2012/2/24 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > 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 > isn't. > > > > > 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 > assumptions". > > > 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. >
Then explain *exactly why* you know it. I'm not interrested to know you know it. > > > 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. > > Craig > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
