On Feb 23, 9:41 pm, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let us suppose you're right and... but hold on! We can't do that. That
> would be "circular". That would be sneaking in the assumption that
> you're right from the outset. That would be "shifty', "fishy", etc
> etc. You just don't seem to grasp the rudiments of philosophical
> reasoning.

I understand that it seems that way to you.

> 'Yes doctor' is not an underhand move.

Not intentionally.

> It asks you up-front
> to assume that comp is true in order then to examine the implications
> of that, whilst acknowledging (by calling it a 'bet') that this is
> just a hypothesis, an unprovable leap of faith.

I think that asking for an unprovable leap of faith in this context is
philosophically problematic since the purpose of computation is to
make unprovable leaps of faith unnecessary.

> You complain that
> using the term 'bet' assumes non-comp (I suppose because computers
> can't bet, or care about their bets), but that is just daft.

Saying 'that is just daft' to something which is clearly the honest
truth in my estimation doesn't persuade me in the slightest.

>You might
> as well argue that the UDA is invalid because it is couched in natural
> language, which no computer can (or according to you, could ever)
> understand. If we accepted such arguments, we'd be incapable of
> debating comp at all.

That would be ok with me. I don't see anything to debate with comp,
because I understand why it seems like it could be true but actually

> Saying 'no' to the doctor is anyone's right - nobody forces you to
> accept that first step or tries to pull the wool over your eyes if you
> choose to say 'yes'. Having said no you can then either say "I don't
> believe in comp because (I just don't like it, it doesn't feel right,
> it's against my religion etc)" or you can present a rational argument
> against it.

Or you can be rationally skeptical about it and say "It has not been
proved" or "I see through the logic and understand the error in its

> That is to say, if asked to justify why you say no, you
> can either provide no reason and say simply that you choose to bet
> against it - which is OK but uninteresting - or you can present some
> reasoning which attempts to refute comp. You've made many such
> attempts, though to be honest all I've ever really been able to glean
> from your arguments is a sort of impressionistic revulsion at the idea
> of humans being computers,

That is your impressionistic revulsion at the idea of stepping outside
the entrenched positions of the argument. I have no revulsion
whatsoever at the idea of humans being computers. As I have mentioned
several times, I have believed in comp for most of my life, for the
same reasons that you do. I am fine with being uploaded and digitized,
but I know now why that won't work. I know exactly why.

> yet one which seems founded in a
> fundamental misunderstanding about what a computer is.

I have been using and programming computers almost every day for the
last 30 years. I know exactly what a computer is.

>You repeatedly
> mistake the mathematical construct for the concrete, known object you
> use to type up your posts. This has been pointed out many times, but
> you still make arguments like that thing about one's closed eyes being
> unlike a switched-off screen, which verged on ludicrous.

I have no confusion whatsoever discriminating between the logic of
software, programming, and simulation and the technology of hardware,
engineering, and fabrication. I use metaphors which draw on familiar
examples to try to communicate unfamiliar ideas.

The example of closed eye noise is an odd one, but no more so than
Daniel Dennett's slides about optical illusion. With it I show that
there are counterexamples, where our sensation reflects factual truth
in spite of there being no advantageous purpose for it.

> I should say I'm no comp proponent, as my previous posts should
> attest. I'm agnostic on the subject, but at least I understand it.
> Your posts can make exasperating reading.

May I suggest that you stop reading them.


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