On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You are natural.
> > How do you know? Comp says we can't know whether we are artificial
> > simulation or not.
> That doens't make you supernatural.

Why would I be? I'm not the administrator of a virtual universe.

> > >You can fire a horse through the air usign a giant
> > > catapuilt, but I don't have to agree it's Pegasus.
> > No but you have to agree that it is possible to believe that it is a
> > Pegasus
> The ability to beieve falsehoods has no interesting implications.

Why not? Fiction is arguably the basis for all culture. I'm not
talking about that though, I'm referring to comp's view of
epistemology. That's the whole question is whether the truths of our
universe are as true as any to us.

> >and that is all that is required.
> > > > > > But we are natural so they would be wrong.
> > > > > > They wouldn't and couldn't know they were wrong though.
> > > > > So? Is appearance reality?
> > > > That is what comp says.
> > > Bruno;s theory or the Computational Theory of Mind.
> > Both.
> Nonsense. CTM is a scientific theory.

What does that have to do with it's conception of in-simulation

> >What would be the meaning of any form of computationalism
> > without the notion of computational realism?
> What do you mean by computational realism?

That the reality within any simulation derives from computation rather
than material substance.

> > > >The simulation is reality as far as the
> > > > simulatees are concerned.
> > > And if they are wrong, it still isn't the
> > > real reality.
> > It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, the simulation is still
> > their reality.
> "their reality"=appearance=/= reality.

What is reality without an appearance? If the only world I know is not
my reality, then what is it?

> > Pac Man could believe that he is Bugs Bunny but the
> > possibility of that belief is generated by the simulation logic behind
> > Pac Man. For Pac Man, the Pac Man game is the real reality. That is
> > what comp is all about - proving that our experience of the universe
> > is indistinguishable from a simulation of that same experience.
> But it it is in reality simulated, it is in reality simulated,
> and "our reality" is delusional.

It's simulated from our perspective, but from inside the simulation
it's the only reality there is - according to comp. Of course I
disagree with comp.

> > > You seem to be arguing
> > > appearance=reality on the premise that
> > > opinion=truth.
> > Not at all. I think that you are injecting that because you need me to
> > be wrong. Comp implies that appearance is not the whole reality, but
> > the possibility of an appearance arises from the whole reality, which
> > is in fact a logical program.
> That is uncontentious. It is also not what you are
> saying elsewhere.

I'm giving you the comp version.  I don't subscribe to it personally,
so I have no reason to talk about it elsewhere.

> > > > Appearances may not reflect the truest level
> > > > of the simulation, but appearances all reflect some believable
> > > > representation of the simulation's function.
> > > Believable falsehoods are falsehoods and convincing illusions
> > > still aren't reality
> > It doesn't matter if they believe in the simulation or not, the belief
> > itself is only possible because of the particular reality generated by
> > the program. Comp precludes the possibility of contacting any truer
> > reality than the simulation.
> Can't a red pill be programmed in?

Not unless you are already a being outside the simulation who is
participating vicariously. Different than being a native entity born
within a simulation.

> > > If you know yourself to be natural, you cannot regard
> > > your creations as supernatural. The denizens of a sim
> > > might regard their programmer as God, but he knows better.
> > Our Gods may know better too. What I am saying is that Comp + MWI +
> > Anthropic principle guarantees an infinite number of universes in
> > which some entity can program machines to worship them *correctly* as
> > *their* Gods.
> ANd I am saying that is fallacious. CTM, MWI and AP are all
> sceintific princples with no room for the supernatural. SInce gods
> are supernatural by definition

This is just begging the question and arguing from authority. Your
claim is that the word 'scientific' wards off the supernatural and
that alone makes anything that anyone decides is supernatural
impossible. I'm telling you that because

1. comp makes godlike influence over a simulation possible
2. MWI makes such influence and simulations inevitable
3. AP makes the relative numbers of MWI universes with godlike
simulation influence irrelevant.
4. comp makes it impossible to tell whether such influence is physics
or extra-simulation intervention from inside the sim.

Therefore, whatever your reality, if you believe Comp and AP, then you
could be in a simulation subject to godlike intervention.

>, no belief in a god arising in such
> circumsntances is *correct*, be it every so persuasive.

Are you saying that a belief can only be true if it is correct in all
possible universes? Or that correctness within a sim supervenes on
truth external to the sim? If so then what is the point of Comp?

> > > > > "Did  say those mushrooms were nutiritios? Silly me, i mean
> > > > > poisonous".
> > > > Poisonous is a term with a more literal meaning. 'Natural' has no
> > > > place in MWI, comp, or the anthropic principle. I'm surprised that you
> > > > would use it. I thought most people here were on board with comp's
> > > > view that silicon machines could be no less natural as conscious
> > > > agents than living organisms.
> > > What we are arguing about is the supernatural.
> > No. What you are arguing about is the supernatural. What I am arguing
> > about are gods
> Gods are supernatural by definition.

Supernatural is just a word. You seem to be clinging to it though.
Call them Administrators then. Are they supernatural?

