On Feb 3, 4:16 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My entire point is that comp suggests that our visual qualia is not an
> > electronic light detector
> The visual cortex in your brain is not a light detector and the image
> compression program connected to the camera on your cellphone is not a
> light detector either, electronic or otherwise.
But you contradict that by saying that the patterns we see are based
on light detection.
> > 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.
> > There is no reason to represent anything else, and there is no noise
> > whatsoever in this image.
> Photoshop can paint a smooth image therefore computers can never be
> intelligent or conscious. Of course, I see the light at last, its all so
> obvious now that you point out that vital fact! Why oh why didn't I see it
No, I'm pointing out that the claim that all digital images must
contain noise is spurious.
> > This kind of ad hominem stuff means Zero to me. Why?
> I don't know, maybe because your used to people saying "this is stupid".
> > I know that you don't understand what I'm talking about.
> True, and the reason for that is you don't understand what you're talking
> about, thus there is little chance I would know what you mean when you
> obviously do not.
I don't really understand 100% of Bruno's ideas but I don't assume
that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. For you to admit
that you don't understand what I am talking about and then announce
that means I don't understand it either, makes you, what? Smart? I
have mentioned that there is a neuroscientist who does understand what
I am talking about and agrees that I may very well be on to something.
We have been in periodic contact and I look forward to developing the
particular ideas on perception with him further. You have already
demonstrated how blind you are to your own prejudice, praising
tolerance in the same breath and you reveal your own intolerance.
> > I on the other hand know exactly what you are talking about
> The fact that I do know what I'm talking about explains this asymmetry.
Since I know that you know what you are talking about, how do you
explain that I am right about you but wrong about myself?
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
For more options, visit this group at