On 02 Aug 2011, at 17:57, Craig Weinberg wrote:

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?

Because the genuine understanding is a personal affair. Authoritative assertions makes sense in army and in many local life struggling situations. Science tries its best to avoid them. Good religion also, imo.

I'm not saying they are
valid, but when we examine the phenomenon of authority itself -

But then we change the subject. We can study authority and 1p in the usual 3p-theories.

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

So we can agree on some principle, like consciousness is known to be truth, yet not definable, nor provable, and might be the only thing of that kind, etc. Then we continue to reason, in the 3p way, on such a 1p notion.

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.

That is a mix of jargon + a (good) pun.

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

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.

We are not really interested in what make sense to you if you cannot convey that sense.
We try to agree on things and reason from them.

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.

First there is no proof that there is an *ontologically* primitive physical universe. Second I referred you to a paper which argues that the notion of primary universe does not make sense in comp, although approximation of this might make sense, but that remains to be shown.

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.

There is a reason. The search for simplicity in the basic principles, the avoidance of special infinities (that you have to learn computer science and diagonalization to be able to build them), the avoidance of assuming what needs to be explained, etc.

It's not the numbers that believe in relative body and fire, it's just
us believing that numbers can believe something.

Numbers are more easy than "us". We try to explain "us" by numbers and/ or machines. If you have electromagnetic waves or any waves in your theory, you are assuming numbers (implicitly).

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?

It is not logically silly. You can decide to cross the ocean on a sieve. But you are taking the risk of not going very far.

If comp appears to be inconsistent, or if the comp-physics appears to be disproved by nature, we will have a hint on those special infinities, that you need, in a relevant way. If you start from non- comp, you put what seems ad hoc difficulties on the problem. But you can try, of course. But we will demolish your invalid argument against comp, as long as you continue to use them (as long as we are patient and not to busy!)


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