> > (entities with absolute superiority or omnipotence over
> > the subordinate entities who inhabit the simulations they create) and
> > their inevitability in MWI.
> That's superbeings, not gods.

Superbeings is a made up word, if you want to get technical about it.
You seem to be at once saying that supernatural concepts like gods are
made up, but then getting very picky about what they are and are not.
I see no important difference relative to this conversation between
Zeus, Wotan, God, and super being.

> > > You
> > > do not rescue the supernatural by rendering the natural
> > > meaningless.
> > Why not?
> Because, if the one is meaningless, so is the other.

That's my point. I never said supernatural, you did. I'm saying
godlike, omnipotent, superiority, Administrator, gods...whatever.
Someone who reigns over a world without the constraints imposed on
those living in that world. Hair splitting over word definitions is
what I find meaningless.

> > Besides, as I keep saying, I am not trying to rescue the
> > supernatural, I am pointing out that God is not supernatural at all,
> > it is an accurate description of the relationship between the
> > programmer and the programmed.
> Gods are superntarual by definition. You can  no more
> provide evidecne of a natural god than of a married bachelor.

Are programmers supernatural?

> > > > > I don't know. Who?
> > > > You.
> > > No, you have misunderstood.
> > If you could prove that statement, you would have tried.
> I know what I mean.

Good for you.

> > > > No. To me = my reality.
> > >  The causes and conditions upon which my
> > > > existence supervenes. If my programmer can make a Bengal tiger appear
> > > > or disappear in my living room, then he is God in reality.
> > > No he isn;t, because reality is where the sim is running and there
> > > he is just a programmer.
> > Why do you think the programmer's reality is any more real?
> Why do you think comp is true?

I don't! That's my whole argument here is to respond to the claim that
Comp doesn't need gods by showing how in fact the possibility of gods
are inevitable in Comp. That's all I'm saying. I think comp is almost
true, but in an absolute sense, is exactly false.

> >Maybe he
> > is a program running in another sim. Comp is the very idea that it
> > would be impossible to tell the difference. The bottom line is that in
> > the sim reality, anyone who programs the sim is God.
> > > >This is
> > > > what comp says.
> > > What do you mean by "comp".
> > Computationalism. Digital functionalism. CTM. UDA. All of it.
> All are > predicated on the idea that experience is generated by
> arithmetic
> False, false, false , false false!!!! Standard CTM has nothing
> to do with Dreaming Machines in Platonia, or any other fanciful
> notion Bruno has come up with.

Then what does CTM make of consciousness?

> >, and
> > therefore no arithmetically generated experience can be seen through
> > with certainty by the machines/programs within the simulation.
> > > > That's why I say in MWI + Comp + Anthropic principle, there would
> > > > inevitably be an infinite number of universes in which simulations
> > > > exist with citizens to whom God is real and natural.
> > > "to whom God is real" is just an opinion. If the sim was created
> > > by a human prog. with BO and dandruff, their opinion is wrong.
> > You are conflating the levels (as Bruno always tells me). The
> > simulation has no access to extra-simulatory information, it is a
> > complete sub-universe. It's logic is the whole truth which the
> > inhabitants can only believe in or disbelieve to the extent which the
> > simulation allows them that capacity. If the programmer wants all of
> > his avatars to believe with all their hearts that there is a cosmic
> > muffin controlling their universe, she has only to set the cosmic
> > muffin belief subroutine = true for all her subjects.
> Read again. I didn't say no sim could have such-and-such
> an opinion, I said it would not be true.

Your standard of truth appears to exclude any simulated content.

> > > If MWI is a complete theory of the universe, their opinions
> > > is wrong too.
> > Opinions can be right or wrong but the reality is that a programmer
> > has omnipotent power over the conditions within the program. She may
> > be a programmer, but she can make her simulation subjects think or
> > experience whatever she wants them to. She may think of herself as
> > their goddess, but she can appear to them as anything or nothing. Her
> > power over them remains true and factually real.
> Same problem.

Same linguistic literalism.

> > > >There would also
> > > > be infinite MWI UM sub-universes where God is supernatural, sub-
> > > > universes where Gods are aliens, pirates, beercans, Pokemon, etc.
> > > There can;t be any supernatural entities in a physics-based
> > > multiverse.
> > I'm not talking about the physics-based multiverse level, I'm talking
> > about the computational (read what I wrote again please) "UM sub-
> > universes". MWI alone does not make gods inevitable but MWI+ Comp
> > does.
> False. It may make natural superbeings possible

Calling them natural superbeings is fine with me.

>, it may
> make false but plausible beliefs in gods likely, but
> it cannot make supernatural gods inevitable because
> all the ingredients in it are natural or artificial.

That has almost nothing to do with my argument. You are off in
dictionary land. The fact remains that comp, rather than disallowing
gods, makes it impossible to know if a Matrix Lord/Administrator has
control over aspects of your life.

> > Add the anthropic principle levels any objections about
> > probability. This seems iron clad and straightforward to me.
> It seems like  wet tissue paper to me.

So I gather. But you also think I'm arguing comp is true.

