me about an idea connecting SL to RL social networking systems like Facebook, MySpace or Twitter. How would that work in practise? What would be the benefit?
SV: Seamless integration, on the technology side, may be somewhat difficult to implement. So, skimming over the technical problems, let’s just focus on the functionality. It is possible that the future Internet will be a highly connected social network. That is, it will be easy for an individual user or a group to move from one Internet application to another with ease. In a way, SL is at its infancy at doing this. Currently, you can jump from a website to a SL location through a SLurl and it is easy to jump from SL to a website. However, the transition is not very smooth. It takes awhile for SL or the browser to open. You can also play YouTube videos (thanks for showing me that, by the way), through a SL TV. Based on this idea, it would seem like a natural step for friends visiting in Facebook, for example, to quickly move to SL, Skype, or a virtual game. Imagine visiting a friend’s Facebook page, reading about their recent life, and maybe even chatting with them through IM. Then you click a button and travel to their SL apartment where you can also see family pictures and, if they are in world, you visit with them, give them a hug, and perhaps play a 3D game. You could crudely do this now through a SLurl, but good integration would make it even easier. Perhaps a mini SL window would open inside of Facebook or the Facebook page could be wallpaper on the SL apartment. Of course, SL would not be the only thing connected. If you wanted to see the RL person and just converse, the click of a different button would give the friend a Skype call.

QS. Interesting ideas! But based on your experiences and the feedback you have received by lecturing to business information management professionals, how do you think SL itself will evolve?

SV: It seems that technology predictions are frequently wrong. So, I’m not confident in my answer at all. One possibility is that SL will continue to cater to those really seeking a second life, where anonymity is important. SL may have enough of a user base to continue to be a viable fairly small player on the Internet, in the scheme of things. Another possibility is that Linden Labs could start to segment their market. One segment would cater to the social networking arena. In this arena, anonymity would not be a sales feature. A second segment would cater to business training. LL would develop features in SL that make it easy to develop teamwork exercises, etc. A third segment could focus on professional level 3D models. These are just ideas. The advantage of the segments is that LL could experiment a bit to see if any of the ideas take off.

QS: Strider, what do you personally expect to get out of SL professionally in the future?

SV: Gosh, I don’t have high expectations for myself. I originally entered SL because I thought my students would be more interested in animated simulated worlds then the boring text based simulations that are used in higher education. For example, you might be able to teach entrepreneurship in SL by constructing a SL business. As another example, you could potentially teach project management by building something in SL, developing a schedule and budget, and then hiring SL firms to do the job. I’m still hopeful to do that someday if I can find the time.

QS That was great, thank you Strider!

It’s been a great spring for me in SL. And with the top class contributor’s I have managed to persuade to participate in this blog, I can start to be actually really proud of it!

Q