On Aug 1, 3:02 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > Oriental standard of epistemology again. Wisdom, not knowledge.
> That is an authoritative argument. Like universal argument, they are  
> also non valid.

By what authority are they always non valid? I'm not saying they are
valid, but when we examine the phenomenon of authority itself - the
initiation of teleological orientation, aka subjectivity, we may not
necessarily be able to automatically disqualify these kinds of
arguments. In the subjective realm, the cogito presents a legitimate
argument as a starting point for understanding the phenomenon. 'Je
pense donc je suis' reveals a phenomenology of INsistence in
contradistinction to it's existential set correlate which relies upon
the ability to doubt all authoritative insistence. That's why it's the
hard problem of consciousness, because you have to learn it the hard
way, through first hand, 1p experience.

> > It
> > doesn't make sense that you can make fire out of numbers.
> That is a statement without a justification, which sums up your "non-
> comp" assumption. It does not motivate for believing that you are  
> correct.

Ok, true it is not a justified to say that it doesn't make sense, but
I'm justified in saying that it doesn't make sense to me.

> Also, it is misleading, because trivially you cannot make fire out of  
> numbers, but, assuming comp, arithmetical relations can make numbers  
> believes in relative body and fire, and even getting burned with all  
> the feelings you might imagine.

I understand perfectly that the effects of fire and body can be
emulated within a virtual context, but to say that there is no
relevant distinction between that context and the universe in which we
participate naturally is just as unjustified as my assertion that it
makes no sense. If the simulation cannot cause things to burn outside
of it's virtual context, then there is no reason to assume that it can
cause consciousness which can be related outside of it's context also.

It's not the numbers that believe in relative body and fire, it's just
us believing that numbers can believe something. We can believe in a
CGI generated cartoon world to an extent, but I have no reason to
imagine that the cartoon world exists to itself. That's silly, right?


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