> > > No, that is not at all an equivlaent claim. There may
> > > be no extension of "magnetic monopole", but it is a meaningful
> > > concept.
> > Supernatural can be meaningful if you want it to be, but in comp all
> > it means is meta-programmatic or meta-simulation.
> Says who? I don't have to accept that the meaning of "supernatural"
> has
> to exchange to ensure that there are N>0 supernatural entities. I can
> stick to the traditional meaning, and regard it as unpopulated and
> extensionless.

What traditional meaning does 'supernatural' have in Comp? Why do I
have to accept your linguistic preferences but you deny me the same

> > It has no mystical
> > charge. It is not what is impossible by the logic of the MWI universe,
> > only what is impossible by the programmed logic of the UM-Sub
> > Universes. Your argument is based on confusing the levels. If I force
> > you to stay within the logic of comp, you have no argument.
> Apart from ...my argument. As given.

Your argument now seems to be a word definition argument.

> > To get out
> > of the logic of comp, you need something like 'sense', which is my
> > claim all along. Usually I am the one arguing reality, but now that it
> > is turned around, you can see how the constraint of comp is
> > tautological, or you could if you could get passed the idea that I
> > have to be wrong.
> > > > That why I said it
> > > > from the start. Computational simulations can define anything as being
> > > > natural or supernatural.
> > > And they may or may not be right. Opionion does not
> > > trump truth.
> > The opinion of the programmer *is* truth to the programmed.
> It still isn't truth. As soon as you add a "to" or "for" clause,
> you are actually talking about opinion, even if you are using the
> *word* truth.

If I score a point in a game is that the truth that I scored a point?
Is anything in a game 'true' in your definition?

> > That's
> > what makes them God.
> Being supernatural makes an entity god. And not just
> supernatural "to" or "for" someone.

You are aware that there are many definitions for the word god. It
seems like you have one particular one in mind which reads - whatever
is the opposite of what Craig says it is.

> > > > The 'nature' of the simulation is fabricated
> > > > arithmetically.
> > > Is it? Show me. Every sim I have ever seen was
> > > running on silicon.
> > Huh? You could run it on vacuum tubes if you want. Or a stadium full
> > of people holding up colored cards.
> The matter doesn't matter. What matters is that there is always
> some matter. I have never seen a simulation run on arithmetic.

I absolutely agree. I'm talking about how comp sees it. This is what
comp is - functionalism. A universe run on formula rather than stuff.
I disagree with comp. I see stuff and formula as one half of a
dialectic with self and experience.

> >A cartoon is a simulation. A
> > puppet show is a simulation.
> > > > See? I say MWI could have all kinds of Gods (in their simulated sub-
> > > > universes), and you object on the grounds that it would mean something
> > > > 'supernatural'. Not supernatural, artificial.
> > > It would mean somethig supernatural because that is the
> > > way "god" is defined.
> > That is the way you define "god". That is both an argument from
> > authority and a straw man.
> It is the way god *is* defined,

There is no such thing as *is* defined. Words are not molecules. Do
you not know this? Language is dynamic, context driven, and
intersubjective. All words are made up. No two people mean exactly the
same thing when they use a word.

> which makes the argument valid
> analytical apriori, not from authority.

Haha, why because you decided that your authority *is* the a priori
analytical truth?

> > Please note:
> >    > > > > > > QM based MWI woildn't suggest that the supernatural
> > occurs in any
> >    > > > > > > universe. Are you familiar with Tegmark's
> > classification?
> >    > > > > > Why would Gods be supernatural?
> >    > > > > Why would bachelors be married?
> > This is your argument, not mine. My whole point is that God becomes
> > natural, and inevitable under MWI + Comp.
> My point is that that argument requires the meaning of "god" to
> change, and, since language us public, you don't get to change it
> unilaterally.

It changes a little every time you use it. That's how words work.

> > That God has to be
> > supernatural is your opinion. The reality is that God need only be
> > meta-programmatic from the perspective inside a simulation. I don't
> > know that I can make it much clearer.
> I don't know how to get accross to you that it is about WHAT THE

I don't argue about what words mean. I can't imagine what would be the
point, unless you are on a game show or something.

> > > You might have artificial something-or-others,
> > > but we should invent a new word for them.
> > We can invent as many words for it as we want, but none will be any
> > more or less appropriate than God.
> Says who?

Who doesn't say?

> >Call it Administrator if you want.
> I do. Then the argument is over, since you are no longer
> claiming gods are inevtiable, but only Administrators.

It's hard to believe all that was to figure out that we were talking
past each other, but ok. I guess I should be glad for the novelty of
any argument actually ending on here.

> > The functionality is the same.
> > > > I agree, but comp would say that you are confusing levels. Comp says
> > > > that reality is within the computations.
> > > What version of comp? The actual sceintific CToM, or Bruno's
> > > metaphysical weirdness?
> > I don't think it matters.
> I think it matters greatly.

You would make a good attorney. Not a slam, I can see that you prefer
a more detail oriented approach to theoretical matters.


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