On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > No, my definition of truth just doens't change to something
> > else when considering simulated contexts.
> That's because you aren't taking the simulation seriously.

Or because I am taking truth seriously.

> You are
> thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the
> observers within are subject to truths outside of the simulation

I don't know what you mean by "subject to". They may well not
be able to arrive at the actual facts beyond the simulation at all.
But that is an observation that *depends* on truth having a
transcendent and objective nature. If truth is just what seems
to you to be true, then they have the truth, as does every lunatic.

. In
> comp though, it's all simulation. The only truly universal truths are
> arithmetic ones.

That only arithmetic truth is truly true is not an arithmetic truth.
is is, as you put it, "unviersal".

> > > > Same problem.
> > > Same linguistic literalism.
> > You say that like its a bad thing.
> Not a bad thing, just an inappropriate thing for talking about fantasy
> simulations.

No. Fantasy can be expressed in literal language. In fact,
it is better to do so, since the reader does not have to
deal with the communicative double whammy of of
weird ideas expressed in a weird way.

> Pipe fittings maybe, or legal analysis, but you are not
> going to find the secrets of consciousness by pointing at a
> dictionary.

I recommend using publically accessble language
to enhance communication, not to discover new

> > > 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.
> > That is a fact, when expressed properly.
> How would you express it?

Not using the word "god"

> > > What traditional meaning does 'supernatural' have in Comp?
> > Why assume it has a non tradtional one.
> Because comp hasn't been around long enough to have traditions.

That doesn't answer the question. You are proceding as if the meaning
a word *always* changes in different contexts.

> > Because we can communicate if we stick to accepted meanings,
> > and communiction breaks down if you have a free hand to use
> > invented meanings.
> Just the opposite. Communication breaks down if you tie my hands to
> express new ideas in their native terms. Should discussions about
> early automotive horsepower been limited to literal horses?

That;s a poor example. Horsepower is literallty the power of one

> > > Your argument now seems to be a word definition argument.
> > You say that like its a bad thing.
> Not a bad thing, just not my thing. I don't do word definitions. I
> don't believe in them.

Have you never seen a dictionary?

> > Yes It is true that a game is being played, not just true-for-the-
> > layers.
> > Likewise, the simulation hypothesis requires simulation
> > to be actually true and not just true-for.
> That was not my question. I asked if I score a point in a game, is
> that the truth that I scored a point.

It;s true outside the game as well. Whatever you are trying
to say. it is a poor analogy. You might try asking if you are
really the top hat in Monopoly, or Throngar the Invincible in

> > You are aware they broadly support what I amsaying, eg
> > "God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and
> > overseer of the universe. "--WP
> Since we are talking about simulations within a universe, the creator
> of that simulation is the overseer of the simulated universe and
> therefore 'supernatural' relative to the simulated beings in that
> universe. This is the crucial point you are overlooking.
But not actually supernatural at all, if he is a geek with BO and
That is the point you are missing.

> > > I absolutely agree. I'm talking about how comp sees it.
> > Bruno;s comp.
> I think that all forms of comp consider the simulation independent
> from the specific hardware it runs on (

There's all the difference in the world
between "independent of specific hardware"
and "independent of any hardware"

> > > This is what
> > > comp is - functionalism.
> > Functionalism isn't usually immaterialitic.
> It doesn't assert that material isn't primitive like Bruno does, but
> it still defines consciousness as a function of any brain-like system.
> Which makes me curious...outside of Bruno, does comp consider a
> virtualized simulation running within software to be any different
> than one running directly on hardware? If so, then that supposes
> materialism as the basis for consciousness. If not, that supposes
> metaphyscial consciousness.

If you assume the need for physical hardware at the
bottom of the stack, then consc. is not non-physical.

> > > > It is the way god *is* defined,
> > > There is no such thing as *is* defined.
> > Yes there is. Look in a dictionary.
> Which dictionary *is* the final authority on the matter?

If you meant "there is no such thing as finally authoritative
you should have said so. If you meant there are too many
definitions, not zero definitions, you should have said so.

>A legal
> dictionary? A theological dictionary? Language doesn't come from
> dictionaries.

No. dictionaries reflect the shared meaning that communication
depends on. You offer idiosyncratic meaning sinstead of using the
ones, woth the consequence that ohther people don;t unnderstand you.

> Definitions range from irrelevant to convenient to
> important. They are subjective.

> > >Words are not molecules. Do
> > > you not know this? Language is dynamic, context driven, and
> > > intersubjective.
> > Up to a point. Beyond that point, communication breaks down.
> It's not that simple. We can communicate very successfully in all
> kinds of non-verbal ways.

How do we use non verbal communication on Usenet?

> There is a difference between not being able
> to communicate and prohibiting expressions which fall outside
> arbitrary conventions.

> > >All words are made up.
> > True, but irrelevant.
> Why irrelevant?

It has no bearing on the importance of (relatively) shared
and stable meanings for communication. Neologisms
can be shared and stable.

> > > Haha, why because you decided that your authority *is* the a priori
> > > analytical truth?
> > No.
> Then you are positing a Platonic a priori for 'true language' which is
> independent of any particular dictionary authority.

Not at all;

>I don't believe in
> that.

I don't believe I said it.

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