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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to