On Feb 3, 8:34 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/2/3 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>

> > Do you say the same of Dennett's many examples of optical illusions?
> > Why does he use those if his view of the universe (comp), says that
> > 'what you see is what you see.'?
> Because comp is the theory saying that *you are turing emulable* If you
> current vision was not turing emulable, it's a fail from the starting
> point... If you can't see that you're more stupid than I thought. You could
> always posit that vision was not turing emulable... but without any proof,
> like John Clark says, it's gaz...

All that does is take awareness for granted and posit Turing emulation
as some kind of deified abstraction. We only know about Turing because
of our consciousness. We don't need proof of our own consciousness. We
are the proof. If you reject that, then you are gaz, therefore there
can be no proof that your opinions exist, or proof if anything for
that matter.

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