On 2/14/2012 2:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 18:53, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 13, 5:17 pm, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
is not a local symmetry.
hence flight simulators do not fly.
That's very funny, Peter.
That reminds us of a quite good typical comp exercise: can a virtual
typhoon makes you wet? Related here to "Can you flight with a computer?".
Let me ask a question to Stephen. I think I know the answer of all
participants on this, I think, except for Stephen, where I am less sure.
The question is: do you agree with the, now common and rather obvious
comp answer to that exercise.
The comp answer is "yes you can be made wet by a virtual typhoon, but
you have to virtualize yourself, or more precisely you need only to
virtualize your skin-interfaces with the virtual typhoon.
Stephen, do you agree with this?
Yes, I agree. Virtual typhoons cause virtual skin to get wet.
Do you agree that with comp, we can in principle, make you feel like
being under a tempest, by virtue of running a computer in room. Craig
would clearly answer that this is not possible, given that for him,
comp is not possible in the first place. But you acknowledge that you
believe in comp, or that you can assume it, or at least that you do
not assume that comp is false. But my question does not bear on the
truth or falsity of comp, but on the experience of feeling wet by
Stephen King in case his brain has been digitalized and interfaces in
a virtual environment of the kind tempest. Do you agree that if comp
is correct then Stephen King has experienced the quite
physical-material experience of being quite wet due to violent raining
winds in a tempest. OK?
Surely, but I do not speak for Craig and neither do you, for you do
not understand the idea that he is trying to communicate to you.
If you agree with this we can proceed step by step, and perhaps, jump
quickly to step 8, the MGA-Maudlin stuff, which is at the heart of the
difficulty of linking consciousness to the physical objects, unless,
like Craig, you abandon comp and you make both consciousness and the
physical infinitely complex. That prevents indeed the unavoidable
metaphysical dissociation brought by betting on a substitution level.
I reject UDA 8 as fatally flawed. It claims the non-causal
efficaciousness of the very process that allows it to be communicated.
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
For more options, visit this group at