We turn on the television and pictures appear and we are lost in the pictures - the magic that is beyond our understanding or interest on what is making them appear is suitably left as magic. *That's* the fallacy that's going to bring us down, IMO.
Yes, and I think Squeakland helps fight that "take it all for granted" mentality. Because you're in a cartoon-like space, and it it's *up to you* to make stuff happen (your the TV *producer* not just the potato).
And the funny thing is I don't really disagree with him. Except that I would express it a little differently - believing that the most profound thing that computers will do for us is teach us what computers cannot do for us. And I do think that is a profound lesson.
Yes. Wittgenstein took the same approach to logic: yes it's true, but so is 0 = 0.
Just a little impatient with the process, is all.
Art
We get, and will get, both these types of children: Type: Excellent in a virtual jungle game, with avatar Tarzan or companion Jane, or maybe as some Tombraider chick. Admired for skills, a celebrity in the urban bazaar, where the technology is taken for granted, virtual reality accepted ("the reality of court life"). Type: A real Tarzan or Jane, a virtuoso of real jungles -- has no use for computers in big sky country, outside the DVD teepee. Maybe sleeps in a hammock, suffers no star-stealing "light pollution" (the nearest big city is far away). Kirby