Whedon explicitly states that he doesn't really know anything about existentialism, but I know even less. What he does say arouses some curiosity in me. I have always believed rather strongly that reality is subjective. Is this belief in opposition or in alignment to existentialism? I suppose that the subjective reality that I profess refers more precisely to the mental model that we construct from our perceptions: the projection of some otherwise inaccessible objective reality. What is truly important here, the objective reality or our subjective perceptions?
This line of thought is of particular interest to me, since only in recent years have I become more attuned to the physical world. Through high school at least I inhabited a more purely abstract realm of intellect and fantasy. These days, I sometimes wonder at the fact that my department resides in the College of Natural Sciences. Instead of studying matter or molecules or cells, we computer scientists study algorithms—intangible artifacts! Do algorithms exist, in the same sense as tables, cups, floors, walls? Perhaps the answer is yes, but no instance of an algorithm quite exists in the same way as this table, this cup, this floor, this wall. What I study is not a family of objects to which we ascribe certain functions, but a family of functions that we ascribe to certain objects.
- Mood:
existential serenity - Music:R.E.M. -- Man on the Moon
Page Summary
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2)
coyotegrrrl : (no subject) [+0] - (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+0]
- foolmonkey : (no subject) [+1]
Comments
I take some issue with the idea that objective reality is inaccessible. As I understand it, such a thesis presumes that there is some ground truth of the cosmos which none of us will every fully grok (unfortunately), but it seems like there could be another equally likely alternative, that is, if you'll grant me that everything we perceive is indeed real. What if, with the proper care, it is entirely possible to fully understand the world, free of subjectivity? It's true we construct mental models which may be way off from the "true" model, but isn't it also possible that the "true" model is within the grasp of human understanding and as such is discoverable and understandable? The problem in this case is that there's no way to convince yourself or anyone else that you've found this model or achieved such an impartial, enlightened state. But you've still found it and achieved it, nonetheless.
As for algorithms, they've definitely been a point of fascination for me as well. It's interesting to wonder if they are in the same category as other intangibles of this world, intangibles as simple as emotion and color. I guess a rigorous deconstructionist could point to the underlying physical phenomenon in either case, but for the purposes of argument, let's just take the meaning of these words as they're popular understood. So I ask: does an emotion really exist, or is it merely some insubstantial "thing" created when someone experiences a certain set of circumstances? Likewise, do colors really exist, or are there merely labels useful in classifying objects in this world based on the coloration they happen to have? It's interesting that we don't teach algorithms in kindergarten right alongside such complicated abstractions as "happy", "sad", "red", and "blue".
Well, just something to chew on, I guess. My apologies for the heavy-handed grand-standing, but I just can't resist when someone uses the conditional existential quantifier in just the right way, which introduces a raft of possibilities *everywhere*. And as we all know, possibilities are great!
- Peter