On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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

They are right about that. If I am a sim running on a computer
somewhere, it doesn't matter to me at all where that is because I can
never get our of this sim here to get to the world of the computer out
there. I am not a sim to myself of course, but if someone can pause
the program, put horns on my head and start it again, it is because to
them, I am a simulation.

> > > 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?

To in that simulated universe, lunacy would be truth.

> > > 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?

Why do you think it doesn't? Do you mean the same thing today when you
talk about having 'fun' as you did when you were in third grade? Did
that meaning change specifically at some point? Are meanings hovering
around somewhere unchanging until some dictionary is updated?

> > > > 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.

That's your opinion of the definition 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.

That's simplistic. The whole point of a simulation is that is is as if
it were actual in some sense. A flight simulator provides an actual
experience that can seem like flying an actual plane. If you are on a
plane where the pilot dies, do you ask the guy who has logged 10000
hours on flight simulators to fly the plane or do you say they have no
actual experience?

> The problem we keep running into is that you assume something...
> simulations exist...and then refuse to follow throught the
> consequences.

No, you just aren't getting the overall concept of relativism. Comp
claims that computation is all that is required for consciousness.
This is what opens up a nonsense thesis about simulations having
relative reality. I understand that is not the way it works.
Consciousness is not emulable, only extendible. There is no simulation
of red. Red is only red. Who we are is like that. Us-ness.

> > 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.

Without some way to sense it or it's truth, that means nothing to us.

> 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.

The meaning of truth anticipate MWI. The two concepts may be mutually

> > > 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?

>From the perspective of what is running on the inside, it is the
silicon that is an illusion and delusion. Or it would be if they had
any way to contact that reality.

> > > 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.

How is that a different claim?

> > > >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?

So they are an optional convenience.

> > > 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.

You understood that.

> > > > 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?

I have communicated it as successfully as most people could. Tesla
would be getting the same response. The problem is that you assume I'm
trying to communicate this in a way that everyone can understand. If
that were the case, I would not say that Bruno has succeeded much
better than I have, at least not with me. I however understand that
not everyone thinks and communicates in the same way, and that isn't a
problem with them.

> > > 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.

It will never get that far here because there is only going to be
nitpicking about my style of writing rather than my ideas. Can it be
any simpler than this?


> > > >I don't believe in
> > > > that.
> > > I don't believe I said it.
> > What do you think defines a word?
> Use and definitions.

Whose definitions? Any special dictionary from any particular time?


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