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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at