2012/2/3 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > On Feb 1, 11:06 am, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > acw <a...@lavabit.com> wrote: > > >> A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the > > >> eye, actually probably less than the eye. > > > > > > Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap > on? I > > > just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens with > my > > > hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever. If I unplug the monitor > from > > > my computer but leave it powered on - no snow. > > > > My entire point is that comp suggests that our visual qualia is not an > electronic light detector but a pure abstraction tailored to suit the > semantics of the human intelligence program. Daniel Dennett has his > optical illusions which show how what we see is not what is real that > support his conclusion that qualia is purely representational for the > brain to tell it's stories, this is a contrary example of an optical > non-illusion that shows how what we see can be real even if there is > no reason for it to be available as qualia for our awareness. > > > Turn up the gain and guess what, snow! The idea that electronic light > > detectors (or any electronic circuit for that matter, or any biological > > circuit, or any anything) can produce not low noise but no noise > whatsoever > > is of course ridiculous, > > Go into Photoshop or Paint. File > New > OK. This image (or it's > inverse) is what comp predicts for visual qualia of conditions where > we cannot see.
No that's not what comp predict. Comp predict that what you see is what you see. Comp is the computation theory of mind. If you start assuming stupid thing you can only conclude stupid thing, but your conclusion has nothing to do with comp. > There is no reason to represent anything else, and > there is no noise whatsoever in this image. > > > but unlike so many other of your ridiculous > > statements this one is informative. No it tells us nothing about the > nature > > of intelligence or consciousness and it certainly contains nothing > > informative about electronics, but it does tell us a lot about the depth > of > > your scientific knowledge. Zero. > > This kind of ad hominem stuff means Zero to me. Why? Because I know > that you don't understand what I'm talking about. Other people do > though, so I can tell the difference. I on the other hand know exactly > what you are talking about and why your understanding fails to take > the whole reality into account. The more that bothers you, the more I > know that part of you knows I might be right. > > Craig > > -- > 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. > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. 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.