On Mar 8, 4:45 pm, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > On 3/8/2011 6:21 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > >> Up to a point. But if the faking deviated very far from perceptions of > >> > this world the BIV would no longer be able to process them. We casually > >> > talk of "white rabbits" on this list, which are perfectly understandable > >> > things and are really of this world (e.g. in Walt Disney pictures). But > >> > they are just tiny derivative, deviations from reality. Even things as > >> > real as optical illusions become difficult to process (which is why they > >> > produce illusions). If your BIV was a human brain and was provided the > >> > perceptions of, say, a bird it would probably be unable to process them > >> > - it would be as cut off as if you provided white noise. My point is > >> > that human brains evolve and learn in this world and it's the only kind > >> > of world they can be conscious of. You can fiddle a little with inputs > >> > to the BIV, but unless your inputs are just variants on this world, > >> > they'll mean nothing. > > >> > Brent > > > I think you can have gorss deviations from physics that are perfectly > > easy to process > > perceptually. In fact that is quite common in movie FX, games etc. > > There is no > > problem seeing a hovering rock. > > We're using very different ideas of "gross deviations". I'd say a > hovering rock is just a variation of this world: a variation that allows > us to identify the rock and hovering.
It's a good enough WR, especially if you see stuff that can't be stitched into a single coherent alternative physics -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
