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? Craig http://s33light.org -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.