On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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. > > Which is why they can't call them actual facts. To them, the > simulation is the only facts. They do not exist outside of the > simulation. But they are wrong about all that, or there is no sense to the claim that they are sims ITFP > > 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. > > You could make a simulation where the simulation changes to fit the > delusions of a lunatic. You could even make them all lunatics and make > their consciousness completely solipsistic. So? > > I recommend using publically accessble language > > to enhance communication, not to discover new > > facts. > > I would rather enhance the content of the communication than the form. If the form renders the content inaccessible, what's the point? > > > Because comp hasn't been around long enough to have traditions. > > > That doesn't answer the question. You are proceding as if the meaning > > of > > a word *always* changes in different contexts. > > It does Says who? > > > 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? > > I believe in dictionaries, but not definitions. I believe in movie > critics but I don't believe that their opinions about movies are > objectively true. I might agree with them, but that doesn't mean that > it is possible for an opinion to be authoritatively definitive. Again, that is disbelief in a certain kind of definition. > > 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 > > D&D > > Those make the same point as well. Is it true that you are the top hat > in Monopoly? If not then Monopoly is not a very strong simulation - > which it isn't. A full immersion virtual D&D campaign? That would be a > stronger simulation and you could not so easily say that you aren't > Throngar. Especially if you played him for a living...and changed your > name legally...and got plastic surgery. At what point do you become > Throngar? If there is any meaning to the word "simulation", then it is never actual. The problem we keep running into is that you assume something... simulations exist...and then refuse to follow throught the consequences. > Are you 1Z? Figurative is the word to focus on. Subjectivity > is figurative. Meaning, perception, sensation...all figurative. > Literal is the antithesis that is objectivity. > > But not actually supernatural at all, if he is a geek with BO and > > dandruff. > > That is the point you are missing. > > But the simulated beings can never access that information about their > creator, so how can it be true for them? It can be true because it is true. You have already assumed soemthing like that when you made the initial assumption that the simulation is a simulation. It may not be *knowable* to them, but that doesn't change the *meaning* of truth. > > There's all the difference in the world > > between "independent of specific hardware" > > and "independent of any hardware" > > Yes. Neither of them indicate materialism within simulation though. > So what? > If you assume the need for physical hardware at the > > bottom of the stack, then consc. is not non-physical. > > It is relative to the inside of the simulation. Pac-Man's universe is > non-physical (though it has physical themes). So what? That's still all illusion and delusion. if the sim is running on silicon, what does it matter that it seems not to be from the inside? > > If you meant "there is no such thing as finally authoritative > > definition, > > you should have said so. If you meant there are too many > > definitions, not zero definitions, you should have said so. > > What I said is that I don't believe in definitions at all. But when asked to defend that claim, you switch to a different claim--that you don't believe in final, authoritative definitions. > > >A legal > > > dictionary? A theological dictionary? Language doesn't come from > > > dictionaries. > > > No. dictionaries reflect the shared meaning that communication > > depends on. > > They reflect the meaning, they don't provide the meaning. So? > > You offer idiosyncratic meaning sinstead of using the > > accepted > > ones, woth the consequence that ohther people don;t unnderstand you. > > You seem to understand me. Are you not people? I actually don't understand a lot of what you say at all. > > > 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? > > You said 'communication breaks down', not 'communication on Usenet > breaks down'. Do you believe you have communicated your philosophy successfully in this group? > > It has no bearing on the importance of (relatively) shared > > and stable meanings for communication. Neologisms > > can be shared and stable. > > How do they become shared and stable? People can offer definitions of neologisms, and other people can refer to those definitions to make sure they are all on the same page. > > >I don't believe in > > > that. > > > I don't believe I said it. > > What do you think defines a word? > Use and definitions. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.